« Gratitude | Main | Home for the Holidays... »
Art & Propaganda
"Each word," wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, "has an echo. So does each silence."
Likewise, an image can be mirrored, magnified.
I spent Thanksgiving cooking and eating, but also surfing the internet for political art links. The best were exchanged with Bert in Minneapolis, as we share a blog (http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal), exchange photo links, produce mp3s, collect political posters and art from all eras and even protested Bush's social security cuts. We have enjoyed very much the DCP stories about Banksy's political art, Internet Bloggers, etc. and have also watched certain "flash" productions go viral, such as the JibJab presidential. This phenomenon is especially important to watch in the face of media blackouts, suppressed stories and slanting by news sources. We have watched people "Be the Media."
Kari Lyderson of Infoshop (for more information visit: http://www.prwatch.org/node/4193) wrote, "The internet has added a whole new dimension and level of artistic sophistication to anti-war and anti-imperialist art and propaganda during the Iraq war and surrounding events. On websites such as http://www.PeacePosters.org, http:/www.MiniatureGigantic.com, http://www.AnotherPosterForPeace.com and http://www.OverMyDeadBody.org, "graphic designers and grassroots propagandists from far-flung corners of the globe (though most heavily concentrated in Europe and the US) have posted their work on web sites and circulated it by email in the hopes that others will reproduce and display it freely."
One example: a programmer friend told us about the "Yatta" phenomenon (think Japanese men dancing in fig leaves), which someone took a step further by adapting "flash" animation to the pop song. In this creative manner, they tackled the issue of mindless consumerism and branding, incorporating images of everything from fruit to Alan Greenspan. Both the original video and the more political adaptation went "viral" on the internet and were widely disseminated. http://www.mit.edu/people/patil/yatta.html, http://www.ebaumsworld.com/yatta.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(Animutation)l Bravo! Well-done! Yatta!
My personal favorite for over three years, which educates re. military deferments of the neocons (http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm) has suddenly become more relevant as the war wears on and Cheney and other neocons still call too many of the shots.
On a more serious note, amateur photographers & documenters continue to change the course of history. When the Washington Post did a front page story about the rol eof digital camera in the Abu Graib Prison abuse debacle, As Todd Lappin at BoingBoing said: "If Vietnam was the first televised war, Iraq will probably be remembered as the war in which personal media technology altered the course of history."
*Washington Post:
For many units serving in Iraq, digital cameras are pervasive and yet another example of how technology has transformed the way troops communicate with relatives back home. From Basra to Baghdad, they e-mail pictures home. Some soldiers, including those in the 372nd, even packed video cameras along with their rifles and Kevlar helmets. Bill Lawson, whose nephew, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick, is one of the soldiers charged in the incident, said that Frederick sent home pictures from Iraq on a few occasions. They were "just ordinary photos, like a tourist would take" and nothing showing prisoner abuse, he said.
"I would say that's something that's very common that's going on in Iraq because it's so convenient and easy to do," Lawson said of troops sending pictures home. He added that his nephew also mailed videocassettes "of him talking into a camcorder to [his wife] when he was going on his rounds."
But in the case of prisoner abuse, the ubiquity of digital cameras has created a far more combustible international scandal that would have been sparked only by the release of Taguba's searing written report. Since the "60 Minutes II" broadcast, pictures of abuse have been posted on the Internet and shown on television stations worldwide.
___
And is there an audience? Apparently so!
As John Pilger writes, The Indian writer Vandana Shiva has called for an "insurrection of subjugated knowledge." John Pilger writes that the insurrection is well under way. In trying to make sense of a dangerous world, millions of people are turning away from the traditional sources of news and information and toward the world wide web, convinced that mainstream journalism is the voice of rampant power.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112505I.shtml
Tell Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and Its Triumphs, edited by John Pilger, is published by Vintage. This article originally appeared in the Daily Standard.
Good research, DiAnne!
Lots of events and concerns up front today--see the front page!
Here is some great art by a very talented person I met at the Media Reform conference...Crass Commerce at its best & available for purchase, of course...
http://www.crasscommerce.com/index.php?cPath=23
Ralpheh
I agree, but I also think alot of those voters are fickle - they initially supported the war when they should have known better (like many of the Democrats), they put pressure on the Democrats (being their constituents) and according to an article I read today, many Americans believe the earth is only 5000 years old. To tell you the truth, I don't trust hardly any of them - the politicians or the people. It's a sad state of affairs.
I think the moderate Democrats are supporting moderate constituents and Independents - the tide needs to turn against the war even more, I suppose. I think the media is a big problem. I was just reading a two-months-old People magazine at the gym & I was curious about their coverage of Cindy Sheehan. They made her look like an unstable fool & emphasized problems she had with her family. Right wing all the way - our media.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I am, frankly, quite tired of trying to read the mind of the typical "voter". In stead of this, the Democrats should be trying to set the agenda - i.e. that we were misled into the Iraq war, the war was unnecessary and the war has been mishandled from the beginning. Can anyone, hypothetically, build a stronger case against a war than pointing out the above???
And let the voters decide if they want 5 more years of bloodshed and occupation in Iraq; 100's more dead and severely wounded soldiers etc... billions of dollars exported out of the federal treasury down the sink hole in Iraq. If the voters want war, I guess they will get it - but they should have to vote Republican to get it.
I will repeat it again here - if Biden and Clinton are willing to sell out to get elected, I want no part of it. And then the cynics will be right - the Dems are merely Republican lite. And when people ask me, what is the big difference between the Dems and Reps? I'll have to say, "Gee I don't know anymore".
