The Big Lie--They're Fighting for Our Freedom

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
The Big Lie--They're Fighting for Our Freedom

by Robert L. Johnson

Listening to Bush supporters who have come out to oppose Camp Casey and its creator, Cindy Sheehan, it becomes painfully obvious how well a big lie really works on the minds of millions. Some of them have lost family members in the unnecessary war in Iraq that the neocons and Bush started. They can’t bring themselves to see reality--that their loved ones did not die for American freedom but were instead used as pawns by the politicians and the powerful Israeli lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee. For many people, it’s hard to admit when you’re wrong, especially when the cost of being wrong is so high. It’s much easier to believe the government and the big lies they tell and that the media protects.

The plutocrats who run the democracies of the world are great at lying. They’ve fine tuned it to an abhorrent art. They are so skillful at lying, their lies have become “common knowledge” to many millions of people. One good example is the big lie itself. When a person hears the phrase "the big lie," they usually think of Adolf Hitler. They regurgitate what has been fed into them: “Hitler said in his book he uses big lies to control people and to gain and maintain power.” In fact, Hitler wrote that the average person is more likely to believe a big lie than a small one because they themselves are prone to tell a small white lie but not a big lie. He then went on to condemn the practice and blamed the Jews and Marxists for using the big lie technique. The fact that the plutocrats have used this particular lie so successfully for so long that people don’t even realize that Hitler was actually condemning the practice, demonstrates the power of the big lie technique and why the plutocrats still use it.

When George W. Bush wanted to start the war in Iraq, he had to come up with a big lie. He would not be able to get people’s support if he told them the truth, that he wanted to be reelected, and in a close election like he was facing, every vote counted, so he was going to win some favor and votes in the Jewish community by wiping out Israel’s enemy, Iraq. (As a Bible reading and believing Christian, he also wanted to make Israel secure.) He had to come up with a big lie to feed to the voters and to the troops and their families. Nothing worked so well for him as talking about Iraq’s imaginary WMD program, its imaginary ties to al Qaeda and its imaginary involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He threw in a comment about mushroom clouds and sent Colin Powell off to the UN holding up his vial prop and telling the world that Iraq had deadly biological weapons that could kill millions of innocent people. He and the British plutocrats added the lie about Iraq being able to launch their deadly arsenal within 45 minutes, and presto, they sold his big lie!

Now that well over 1,800 Americans have been killed and many thousands more wounded, not to mention the tens of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis, and with no end in sight, he has to keep the big lie alive by saying, “They’re fighting for our freedom.” Over the Fourth of July weekend I’ve heard many many people parrot this big lie. They repeat it when they oppose Camp Casey. Almost all those who support the cowardly and heartless Bush continually repeat this false mantra. It really works well for the Boy George, AIPAC, the neocons, and the plutocrats!

At the start of the war there seemed to be a united front of military people who bought into the big lie. Now, however, the front is breaking. A good number of military people who are direct victims of the big lie have themselves spoken out against Bush and his neocon war at Camp Casey. They have started organizations that openly and proudly oppose this insanity and big lie.

Unlike the Vietnam war, the media seems to be on the side of the warmongers. They have refused to seriously investigate the Downing Street Memos or to investigate the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its involvement in spying on the US, a key part of which involved Iraq. They accept the government request not to show video and pictures that portray the reality of war. At press conferences, they seem much more like stenographers or star struck groupies who’re honored to be able to have a laugh with one of the plutocrats or lifers. They never think to call Bush or any of his cohorts to account on Bush’s current campaign to connect Iraq with 9/11. It’s really disgusting. They are not only not capable of killing the big lie by exposing it, they actually help to keep it alive. This is our “free press.”

