Comments Posted By bobwire
Displaying 101 To 103 Of 103 Comments
IS KEITH OLBERMANN REALLY A JOURNALIST?
If you believe that Bush “fabricated in the minds of your own people a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11†then there is no hope for you.
Thank you Rick, here's your bro' from the New Republic:
If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection.
Link 6/29/05 http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
What if someone reads that and concludes conflation?
Comment Posted By bobwire On 24.09.2007 @ 00:16
Rick, you wrote quoting Olbermann:
If you believe that Bush “fabricated in the minds of your own people a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11†then there is no hope for you.There is no hope for those that view other sources of information. I offer up other sources than Rick's prose. The word of the day is 'conflation'. Look it up. Or I will give you an example.
"The FDA recommends that you eat from ALL food groups to achieve a sound mind in a sound body. But let us not forget that Hitler was a vegetarian."
"The link between fascism and vegeratianism has yet to be disproven."
media inflation later...conflation proves that facism=vegetarianism.
This is what the Bush administration has succeeded in doingwith 9/11 and Saddam/Iraq, that is to conflate two different ideas/events together. Rick you are correct to state that Bush never made this connection directly, but then you would be a legalistic weasel. Is Keith incorrect for his choice of words, ie 'fabricated?'.
Perhaps we can consult other sources...
Here we can see example of conflation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stmThe administration has clearly succeeded with conflating 9/11 with Saddam
Has this been successful? We must calibrate for best results at two points, before and after.
Before, from this link:http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htmlPolling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein.
And after...
But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
So Rick, how did people become so confused? Was it the Main Stream Media acting as mouthpieces for the administration? Was conflation a "success"?
Absolutely. Get legalistic on Olbermann and you become a weasel.Why are you then so upset? The Democrats have been your enablers all along. Your inchoate, desperate plea becomes "Stop me before I kill again." But I'm wrong on that bit, and in your eyes my whole post becomes suspect.
"Don't stop me, I know when to kill. Trust me on this."
Comment Posted By bobwire On 24.09.2007 @ 00:07
Carte Blanche, thanks to your enablers.
ATTACK ON PETREAUS A SURE SIGN OF DESPERATION
Sorry, but Rick your post is so much drivel. You acknowledge Malik to be a failure then support backing the Sunni, a surefire prescription for endless civil war and a continuing stream of American deaths. If you cannot write in realpolitik, then who is your audience? Let me lay it on the line; Iraq must be partitioned. It worked in Yugoslavia. thanks to W, Iran now has a great influence in Iraq, and there is no getting away from this. We must now limit the damage. Free Kurdistan, Free Sunniland, free ShiiteHomeAlabama. They will set up thier own militias, how easy could that be? Let them off each other instead of US. We will have negotiated a separate peace with each, under terms we can still profit from. Al Queda becomes more isolated after the partition, they stand out like a sore thumb and will be eliminated.
Comment Posted By bobwire On 12.09.2007 @ 00:56
