[Mithras]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in577716.shtml

A series of letters to hometown newspapers, purportedly written by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, contain identical language, according to the Gannett News Service. The letters praise the U.S. effort to rebuild the war-torn Mideast nation.
...
Another purported letter writer contacted by Gannett, Sgt. Shawn Grueser of Poca, W.Va., said he spoken to a military public affairs officer about the situation in Iraq for what he believed was a press release to be sent to his local newspaper.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ers-usat_x.htm

Excerpts from the letters:

I have been serving in Iraq for more than five months, now as a soldier in the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, otherwise know as the "ROCK." We entered the country at midnight on the 26th of March. One thousand of my fellow soldiers and I parachuted from 10 jumbo jets (known as C17s) onto a cold, muddy field in Bashur, Northern Iraq.

Things have changed tremendously for our battalion since those first cold, wet weeks spent in the mountain city of Bashur. On April 10, our battalion conducted an attack south into the oil rich town of Kirkuk, the city that has since become our home away from home and the focus of our security and development efforts. Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms.

Astroturfing is nothing new... the only question is, where did this originate? With a mid-level military public affairs officer? Higher up? Perhaps a mid-level officer trying to meet pressure that has been placed from on high, to counteract the 'misleading' news coverage of the situation in Iraq?

[Lerkfish]

LOL! well, when in doubt, lie.
I am especially interested in the following two paragraphs from the USAtoday story, one right after the other...can we read between the lies...er...lines, folks?

Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for the Defense Department, said he was not aware of any coordinated campaign among troops to send letters supportive of the war back home. But Whitman said he would not be surprised, because many U.S. troops are discouraged that not enough positive news is being reported.

The Bush administration is engaged in a broad campaign to boost what polls show is sagging public support for the occupation in Iraq. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll released Sept. 23 found only 50% said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, down from 73% in April.

[lil'babykitten]

Heh.

[Uday's Carcass]

well, if you are in the know, and do have actual contact with Army personnel who have been there and recently come back, they will tell you that things are going a lot better than they're portrayed here.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
well, if you are in the know, and do have actual contact with Army personnel who have been there and recently come back, they will tell you that things are going a lot better than they're portrayed here.

So you're in contact with any?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
well, if you are in the know, and do have actual contact with Army personnel who have been there and recently come back, they will tell you that things are going a lot better than they're portrayed here.

I am and have, and they say the opposite: that things are WORSE than they are portrayed by the government....

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
So you're in contact with any?

Daily.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I am and have, and they say the opposite: that things are WORSE than they are portrayed by the government....

Perhaps you're talking to some from the same unit, maybe a National Guard unit. If they've been in an area with constant problems, then they'll have their own experiences. But I was speaking more generally, country-wide in Iraq. There are indeed some areas where the violence is very bad.

[Mithras]

I actually agree with Uday on this one -- I think the situation in Iraq is improving, and is actually pretty good in much of the country.

But the picture that emerges in coverage is different -- for the reasons that inner cities are portrayed as crime-ridden hellholes: an explosion and a fire make much better news than a well and a school.

So I think the picture is mixed -- yes, real progress is happening in much of Iraq, and yes, the security situation in the Sunni Triangle is quite bad. I would note that war opponents (myself included) will be caught looking foolish if we're still railing on about chaos and destruction as things continue to improve.

None of this forgives astroturfing and fraud by government officials, though.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Perhaps you're talking to some from the same unit, maybe a National Guard unit. If they've been in an area with constant problems, then they'll have their own experiences. But I was speaking more generally, country-wide in Iraq. There are indeed some areas where the violence is very bad.

yes, a national guard unit and a separate onship person. What is interesting is they BOTH say they've been instructed by their COs not to say anything negative to the press or suffer punishment. this is in two separate units.

so...how accurate can we rely on any positive information when the rank and file are being instructed to only say positive things or face difficulty?

you may be right, that in general its going ok, but in light of what I have been told...that nothing negative can be told to the press, and the astroturfing rebecca of sunnybrook farm form letter...I have quite a bit of trouble believing it on face value.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What is interesting is they BOTH say they've been instructed by their COs not to say anything negative to the press or suffer punishment. this is in two separate units

that's unfortunate. However, given the hostility of the press, it sounds like an attempt to keep these GI's from being used by the press as fodder.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
that's unfortunate. However, given the hostility of the press, it sounds like an attempt to keep these GI's from being used by the press as fodder.

yes, I'm SURE that's it.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes, I'm SURE that's it.

It makes sense. If I were a commanding officer, I wouldn't want my men talking to the press, knowing full well that the media would twist and misconstrue their quotes into whatever pathetic, pinko, liberal puke message the media wanted to spew.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
It makes sense. If I were a commanding officer, I wouldn't want my men talking to the press, knowing full well that the media would twist and misconstrue their quotes into whatever pathetic, pinko, liberal puke message the media wanted to spew.

LOL! well, tell me, what do YOU do for a living?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! well, tell me, what do YOU do for a living?

He's not living (according to his location) which would explain why most of his posts consist of pure BS.

[thunderous_funker]

Why on earth does the Liberal Media continue to think that the amount of electricity, oil production, or open schools is less important than the death and maiming of US troops or the sucide bombings of public buildings???