The Internet seems to represent the nearest thing to a free press and the biggest threat to the big lie(s) of governments. For example, if it wasn’t for the Internet, no one would have known the importance of the Downing Street Memos in the US. We should utilize the Internet while we still can. We should exploit it to its fullest potential to get around the big lies and the big liars. Bush and his ilk can’t stand opposition, that’s why his audiences for speeches or fake “town meetings” are all hand-picked brown nosers and careerists. Currently, they seem to be confused by the power of the web. But that won’t last forever. Unfortunately, the governments seem always ready with new big lies as their needs arise.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
August 25, 2005

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality". Bush aide; Ron Suskind, New York Times Magazine 10-17-04


A great deal of print has been wasted on President Bush's inability to tell the truth. In fact, it really makes little difference whether Bush is a pathological liar or not. What is meaningful however is that deception is the primary tool for the maintenance of the state. Transparency and candor are now seen as direct threats to the preservation of the status quo. This suggests that Bush's lying is not simply a matter of human frailty or corruption, but a clear statement of administration policy.
This may seem like a minor point, but in fact the conduct of the Bush administration cannot be seriously evaluated without understanding that deceit is the cornerstone of their class-based world view.

Evidence of this is everywhere, right down to the language that is painstakingly minted in right-wing think tanks to conceal the real meaning of administration policy. "The war on terror", preemption", and "enemy combatant" are just three expressions that are intentionally designed to mislead the public. The real purpose of this language is to elicit support for unpopular policies that serve the exclusive interests of elites.

Administration policy is normally reduced to snappy sound-bytes that charm the public and keep the main players "on message". They are released as "talking points" to their political and media surrogates and disseminated from every newsroom and radio-station across the country. This is the true meaning of propaganda; "to propagate" one's ideas from many vantage points. No one has succeeded at this better than the Bush administration.

As many commentators have already noted, the lead up to the war in Iraq was perhaps the "high-water mark" for state propaganda. Dissenting, anti-war voices were excluded from all the major media and the false, uncorroborated charges against Saddam were highlighted in a way to make war inevitable.
Reflecting on the imagery and theatrics that went into marketing unprovoked aggression, the media-coup was carried out with astonishing precision. Since then, however, media credibility has steadily declined; leaving the public increasingly disenchanted with the ongoing occupation and distrustful of the coverage.

The "privately" owned media is only capable of producing a narrative that is compatible with the goals of ownership. Curtailing civil liberties (Patriot Act, National ID etc) and waging war are never in the public interest; they only serve the narrow objectives of the few who stand to gain from them directly. It is critical that the propaganda-system be progressively exposed so the public can see its destructiveness and work to create a different model.

At present, the American system of governance is so inherently corrupted that there is very little worth salvaging. The electoral system has been clumsily rigged with voting technology that maintains the appearance of democracy, but eliminates the real possibility of majority rule. Similarly, the US Military, now deeply imbedded into domestic affairs is directly involved in "Strategic Intelligence" operations that are almost exclusively designed to deceive the American people to sustain support for foreign interventions. Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch are classic examples of intentionally misleading Military information, but there are countless
others related to the use of banned weapons, bombed wedding parties and fabricated civilian casualty-rates.
Similar to the Bush administration, Pentagon deception is a matter of policy not simply a "cover-up". Nothing they say should be taken at face value.

In Iraq, we have seen the military insert friendly journalists into their operational structure; ensuring that the message they produce corresponds with their overall strategic goals. The "embedded" journalist-phenomenon establishes news organizations as a front-line part of the military apparatus. The media is now a fully integrated part of the armed services. The American people have seemingly accepted this transparent absurdity without question.
On the other hand, we've seen journalists, who prefer to stay beyond the reach of the military's control, directly targeted and sometimes killed.
This gives us a good idea of how serious the civilian leadership takes its role of making sure that the "facts fit the policy".

In all areas of American life, information is being manipulated to manage public perceptions. Most TV programming is intentionally designed to make sure that the public is removed from the economic and political facts that may either inform them of what is really going on, or inspire them to get directly involved in the process. The goal of media is to create a reliable base of consumers, not to cultivate informed citizens in a participatory democracy. Julius Caesar recommended "Bread and circuses" to keep the people amused and uninvolved. The American media has faithfully honored that counsel.