Posted by: ralpheh at November 26, 2005 01:03 AM
Maybe I was a bard in a previous life....
Words and how they are used - in music and literature - are very important to me. Words can change the world....
As political propaganda, the most tiring thing is the repetition of certain key phrases (especially as used by the BushCo administration); words are used as a kind of "code" to mean something that's apparently patriotic and not quite defined. It's the job of the politically aware to point out illogical phrases. It's the job of the politically aware to use more words to point out the red herrings and slippery slopes....
Yesterday I was channel surfing to see if there was some alternative to football on TV (there wasn't). I ran across some stupid talk show I'd not seen before that seemed to be using families of soldiers in Iraq to pull sentimental heart strings for the winter holiday season. The host used the same propagandistic phrases of the Bu$hCo administraton.... "Our brave men and women fighting over there to protect us here at home" was the phrase that stuck out and made me scream at the TV.... "No, no, no, no, no, that's NOT how it is! What planet have you been living on?"
The US military went into Afghanistan en masse to go after ONE man (who has still not been caught) and his little gang who took credit for the criminal acts involving 19 people that became the 9/11 tragedy that killed nearly 3000 people. An ARMY to go after ONE man in particular, Osama bin Laden, and with all the advanced technology of the modern world, spy satellites that can capture the image of a dime that have not seen OBL and his gang.... In the inimitable phrase of Dr. Phil: "How's that workin' for ya???" Osama Bin Forgotten, democracy has been imposed on the Afghan people, and still no one has captured Osama Bin Forgotten. Compared to Iraq, Afghanistan is a haven of peace and stability, and no one has captured ONE man and his little gang of followers....
The US military in Iraq are there because the US (under the "leadership" of Bu$hCo) illegally invaded their country, killed many innocent people, and destroyed buildings where people lived and worked, and all for the sake of capturing, protecting, and defending oil wells and oil companies in Iraq from the rest of the world. The US military in Iraq are NOT there to "protect us here at home." That was NEVER the objective of the illegal invasion of Iraq. If they were doing that, they (Guard troops, in particular) would be here, on home soil, to protect us here at home, not over in Iraq to leave us vulnerable here at home (does Katrina ring anyone's bells?). Thanks to the #1 terrorist recruiting tool (Bu$hCo) illegally invading Iraq, there are now more terrorists in the world than before 9/11, and Iraqi patriots (aka "insurgents") are now blowing themselves up as martyrs and killing both Iraqi people and American military personnel almost daily. Their low-tech guerilla tactics are working better than all the high tech military equipment imported with the US military personnel that have FAILED to capture ONE outlaw and his little band of criminals....
To say that our military personnel are in Iraq "fighting over there to protect us here at home" is pure bull$h*t, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can figure out that Bu$hCo's illegal invasion of Iraq to capture and protect and defend the Iraqi oil wells (and killing innocent Iraqi people and torturing their people in illegal prisons) is NOT working to "protect us here at home." It's only sheer dumb luck that more terrorist acts haven't happened here on our own soil, but the Iraqi patriots are accomplishing exactly what they need to do to protect themselves from American aggression in Iraq by becoming martyrs in the eyes of their own people, so they're concentrating their energies to attempt to get the US military out of Iraq - and they're using low-tech methods to accomplish what the US military and their high-tech weapons and equipment have not been able to do to capture ONE man and his band of criminals who took credit for 9/11. The "martyrs" in Iraq are succeeding in killing many people while George's "mission" to capture ONE man and his band of outlaws has FAILED in Afghanistan.
To deploy very nearly the entire US military to capture ONE man and his little band of outlaws in Afghanistan (a mission that has NOT been accomplished) and then to re-deploy the US military to Iraq to capture, protect, and defend the oil wells in Iraq is.... well, a bit of "overkill" - in my estimation.
So, how's the illegal invasion of Iraq workin' for ya, George?!? How is it an entire army has not been able to capture ONE man and his band of outlaws in an entirely different country that was rather easy to subdue?!? So, what's the story behind the FAILURE to capture ONE outlaw and his gang, George?!? Can you explain that without repeating any more LIES to us, George?!?
Ralpheh
Well I have to say I agree. The war will have to be a bigger issue. The Democrats will have to band together as a pack and make a cohesive statement. They'll have to put human dignity and our country ahead of "pork" and special interests, even for their own states. I just hope that this finally happens. It does dishearten me to remember that McGovern lost 49 states as an antiwar candidate during Vietnam, but we did also finally have to leave Vietnam.
I really don't know what to think anymore. The fact that the war is just wrong doesn't change though.
Madame defarge
Thanks for the link - I love it, especially "The Simple Life" with the Bush twins!
I believe that humor can be an important means to deliver the message. For example look at the popularity of Jay Leno, David Letterman and other comedians. Jon Stewart has become the sole source of news for many people. Some may say there is no talent in photoshoping, but to me the talent lies with the imagination.
http://darted.blogspot.com/
Ralpheh
Well I have to say I agree. The war will have to be a bigger issue. The Democrats will have to band together as a pack and make a cohesive statement. They'll have to put human dignity and our country ahead of "pork" and special interests, even for their own states. I just hope that this finally happens. It does dishearten me to remember that McGovern lost 49 states as an antiwar candidate during Vietnam, but we did also finally have to leave Vietnam.
I really don't know what to think anymore. The fact that the war is just wrong doesn't change though.
Madame defarge
Thanks for the link - I love it, especially "The Simple Life" with the Bush twins!