With Bush the information-war has entered a new and more aggressive phase. BBC has been purged by hostile groups after David Kelley stated that Blair had "sexed up" the information that supported the drive to war. Similarly, PBS and NPR have been infiltrated by Bush-loyalists to remove liberal elements and craft a message that pleases their corporate constituents. Also, Al Jazeera, which provides a uniquely Arab view of the world to 40 million people, has been put up for sale due to the extraordinary pressure applied by the Bush Administration.

Bush's top lieutenants are entirely committed to creating their own storyline and calling it news. They are not restrained by the facts that emerge from the"reality-based" community. They are equally zealous about seeking out conflicting points-of-view and silencing them through their attack-dogs in right-wing radio. We should assume that they will do whatever it takes to eliminate the voices that compete with the one message they want to convey.

This means that the internet, which is perhaps the last outpost of democracy in America today, is undoubtedly part of the broader government strategy for controlling information. The internet is seen as "command and control" for the disparate leftist and liberal groups that foment resistance against the political establishment. There should be back-up plans to protect this vital resource. The Bush administration has already demonstrated its penchant for toppling regimes through "decapitation" or removal of the leadership. As the nexus for leftist organization, the internet is a logical target for this type of government disruption. Any attack on the system would be catastrophic for the antiwar and anti-imperial movements as well as a serious body-blow to personal freedom.
Be forewarned.

Both free speech and its antecedent the truth are much greater threats to the state than any bomb-wielding revolutionary. In the new world order only the managers are entitled to the truth, not the managed. That way, the public can be moved sheep-like in the direction of government policy. This means that hard news
on any topic is the implicit enemy of the political establishment. It is only by providing a constant stream of diversions and fear engendering alarms that the public can be kept in a persistent fog and deprived of the right to choose. Information is freedom; and that freedom is destined to become the province of the ruling class alone if the public fails to organize resistance.

The administration is "privatizing" information in the same way they have privatized all of the other tangible forms of wealth. The rest of us are left with the lies and distortions that course through the government's ideological-filter. This isn't a battle that can be won without a struggle. We believe that the truth is the birthright of every human being who will pursue it with an open heart and an inquiring mind. And, we will fight to preserve that right.

Courtesy & Copyright © Mike Whitney


interesting perspective......and valid. Lies are not merely "bush and goons' character flaws , or pathology........they are "disinformation" POLICY.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
The title says it all, and anyone who ever believed that in any form is suffering from a lack of grey matter.

How can anybody claim with a straight face that the "war in iraq" is about freedome of any kind?

Like Canadian politicians vowing to "scrap the GST"...is there any proof that anybody believes this crap?
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
When it comes to the current Bush administration.......it is wise to have the bullshit detector on activated mode. :wink:


"they are fighting for our freedom'???? Where does this crap come from??? :roll: Has the US lost its freedom(S))?? Or is that a confession that US freedoms are in jeapardy???
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
The title says it all, and anyone who ever believed that in any form is suffering from a lack of grey matter.


any one who SAYS this crap is suffering from brain matter deficiency too. :wink:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
peapod said:
ocean can you tell me where I might purchase one bullshit detector...it might save me some time :lol:
:wink: :) :wink:


( don't leave home without one.... :wink: ----- suspect it is hardwired into the brain cells. ;-)
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Ocean Breeze said:
When it comes to the current Bush administration.......it is wise to have the bullshit detector on activated mode. :wink:

That's right. The President definitely needs one to filter out all the looney bins and crackpots such as Cindy Sheenan et al. Any ideas where he can get one?

Ocean Breeze said:
"they are fighting for our freedom'???? Where does this crap come from??? :roll: Has the US lost its freedom(S))?? Or is that a confession that US freedoms are in jeapardy???

We were attacked on 9/11 because we let our guard down and took freedom for granted. Maintaining our freedom unfortunately has a price but the cost is small considering the alternative.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Please tell me how this would lead to the invasion of Iraq?? Please show your trail of bread crumbs, and don't make it up either.
Truth is you can't, this is why just about the entire world does not support your war in Iraq. It was an invasion and what gives you the right to invade another country.
 

Musicman

Electoral Member
Aug 7, 2005
220
0
16
Nascar_James said:
Ocean Breeze said:
When it comes to the current Bush administration.......it is wise to have the bullshit detector on activated mode. :wink:

That's right. The President definitely needs one to filter out all the looney bins and crackpots such as Cindy Sheenan et al. Any ideas where he can get one?

Ocean Breeze said:
"they are fighting for our freedom'???? Where does this crap come from??? :roll: Has the US lost its freedom(S))?? Or is that a confession that US freedoms are in jeapardy???

We were attacked on 9/11 because we let our guard down and took freedom for granted. Maintaining our freedom unfortunately has a price but the cost is small considering the alternative.

As you say, Nascar you were attacked. The US did NOT attack first despite the bleatings of the left. In fact, prior to 9/11, the US was attacked many times without retaliation. Only when the attackers came to the mainland US did retaliation take place. Maybe they should have retaliated after the first WTC bombing, or any of the embassy bombings, or the USS Cole. But they didn't, but still people will accuse them of warmongering. Seems to me they should have been a little more warmongering a little earlier. I suspect the families of the folks in the towers wish they had been a little quicker on the trigger.

And for the left wing, please do not forget that John Kerry supported the war and the invasion, so if you think Bush was a warmonger, then you have to include Kerry in there as well.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
peapod said:
Please tell me how this would lead to the invasion of Iraq?? Please show your trail of bread crumbs, and don't make it up either.
Truth is you can't, this is why just about the entire world does not support your war in Iraq. It was an invasion and what gives you the right to invade another country.

There were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda as far back as the Clinton Administration...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

For those who are still skeptical in regards to links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, there is the undeniable support Saddam had for the Palestinian Terrorists. Paying off the families of suicide bombers tens of thousands of dollars. A leader of any country supporting terrorists in any way deserves what he gets. He sets a bad example for his citizens and rightly deserves to be taken out of the picture. We've liberated Iraq from Saddam's brutal regime and now we unfortunately need to rid the country of terrorists.
 

Haggis McBagpipe

Walks on Forum Water
Jun 11, 2004
5,085
7
38
Victoria, B.C.
Musicman said:
The US did NOT attack first despite the bleatings of the left.

Um, let me get this straight. The Saudi terrorists attacked first, in New York... and the U.S. retaliated by attacking Iraq? Well, I guess we can just be thankful that during WW II, when the Germans bombed England, that England didn't come over and attack, say, Canada in retaliation. :lol:
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Musicman said:
Nascar_James said:
Ocean Breeze said:
When it comes to the current Bush administration.......it is wise to have the bullshit detector on activated mode. :wink:

That's right. The President definitely needs one to filter out all the looney bins and crackpots such as Cindy Sheenan et al. Any ideas where he can get one?

Ocean Breeze said:
"they are fighting for our freedom'???? Where does this crap come from??? :roll: Has the US lost its freedom(S))?? Or is that a confession that US freedoms are in jeapardy???

We were attacked on 9/11 because we let our guard down and took freedom for granted. Maintaining our freedom unfortunately has a price but the cost is small considering the alternative.

As you say, Nascar you were attacked. The US did NOT attack first despite the bleatings of the left. In fact, prior to 9/11, the US was attacked many times without retaliation. Only when the attackers came to the mainland US did retaliation take place. Maybe they should have retaliated after the first WTC bombing, or any of the embassy bombings, or the USS Cole. But they didn't, but still people will accuse them of warmongering. Seems to me they should have been a little more warmongering a little earlier. I suspect the families of the folks in the towers wish they had been a little quicker on the trigger.