Posted by: DiAnne at November 26, 2005 11:46 AM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
McGovern ran against an incumbent president - Nixon - who did everything he could to rig the 1972 election. And Nixon was caught and forced to resign in 1974 - the only American president to resign from office.
Ralpheh:
Well, I am going to try this one more time. First, something like half the Democrats in the Senate voted against the IWR. I don't think anyone from the GOP did. Second, the GOP controls the Senate. The IWR was a compromise. The first version did not limit the authorization to Iraq, but rather to the "middle east" or something ambiguous like that. Third, the IWR was not a declaration of war. In fact, it was pitched at the time as a way to do something about Iraq's non-compliance on the WMD issue while keeping war as a last resort. And you know what? It worked:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
The issue of what we do now in the Middle East is different than how we got here, although they are related (if you want to get out of a hole, the first thing you ought to do is stop digging). Presonnaly, I like the approach adopted by several top Democrats: get out of the policing business, engage the region diplomatically, and keep decreasing the military profile.
There is a huge difference on the Democratic approach to foreign policy -- war as a last result and strong alliances, and the Republican approach -- militant unilateralism. Take your pick!
And honestly, if you don't see a difference between the Democratic and Repubican Parties on issues such as health care, minimum wage, union issues, environmental legislation and the enforcement of same, civil rights, privacy rights, voting rights, fiscal issues and how the tax-burden should be allocated, and a big pile of other very important issues, then I guess it's no use even trying to point them out.
Also, I am curious, if the Democrats and Republicans don't offer realistic opportunities to move forward on some particular issues you may feel strongly about, how do you intend to progress those issues come election time?
Chuck in Doha
test
Well, I suggest the article on the history of Cheney - & I went back to http://www.newamericancentury.org & also the Wikipedia entries for neocon and Center for American Progress. I'm pretty satisfied that the mission predated 9/11 and it was to establish permanent military bases in the middle east so we could control the bulk of the world's oil. They also talk about controlling space.
I do think it's pathetic if any Democrat can not at this point at least say the war has gone or is going badly - awhile back there were media attempts to show "progress" and criticisms that the "liberal media" (where?) were only showing the bad things. I met an Iraqi though, just one guy, but he spent 40 days in his former country where he had not been since 1991. He's glad Saddam is gone, because that's why he left for the UK, but he says the Iraq is destroyed.
By the way, I think I didn't make one point clear in my post above -- the IWR worked in the sense that real progress was being made on Iraqi compliance with UN WMD issues right up to the point when POTUS, absolutely abusing and superceding the authorization from the Senate, invaded Iraq. The more people say "oh, IWR meant war," the more difficult it becomes to get to the truth and, by the way, it makes is soooo much easier for Dick Cheney et al to win and for the folks DiAnne alluded to above continue on for a couple more decades because it makes it impossible to point out just what it is that they did wrong.
Chuck in Doha
PS: For some reason, it takes about five minutes for my posts to show up.
Chuck in Doha for DiAnne:
I've been out of the loop a bit; am I missing something in the news? Who, outside of the Bush administration and their fellow travellers, is saying the war is going well? I'd be particulary interested in what Democrats might be saying that (Lieberman doesn't count). I may be missing something but my sense of it is even the old tradition GOP types agree that things were handled badly from the start and are going downhill (Hagel, Scowcroft, Wilkerson).
Chuck in Doha
Chuck in Doha
There really isn't a way anymore to make it sound like we're winning hearts & minds, but things like the show NonnyO alluded to, with selected families interviewed and Bush "spin" terms used may be the lasp gasps. Then recently the administration has tried to suggest that the war was the fault of the Democrats - not just trying to say they had access to the same "intelligence" (they didn't) but even that Clinton was headed in that direction. (Clinton was, in fact, beseiged by neocons who tried to influence him, as they have done to Presidents at lest since Nixon).
Remember when Bush was unable to admit to ever having made a mistake, at the conclusion of that news conference almost 2 years ago? They will always twist the truth and torture the data, til they come up with the neocon vision of global dominance. In their manifesto, they don't speak so much of spreading freedom and democracy but of taking down regimes which do not support American interests.
What exactly are "American interests" in the minds of the neocons? I would say to make money off defense plants and control oil and other resources. Who gets rich off that? CEOs like Cheney was, when he decided he could only be President by proxy because he lacked charisma.
I'll bet they don't like Chavez selling fuel to the Bronx!! He also barters it to the Cubans for eye surgery for Venezuelans.
End the War confab in London December 10-11:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.htm
Anyone want to go?
Karen
Oh man .. I wish! Have to go to my boss's party.
Chuck
On neocon infiltration of Executive Office:
Time magazine reported Cheney is becoming "less essential," and BBC aired a report that "there is a feeling on the part of the President, according to people very close to him, that the President got unwise political advice and rosy predictions of how a war and post-war in Iraq would play out." The BBC report noted that Bush and his top advisors think "that the Cheney national security operation got a little too ambitious and got too independent."
(They would be speaking of Office of Special Plans, which is similar to his Plan B under previous administrations, where he goes off separately as a civilian from the CIA and Pentagon)
London Guardian reported Nov. 14, "The President's allegiance to Dick Cheney consigns him to irrelevance and his country to chaos." Bush's decision to reappoint Cheney as his 2004 running mate "day by day, brings him down.... Cheney is ... too old, too sick and in too much trouble. The prosecutors who pursue his chief of staff pursue him too.... Every time [Cheney] climbs into some bully pulpit and snarls defiance, Bush's ratings slide again.... Goodbye dear Dick, your time is up. Resignation offered and accepted."
Why did Cheney meet recently with Chalabi - to get their stories straight?
DiAnne:
That's the point I was trying to make. I agree wholeheartedly with that. Clinton did not invade Iraq. Bush did. I understand quite well who and what the neocons are and what PNAC is. And they are NOT Democrats. I remember Iran-Contra as well.
On the larger point, we are indeed not winning hearts and minds. I believe that a continuation of our present course will only make the situation worse. We need to do something significant to try and show the world that we "got the point." On the other hand, we've created a failed state in the place of a bloody dictatorship and we do have strategic interests in the region so we have to be careful and we have to be smart -- it's a POLITICAL issue not a MILITARY issue. Like I say, I have read more than one plan put forward by prominent Democrats and they all seem to have gotten that point, as have the remnants of the old GOP like Hagel and Scowcroft.
Off to read your PNAC link!
Chuck in Doha
Chuck
Actually, the best is from Salon but I had to post the whole thing, so it's near the bottom of the topic two back. It's on Cheney & his whole career & not much new to you, but a good summary.
From the LATimes...
U.S. Starts Laying Groundwork for Significant Troop Pullout From Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/7fu6b
This is very good news indeed but it also comes on the heels of, among other things reports of the readiness of the Iraqi troops, Iraqi requests for our withdrawal, sinking presidential poll numbers, mid-term elections in 11 months (with campaigning already underway), inability to meet military recruiting targets, an extremely strained military...
It's also a rather sudden about-face from just a week or so ago when this regime was ranting about Murtha's call for withdrawal & other calls for timetables.
I want the war to end & our troops home alive more than anything, so I welcome this news...but with extreme caution & suspicion.
Will they withdraw troops in time for November elections, only to send them back in January 2007? What about the permanent bases we're establishing there? How many troops will be required to stay behind?
DiAnne:
I subscribe to Salon and I caught the article. I wish it had mentioned Congressman Cheney's (House Minority Leader Cheney's?) position on Nelson Mandela back in the 1980's:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0909-08.htm
It's all of a piece.
Chuck in Doha
And to anyone that doesn't read down the article, the gist of it was back then Cheney called Mandela a terrorist that belonged in prison (I am paraphrasing because I cannot find the exact quote but I actually remember hearing it and being, well, shocked). And he seemed like such a nice man! For Brutus is an honorable man....
Chuck in Doha
Here's another one in the same vein:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/210.html
Still looking for that old quote....
Chuck in Doha
As regards to the question of loyalty to Bush and his policies, I think the following article highlights, that despite reality, there are many Americans who will accept the propaganda. We have to ask the opposition political parties to carry the load, because the Bushco Propaganda Machine can not be.......
Even Supporters Doubt President as Issues Pile Up
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/politics/26voices.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
Democracy in America Has Officially Become a Privatized Circus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/democracy-in-america-has-_b_11253.html
from http://www.ontheissues.com
What did Cheney say about Nelson Mandela?
A viewer asked this question on 7/30/2000:
I read where Dick Cheney was not supportive of the ANC and Nelson Mandela who served 27 years in prison. I am an African American. I feel uncomfortable with Dick Cheney. What are your thoughts about Dick Cheney?
Answer:
On ABC's ``This Week,'' Cheney defended his 1986 vote against a resolution that called for U.S. recognition of the African National Congress in South Africa, freedom for the organization's then-imprisoned leader Nelson Mandela and negotiations with the black majority.
``The ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization,'' Cheney said Sunday. ``It was a step that we simply weren't prepared to take.''
Now, Cheney says he believes the ANC has ``mellowed'' and Mandela is ``a great man.''
``He deserves an enormous amount of credit for the transformation of South Africa,'' Cheney said ``But I don't have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.''
The article also goes on to say Cheney favored lifting boycott of South Africa before most others did. Consistent, he is.
Oncall:
I like that: "Don't privatize democracy." I think that hits the nail on the head. Thanks!
Well, have to turn in here in beautiful downtown Doha! Keep the faith!
Chuck in Doha
DiAnne:
Thanks! Note Cheney's phrase "The ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization...." By HIM, maybe, and his buddies. I don't think most Americans, not to mention South Africans, viewed it that way. But HE did!
I'd love to find a contemporaneous quote from Cheney -- I mean back when he voted that way.
Goodnight!
Chuck in Doha
Landover Baptist Church endorsement of Cheney
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0900/dick.html
supposed to be a spoof .. not that far-fetched
This is for real .. The Curse of Dick Cheney
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6450422?rnd=1126254738277&has-player=true
& then he represented our country at Auschwitz, talking about "evil" and paraphrasing large parts of Bush's earlier speech there - it was considered sort of an insult that Bush didn't bother to go
Ralpheh:
Well, I am going to try this one more time. First, something like half the Democrats in the Senate voted against the IWR. I don't think anyone from the GOP did. Second, the GOP controls the Senate. The IWR was a compromise. The first version did not limit the authorization to Iraq, but rather to the "middle east" or something ambiguous like that. Third, the IWR was not a declaration of war. In fact, it was pitched at the time as a way to do something about Iraq's non-compliance on the WMD issue while keeping war as a last resort. And you know what? It worked:
Chuck
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
cont:
Ralpheh:
Well, I am going to try this one more time. First, something like half the Democrats in the Senate voted against the IWR. I don't think anyone from the GOP did. Second, the GOP controls the Senate. The IWR was a compromise. The first version did not limit the authorization to Iraq, but rather to the "middle east" or something ambiguous like that. Third, the IWR was not a declaration of war. In fact, it was pitched at the time as a way to do something about Iraq's non-compliance on the WMD issue while keeping war as a last resort. And you know what? It worked:
Chuck
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Listen, I am not going to try to spend the next 3 years hair-splitting and parsing the IWR for the general public. 70% will not understand or, frankly, be convinced by your argument about what it meant or what it didn't mean.