And for the left wing, please do not forget that John Kerry supported the war and the invasion, so if you think Bush was a warmonger, then you have to include Kerry in there as well.

Absolutely Musicman. Couldn't have put it better myself.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Haggis McBagpipe said:
Musicman said:
The US did NOT attack first despite the bleatings of the left.

Um, let me get this straight. The Saudi terrorists attacked first, in New York... and the U.S. retaliated by attacking Iraq? Well, I guess we can just be thankful that during WW II, when the Germans bombed England, that England didn't come over and attack, say, Canada in retaliation. :lol:

I've listed a reply to this just prior to your post (one post above yours) ...
 

Haggis McBagpipe

Walks on Forum Water
Jun 11, 2004
5,085
7
38
Victoria, B.C.
Nascar_James said:
I've listed a reply to this just prior to your post (one post above yours) ...

Oh sorry, I didn't see your post before posting mine. I just tried to load that link but all it will load is the first two paragraphs... I'll try it again later.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
First off where is the date on that link?? when was that written?? lets see now so far I have come with this:

Thursday, June 24, 2004
Military Cluelessness: Washington Times Blows It...
...but maybe not quite as badly as some people think.

Several alert readers wrote in pointing out this piece from the Washington Times, including this howler:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040622-113720-3352r.htm


Within days, a four-tank squadron was rumbling toward the eastern city of Kut.


Now, as any first year tanker can tell you, four tanks do not a "squadron" make. Four tanks make up a platoon.

And as any first year tank officer can tell you, there are generally no "squadrons" at all in an armored division. Tank units have battalions, not squadrons. Only the air force and cavalry units have squadrons.


Then an 18-tank battalion entered Karbala, a holy city where precision operations were needed to spare religious shrines.


Suspect. Battalions normally have a lot more than 18 tanks. A full strength, pure tank battalion has three companies of 14 tanks each, plus a tank each for the S3 and the Battalion Commander.

But tank battalions almost never operate pure. They'll detatch one or two companies of tanks and in return pick up one or two companies of infantry.

In addition, tanks aren't worth a whole lot for most operations in Iraq. They are vulnerable in the cities, they chew up road surfaces and pavements, pulverize sidewalks, get stuck in blind alleys, have poor observation unless the TC sticks his head out the top (and renders himself extremely vulnerable to sniper fire), they burn too much gas and they're too hard to tow for convoy escort duties, they take up too much cargo space, and its too hard to bring their 120mm main guns to bear against a target in the cities without causing an obscene amount of collateral damage.

So the practice has been to take the tank crews out of their tanks and stick them in Humvees. So it's quite possible that a Battalion sized unit would be down to 14-18 tanks.

So I'm not ready to call 'gotcha' on that particular point. But any group of four tanks operating together I'd still call a platoon. The army wouldn't break up a platoon.

Rowan Scarborough's been on the beat a while. I would have thought he would have developed a grasp of rudimentary military terminology by now. Apparently not.

But we can't expect every reporter to be Ernie Pyle. Military reporters should come from a variety of backgrounds and disciplines. But, still, there ought to be someone on the fact-checking staff with enough experience and subject matter knowledge to catch something like this.

Newspapers just routinely make zero effort to recruit veterans onto their staffs. Indeed, the way newspapers recruit, military veterans who get their college degrees tend to get locked out of the industry.

Here's why:

When looking for new reporters, newspapers almost invariably want daily experience. Experience in magazine writing or in other fields typically does not count for much.

The way young people break into the newspaper business is through internships at newspapers during their college years.

But if you're going to college on an ROTC scolarship, or you have reserve commitments during college, then bang! Your summers are spoken for. There's no breaking in.

The effect is a marked underrepresentation of veterans in the newsroom.