The fact is, unfortunately, that these leading Democrats NOW, STILL!?!??!? support the war:
Biden
Lieberman
Clinton
Schumer
and all of the DLC'ers
and both Kerry and Edwards voted for the IWR, but at least now have come out against the war.
I would not have wanted to sign, as both versions go on about how Iraq is harboring terrorists & reinforce the idea of a "link" between 9/11 & Iraq. Of course, I didn't agree with the original Gulf War, for which history has been revised in our favor. If not for 9/11, this administration would have had a much harder time justifying going back into Iraq, which they wanted to do before 9/11. I think Democrats who voted for the IWR did a bad job of explaining their thinking. I know Bush cheated and didn't keep to terms he agreed to, but how could anyone have thought he would?!
Ralpheh
After reading the history of Cheney and the neocons, the New Democrats aren't as bad, but they tend to be "free traders," which to me is another black mark against them. I suppose they had to be centrist and moderate to survive and I suppose if we move back from the right, it'll be in small incremental steps. I have read the DLC principles or manifesto or whatever & my nose was definitely plugged.
I mean this: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=1926
In a nutshell:
Feith used the Office of Special Plans to manipulate information to support the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
Feith bypassed the CIA to provide uncorroborated intelligence directly to the White House, including information from Ahmad Chalabi, the discredited Iraqi politician and former exile leader who is visiting Washington recently.
Feith, who left the Pentagon earlier this year, has also been blamed for overseeing what is widely considered to have been inadequate postwar planning in Iraq, which is now gripped by a bloody insurgency.
(abstracted from Common Dreams)
If you haven't read this article about how the Iraqi war came to be, then you will learn that there was certainly more than politics involved. This man understands human psychology and there are too many people who don't understand when they are being played.
The Man Who Sold the War
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1133037486735&has-player=true
Oncall
Astounding story - this evil neocon "perception manager" used to work on Dem campaigns such as McGovern, & Kerry for Senate! Now he lives in a multimillion dollar house near Rumsfeld. What in the world turns these people to the dark side (torture, false intelligence)? Condi Rice once worked for Gary Hart. Other neocons were once liberals. It's so Orwellian & twisted.
Here is his website, on which they try to rebut the Rolling Stone expose:
http://www.rendon.com/index.php
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q4/rendon.html
"I am not a National Security strategist or a military tactician," says John W. Rendon, Jr., whose DC-based PR firm was recently hired by the Pentagon to win over the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims worldwide.
"I am a politician," Rendon said in a 1998 speech to the National Security Conference (NSC), "and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior, and a perception manager. This is probably best described in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, when he wrote 'When things turn weird, the weird turn pro.'"
The Rendon Group's contract with the Pentagon was awarded on a no-bid basis, reflecting the government's determination to hire a firm already versed in running overseas propaganda operations. Rendon specializes in "assisting corporations, organizations, and governments achieve their policy objectives." Past clients include the CIA, USAID, the government of Kuwait, Monsanto Chemical Company, and the official trade agencies of countries including Bulgaria, Russia, and Uzbekistan.
black mark against them. I suppose they had to be centrist and moderate to survive and I suppose if we move back from the right, it'll be in small incremental steps. I have read the DLC principles or manifesto or whatever & my nose was definitely plugged.
I mean this: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=1926
Posted by: DiAnne at November 26, 2005 03:16 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I read what was at the link to the DLC website. WHAT A BUNCH OF WONKISH BALONEY!!! Does the DLC really think that they are going to rally and motivate the voters with that kind of stuff??
You will note, also, that the topic of "National Security" - the biggest issue facing the nation at the moment - is buried at the very end of the Hyde Park press release!!! Like Al From and the DLC want Iraq and 9-11 to just go away or disappear.
BTW: The word "IRAQ" does not even appear in the Hyde Park Press Release!!!!
What a bunch of cowards... pathetic.
Ralpheh, when voting for the IWR and saying, point blank, this is not a vote for war, only a means to get inspectors in, how is that a vote for the war? And why, whenever I come to visit, are you here, as if by Dr. Spock mind meld, with the same defiance in the the past with litmus tests?
And how is now trying to get a way out with benchmarks, trying to turn the big battleship-impossible on a dime, pro-war? May be positioning, issues, but the Dems did not choose this war as a necessary and good thing above all other matters if WMDs were not found.
Bad gotcha politics all around when 911 and media self-sensorship ruled the day, but why not focus less on Dem blame or litmus tests and more on strategy to get out? All of it complicated and ambiguous.
Forgot to mention, DiAnne, I love your thread today, as always. I only hope the new internet community learns how to consider what they read, often just opinion, and seek more rounded explanations, more facts.
Bad gotcha politics all around when 911 and media self-sensorship ruled the day, but why not focus less on Dem blame or litmus tests and more on strategy to get out? All of it complicated and ambiguous.
Posted by: Marjorie G at November 26, 2005 05:53 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
1) I will not repeat the experience of the 2004 Kerry campaign again - IT WAS AN EMBARRASSMENT
2) Regarding an exit strategy - SEE MURTHA's STATEMENT. Have the troops out of the country in 6 months; retain a quick reaction military force in the region (probably Kuwait); maintain the no=fly zones?; keep a military presence off-shore on ships in the Gulf; assist in rebuilding Iraq; get regional and international cooperation to help rebuild and stabilize the country.
3) "Bad gotcha politics all around when 911 and media self-sensorship ruled the day, but why not focus less on Dem blame or litmus tests and more on strategy to get out? All of it complicated and ambiguous."
Not really: let's try to be truthful and unambiguous with the American people ("ambiguity" did not win in 2004, as much as the Dems tried to use it). Let's tell them: There is a very good chance that Iraq will not survive as a country; there is a very good chance that civil will break out; can we do anything about this PROBABLY NO - UNLESS you want a permenant occupying force of 300,000 troops in Iraq, bring back a military draft, and are prepared to spend 100's billions of dollars.
No ambiguity at all - clarity, really......
Ralpheh,
I love your passion, but your certainty that everyone else is wrong or doesn't get it, won't bring people together. And that's what we need.
Well said marjorie - we need to get this mission back on track.
I for one will be happy to debate the semantics of the IWR vote with anyone as long as we don't tie up bandwidth and blogwidth to do it.
In the meantime, let's all please keep certain things in mind: we can agree to disagree at any time and not everyone shares the same view. That is exactly what we are fighting for.
Ralpheh
I like that you monitor the Democrats. I find it useful insofar as the focus on finding a national party position is globally sensible. I respect politicisns who understand global connections but do not have pre-eminent interest is global hegemony (like the neocons do).
John Kerry knows far more about the world and diplomacy than many and would have been far & away better, but maybe it's good this mess is happening on Bush's watch. Many outside the US are more aware of the neocon foreign policy than many within the US, particularly if they have lived with CIA covert operations in their country and traiterous expats like Chalabi.
The neocons are highly ideological but their vision is also highly theoretical. They have goals, such as "furthering US interests" but they never have a step-by-step gameplan other than amassing more power. & they are mostly all chickenhawks.
Cheney, our proxy President, has usually failed in the end, but has moved on to new jobs where he can try to amass more power. He is now at the pinnacle of what he can achieve, and if taken down, will probably go back to the corporate world and suck off them.
The centrist thing (with the Dems) is why I merely voted for Clinton but never got excited. Same with Gore but he improved later & I had no idea the 2000 election would be stolen. I actually like them both now more than I did then but they were quite centrist and Hillary is becoming more that way, I think. It's political expediency and it's been around at least since LBJ. I don't like it.
Nowdays in America, centrist is probably radical though. We are unthinkably far to the right. It was with this in mind that I worked for Kerry and supported him throughout, though I liked things about other candidate as well. He had domestic & foreign policy credentials both and said "We need to start making some friends on this planet."
I never did agree with the IWR, yet I was an early adopter. It was based on a wholistic view of the whole situation, which was already going straight to hell (I mean Iraq). I just felt that he was (like Mark from Iowa used to say) what was standing between us and a fascist dictatorship! I don't think I could have backed him as much had his voting record not been so close to that of Ted Kennedy. & my true moral guidepost not just for Iraq but for certain other issues was Senator Byrd, as he actually bothered to read bills before he signed them.
I don't think any candidate was every able to truthfully promise us a rose garden. There was not one candidate with which I didn't have some sort of disagreement yet any of them would have been infinitely better than what we've got (except maybe Lieberman). & in retrospect, it's easy to blame the campaign, to blame the populace, to blame the cheating - I think it was a combination.
Hopefully the neocons now will implode in on themselves - they seem incompetent enough despite their money, corporate support, military connections & religious radical backing. Yet everything they touch seems to turn to crap. I like the visualize the conservatives fragmenting into several pro-business and several pro-social conservative camps and never getting their act together again.
I would think that Democrats who point out the obvious would be popular right about now. I should think that 2006 candidates for open elections should be in a good spot to come up with something new and exciting. Yet we still have big obstacles to overcome, not the least of which are unfair elections (do we trust the machines?) and unfair media (is it redeemable at all?)
I think one thing that hampered us for the 2004 election WAS the goddamn media. Maybe reporters will get tired of being "leaked" to, set up, censored, run out of the country (Palast, Arnett) & even assassinated (as in Iraq) for telling the truth. Is it possible?
Here is a good article.
Michael Massing | The Press: The Enemy Within
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112605B.shtml
Michael Massing states of all the internal problems confronting the press, the reluctance to venture into politically sensitive matters and to report disturbing truths that might unsettle and provoke, remain by far the most troubling.
One thing I like to do is extend my parameters way beyond the US and its elections, though keeping in mind that we have to get through the elections and that what we do locally is not unconnected from what to expect globally. With the neocons wanting GLOBAL domination, it is short-sighted for Americans to be isolationist and "trying to clean up our own backyard first." It won't work, when Condi, Perle, Wolfowitz etc. are always travelling, spreading doom and despair, sometimes doing things under the radar & when creepy "perception changer" consultants like in the Rolling Stone article are hired by the government to try to put some makeup on its pigface.
We need MORE than just our voters and readers. We need all free people - instead of liberating them I think it's us who need to be liberated - from anti-science prudes, from neocons, from unsavory economists, from foreign debt, from union busting and so much more. We can not guarantee that we can keep our creditors and our international business. We have already had plenty of boycotters of our "coalition" (which consists of US, UK, Mongolia? What happened to Poland?)