With predictable incompetence when it comes to studying the institution.

Who loses?

Newspapers, veterans, and readers.

Who gains?

J-school types who haven't done anything else, and bring nothing to their beats, but who appreciate the job security.

Yes I will look into it more, but right now I am going roller blading for the second time in my life, nots to worry, I will hobble back if I have to just to knock you on your ass.... *whistles a tune*
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
We were attacked on 9/11 because we let our guard down and took freedom for granted. Maintaining our freedom unfortunately has a price but the cost is small considering the alternative.


The bush mantra again. Sheesh. Don't you guys stop and THINK for yourselves???

The cost of "maintaining" your freedom......is eroding your freedom as you speak.


The US was attacked by TERRORISTS. the US was NOT MILITARILY attacked to warrant a war response. dealing with terrorism is an entirely different ballgame. It is the bush cabal that decided this was such a golden opportunity and used 9-11 to further the agenda they had in mind since they took office.

How sad , that the likes of yourself don't see the truth for what it is. How sad to see, the likes of yourself buy into the bush rhetoric ( LIES) hook line and sinker. But each to his own. Bush is the only LIER in this entire scenario. Whether some of you will ever see it / or accept it ......is another story. The bush supporters (blind as they are) will continue to spin, justify and RATIONALIZE bush 's pathological conduct. .......and be willing to blindly sacrifice .......more and more .......as time goes on... Meanwhile the "freedoms" that are supposed to be protected are being eroded right in front of them .........and get this: With their blessing. The bush supporters ("yes" men/women) will rationalize this with "gotta make "sacrifices" for our freedoms......and nation. ......While BASHING and character assassinating , people who speak truths, and ask for truths. Does not get much dirtier than what "we" see now. "they" cannot argue /debate on an equal footing with the TRUTH........so they attack the person. Cheap shots .......all of it. :twisted:

Interesting process taking place.

bush the lier told his yes population, that Iraq Had WMD that posed an IMMINET threat to the US and the world at large.. And the yes people bought that lie. .......and some still say "WMD " will be found. Rather illusive aren't they?? Meanwhile bush has virtually destroyed a nation........Killed thousands , while protecting natural resources in said nation.


(an aside, but relavent)...... wanna know why the rest of the world considers most Americans "stupid"??? Most don't think for themselves, are too lazy , creature comfort oreinted to do so and simply lap up what their insane administration tells them. Most simply take the line of least resistance.....and end up uninformed,

Quite troubling to see what used to be a progressive and exciting nation deteriorate this way.
 

jjw1965

Electoral Member
Jul 8, 2005
722
0
16
Nascar_James Wrote:

We were attacked on 9/11 because we let our guard down and took freedom for granted. Maintaining our freedom unfortunately has a price but the cost is small considering the alternative.

First of all, the whole notion that we were attacked by the al-qaeda (excuse me) al-cia-duh, automatically points the finger to the US government, since the so called al-qaeda was created by the C.I.A. in the first place.
If you read on the website "Project for a new American Century" a government website, you can look up the article "rebuilding America's Defenses" written by the likes of John Bolton and Dick Cheney where they clearly talk of the difficulty of getting agendas passed, if not for "a new Pearl Harbor type event" So I think we did let our guard down, we let it down when we trusted our government to protect us in the first place!
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
That's right. The President definitely needs one to filter out all the looney bins and crackpots such as Cindy Sheenan et al. Any ideas where he can get one?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


too funny. (almost). Gotta hand it to ya guys ( bush worshippers) ..... you can put the spin on anything to favor your own basis premise. The plus is that it is so transparent , it is laughable.

Calling Cindy a crackpot is a new alltime low.......but certainly par for the name calling, branding, character assassinating neoBushcons. They know little else. and refuse to get off their butts to find out the real truths.

How on earth can anyone "respect" this kind of mentality??? Particularly in the current information age.