I also want to know - are we building permanent military bases in the middle east? In what countries do we have prisons? Are we building a permanent prison in Gitmo? These things will tell us if the neocons do plan on war forever.
I want to know - is it justified to do something really bad to get something good? I have never thought so. Cheney claims torture could save hundreds of thousands of lives if a terrorist attack is prevented because someone confesses. I don't think so. Some claim capital punishment is a deterrent. I don't think so. Some claim war is sometimes justified. I don't think we have ever exhausted diplomacy enough so I don't think so.
Well, as one t-shirt I saw said, "Remember Paul Wellstone."
DiAnne
I got Wellstone's book not long ago and it is next in queue for me to read.
And, I know this guy who designs and makes t-shirts. Perhaps a Paul Wellstone t-shirt is in order.
Right on!
My friend Bert that I often mention (we were schoolmates who have kept in close touch despite moving) became inspired to be politically more active when Wellstone died. He attended his funeral & has kind of dedicated his political work since to him.
I admire Congressman Jim McDermott, who is from my district. I think he is very courageous. I wish every single one of them were like that.
Senator Cantwell is having Senator Clinton here to raise funds and probably that's the way to win, but that's out of my league right now & it's something I'd vote for when the time comes, but McDermott inspires me more.
Ralpheh,
I love your passion, but your certainty that everyone else is wrong or doesn't get it, won't bring people together. And that's what we need.
Posted by: Marjorie G at November 26, 2005 07:35 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Marg:
I find your fuzziness and muddled-thinking useless. (Please review the polls, the casualty figures in Iraq, the unambiguous deceit of this administration.)
I find your call for ambiguity, dangerous for America and dangerous for the party. Please: JOIN THE DLC!!!! BE EVER SO AMBIGUOUS!!!!
I find that the Republicans, with a simple, clear, unambiguous message repeated every two years has led to their control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency.
The Democrats have a non-message or message so "ambiguous" as to be indecipherable. Kerry tried ambiguity in 2004 and lost. The press, in 2004, didn't call it "ambiguity" however - they called it "flip-flopping" and "weakness". What was so sad about this is that people were begging for a semi-strong, Anybody But Bush, candidate. And they didn't get it.
Ralpheh,
I love your passion, but your certainty that everyone else is wrong or doesn't get it, won't bring people together. And that's what we need.
Posted by: Marjorie G at November 26, 2005 07:35 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Two things:
1) Please review Rep. Murtha's powerful, clear, unambiguous speech about Iraq in his press conference. BTW it was also passionate....
2) Your idea that people will be brought together is laughable and naive. Review the Vietnam war period. The country was deeply divided. People are still divided over the Vietnam war today, some 30 years later. Wars tend to be controversial.......
I find that the Republicans, with a simple, clear, unambiguous message repeated every two years has led to their control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency.
Ralph - the repug's message was a clear and unambiguous lie - and only the uninformed believed it. The repugs play upon America's thirst to believe the pResident and ignore the facts. Too many Americans simply do not have time to read the news and research the issues. They are too busy working in Bush's flawed economy to be able to make ends meet.
As for your critism of John Kerry - you are too quick with your mouth and too slow with you facts. The fact is that John Kerry was the Democratic nominee to go against Bush - the media chose to support Bush and not give John Kerry his due even after John Kerry proved beyond any doubt in teh debates he was the superior candidate. Yes, his campaign made mistakes, but your critism at this point make no sense or progress.
The media is owned by companies such as GE who are invested in a pro-corporate candidate.
Why was Bush so obsessed with Al-Jazeera?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1651882,00.html
Re on-going discussion, I was the antiwar Kerry supporter and I never did feel I had to agree completely with him on Iraq, Israel or trade because I didn't. I had a Deaniac spit in my face once & call me a zombie but I didn't even take that personally. I had a friend tell me the DLC ran Kerry as a "plant" and when I argued that they didn't give him any money during the primaries - he had to 2nd mortgage his house - she said to me what Cheney said in Senate (Go F yourself) and blocked my email. I didn't take that personally either.
I think the Democrats did not have a really clear message AND the media and Republicans distorted it further and were able to control the agenda, and the voting machines.
All the arguments going on here already went on last year - the war is just worse now. Nothing is solved.
DiAnne - I agree, We have all been all through this before. It is time to move on to victory against this administration.
No More Evasions
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1651820,00.html
The Observer is hitting on all cylinders today.
Abqjohn
I agree - I just don't take any of it personally. I always opposed the war, I still do, & nitpicking about the election doesn't solve anything. I have always had to support a best-fit candidate, not some kind of God figure. & I doubt that will change.
DiAnne
Namaste
We think alike
Ralpheh,
Although age does not guarantee wisdom nor judgment, I am 58 and have seen a lot of cycles in politics and life. Nothing quite as evil, though, as these neo-cons enabled by the corporate media, and misinformation. That I refuse to run around spouting negatives and talking tough may mean seasoning works occasionally.
Murtha, who is a conservative pro-lifer, is being hailed as the new liberal darling. He is part of the big tent Democratic Party for which I am grateful and supportive, but he's no big deal liberal. However, he also left wiggle room on the how-to when he said 'practicable' schedlue of timeline and benchmarks.
Sorry when I say that they are all similar, Kerry, Murtha (with a few less months), and even Biden. Also, did you happen to catch some of the passion in Kerry defending Murtha on the Senate? No one has a lock on it, but the liberals don't have to fall like easy marks for every emotional speech or apology.
Presenting false dissentions and differences does nothing for a solution. Are you saying we can't approach a solution together, but with differences?
A woman in the NM Chile store today asked me about my my DCP t-shirt. She asked what we do. I explained that we teach democracy and give folks the tools to make this country greater. I explained that we are here to teach democracy, so folks can make up their own minds.
As for your critism of John Kerry - you are too quick with your mouth and too slow with you facts. The fact is that John Kerry was the Democratic nominee to go against Bush - the media chose to support Bush and not give John Kerry his due even after John Kerry proved beyond any doubt in teh debates he was the superior candidate. Yes, his campaign made mistakes, but your critism at this point make no sense or progress.
Posted by: abqjohn at November 26, 2005 09:41 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The Big Bad Media is at fault for John's 2004 loss??? Kuhl!!!
But wait.....
That does put us in a bind - the Big Bad Media will be there in 2006 and 2008... perhaps we should just give up now.
Yes Big John made lots of mistakes in 2004.
NOW WE HAVE TO LEARN FROM JOHN'S MISTAKES AND TRY NOT TO REPEAT THEM IN 2008...
Ralph
The media will always be there. My point is that a Responsible media will be there to report the news - and they need our help - BIG TIME !!!
We need to "BE THE MEDIA" (WS)
Murtha, who is a conservative pro-lifer, is being hailed as the new liberal darling. He is part of the big tent Democratic Party for which I am grateful and supportive, but he's no big deal liberal. However, he also left wiggle room on the how-to when he said 'practicable' schedlue of timeline and benchmarks.
Sorry when I say that they are all similar, Kerry, Murtha (with a few less months), and even Biden. Also, did you happen to catch some of the passion in Kerry defending Murtha on the Senate? No one has a lock on it, but the liberals don't have to fall like easy marks for every emotional speech or apology.
Presenting false dissentions and differences does nothing for a solution. Are you saying we can't approach a solution together, but with differences?
Posted by: Marjorie G at November 26, 2005 10:33 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
THERE IS NO SOLUTION AT THIS POINT - BUSH HAS SCREWED THINGS UP TOO BADLY.
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON???
We have to get out of Iraq with the least amount of damage. I'll repost this because apparently you missed it:
"......let's try to be truthful and unambiguous with the American people ("ambiguity" did not win in 2004, as much as the Dems tried to use it). Let's tell them: There is a very good chance that Iraq will not survive as a country; there is a very good chance that civil war will break out; can we do anything about this, PROBABLY NOT - UNLESS you want a permenant occupying force of 300,000 troops in Iraq, bring back a military draft, and are prepared to spend 100's billions of dollars."
BTW: What's to debate?
1) The administration lied to the American people
2) They wanted war in the worst way
3) They had no plan for the peace
4) They completely botched the occupation
5) Now it is time to leave
simple message.... pretty much what Murtha said in his press conference. It is a shame that no Dem. Senator could have given such a forceful, direct and eloquent speech.
Ralph, you're a hot shot and want to argue, when we agree that we want to get out, and no permanent bases. Murtha gave an emotional speech, but don't always be lead by who can yank your chain. Have you bothered to look at the similarity of all the plans? Murtha said practicable, allowing for reality and tactic.
You make it difficult for me and probably others to want to come visit and work on solutions. Do you care? Your tone hasn't changed from day one.
Ralph, do not email me at home, shouting in caps, ever again.
Posted by: oncall at November 26, 2005 03:40 PM
Just read the entire Rolling Stone article. I am not surprised. Over the top Orwellian, but I believe this type of thing goes on 24/7 through the media of television, newspapers, even some movies we may view.
It's almost as if someone has spent years researching and studying human psychology and is pulling strings on a world wide basis now in a quest for world wide domination.
No one really knows what happened in 2004.
Representative Norm Dicks is backing off his previous stance on the Iraq war. I'm getting inside scoop over the phone - he is a friend of Murtha & talked with Representative McDermott.
Local article:
http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051126/NEWS/51126005
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002645321_normdicks25m.html
2nd one is really really interesting - thought process a hawkish Democrat went through - maybe will give a little insight into why some of them voted like they did. I don't know - good timing for reading this though.
Ralph, you're a hot shot and want to argue, when we agree that we want to get out, and no permanent bases. Murtha gave an emotional speech, but don't always be lead by who can yank your chain. Have you bothered to look at the similarity of all the plans? Murtha said practicable, allowing for reality and tactic.
You make it difficult for me and probably others to want to come visit and work on solutions. Do you care? Your tone hasn't changed from day one.
Posted by: Marjorie G at November 26, 2005 11:39 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Wait: you are right!!! Murtha's speech was inconsequencial and mediocre. Given just to yank us wacky liberals around. Thanks for your analysis.
John Kerry woulda, coulda, given a far better speech.... but he was busy that day
Representative Norm Dicks is backing off his previous stance on the Iraq war. I'm getting inside scoop over the phone - he is a friend of Murtha & talked with Representative McDermott.
Local article:
http://
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is good news.
Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, an anti-war Democrat who represents Seattle, talked with him about it.
?Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me,? McDermott told The Times. ?This is an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe? about prewar intelligence.
The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.
Dicks? private concerns became more public two months ago, when he surprised guests at a breakfast fundraiser with tough talk against the war.
Last Friday, the White House called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them either to endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.
Dicks said he told the White House that ?their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I?ve ever heard.?
The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.
Dicks favors a phased withdrawal that would leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. ?We?ve got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole,? he said.
But he added, ?We can?t take forever.?
Some say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks noted. ?I don?t think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won?t.?