Just what is their nefarious agenda in paying more attention to the death and destruction of human lives??

[spacefreak]

From this Identical Letters article

Another soldier told the daily his platoon sergeant had distributed the letter and asked soldiers who agreed with it to sign it. The platoon sergeant also asked for the names of soldiers' hometown newspapers.

"Everything it said is dead accurate," the soldier said of the letter. We've done a really good job."

Much ado about nothing.

[thunderous_funker]

Except the letters were passed off as original, personal correspondence from GI's, not form letters drafted by platoon leaders and ratified by GI's.

The relative success in aspects of the occupation doesn't negate the fact that this is quite clearly a PR stunt.

The media has focused on death and destruction, much to the chagrine of those who want the occupation to be seen as successful. As much as I'm willing to concede the media is tending towards the sensational, the fact remains that soldiers getting killed and sucide bombers are much more important than knowing that schools are open and oil production is on the rise.

If its an issue of fair and balanced coverage, I'd say that Iraq gets no worse treatment than most major US urban centers. My nightly news is all cop chases, grisly crimes and consumer alerts about what products just might kill me (details at 11) and not so much about all the good things that happen to millions of citizens every single day.

Iraq gets more positive coverage from the "liberal media" than south central Los Angeles. When was the last time you heard good news from there? Guess what, hundreds of thousands of healthy, happy people live there.

[icruise]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
From this Identical Letters article


Much ado about nothing.

I think a campaign on the part of the military/government to shore up public opinion by sending letters not written by the people who supposedly wrote them (and in some cases unbeknownst to the supposed authors) is a pretty big deal, don't you?

Do Republicans ever do anything wrong in your mind? I certainly don't mindlessly back everything done by the Democrats, but it seems like no matter what comes out of Washington we get a lot of Republicans here saying "move on, no story here." How about admitting that the Bush administration makes mistakes sometimes? Even if you support them, surely they aren't infallible?

[thunderous_funker]

I pretty much agree with you, Icruise, but I think you should be careful about labeling this a "republican" thing. There are plenty of democrats in the military. Not to mention that this so far appears to be a low level campaign, not something from the Top Brass. As near as I can tell, anyway.

[icruise]

I doubt that George Bush got his cabinet together and said, "I've got a great idea to solve this whole public opinion problem..."

So yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was necessarily some master plan on the part of the administration. (If it was, it was a damned stupid one -- they couldn't even get different letters to send?)

My main point was that no matter what problems are uncovered in the Bush administration, the Republican party or the military, there is always a group of people here who poo-poo it. While it's true that the military isn't just an extension of the Republican party by any stretch of the imagination, it's also true that the Republicans have the most to protect by portraying the operation in Iraq as a success.

[Lerkfish]

the salient portion of the story is contained here:

The Bush administration is engaged in a broad campaign to boost what polls show is sagging public support for the occupation in Iraq. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll released Sept. 23 found only 50% said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, down from 73% in April.

now, considering that: Commanding officers are preventing their soldiers from relaying anything negative to the press, and highly positive fake form letters are being sent to local newspapers...

which is more plausible:

A: that (whoever) is doing so is trying to tip public opinion more in the positive direction by covering up or blanketing over the reality of the situation in Iraq...

or


B: that the military leaders are trying to protect their soldiers from being misused by the liberal pinko media?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Icruise:
....it's also true that the Republicans have the most to protect by portraying the operation in Iraq as a success.

Bingo! follow the money.
Who benefits if the situation in Iraq is portrayed more positively?
If there is a concerted effort to squelch complaints and fabricate glowing reports...who benefits, and therefore who would expend the energy to do so?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I think a campaign on the part of the military/government to shore up public opinion by sending letters not written by the people who supposedly wrote them (and in some cases unbeknownst to the supposed authors) is a pretty big deal, don't you?

Every governmental agency and department does PR. So do most large corporations, foreign governments, etc. The soldiers apparently signed on to the letter, and specified their hometown papers. They knew what the deal was, and agreed to let the campaign use their names in the spots.

Now, if the letters were signed by unknowing soldiers, then maybe I'd see your point.

Do Republicans ever do anything wrong in your mind? I certainly don't mindlessly back everything done by the Democrats, but it seems like no matter what comes out of Washington we get a lot of Republicans here saying "move on, no story here." How about admitting that the Bush administration makes mistakes sometimes?

Move on, no story here, other than the fact that liberals and Democrats so much want this to be a story.

I admit the Bush Admin makes mistakes only when (1) it is determined a mistake has been made, and (2) the source of the mistake is determined to be in the Bush Admin.

I don't see that here. I don't see Bush spending days devising a campaign such as this. He's just too damn busy to have to work on some second-rate PR spot. Same w/ Rice, Powell, Rummy, etc.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Icruise:
While it's true that the military isn't just an extension of the Republican party by any stretch of the imagination, it's also true that the Republicans have the most to protect by portraying the operation in Iraq as a success.

But the operation in Iraq IS a success. No portrayals are necessary. You and the liberal folks are the ones trying to portray it as otherwise.

Here...from someone who actually has been in Iraq:

Shake-up ignores progress

By Frank Gaffney


The White House's decision to assign the National Security Council greater responsibility for efforts to consolidate the liberation of Iraq is being portrayed as a vote of no-confidence in the people who have had lead responsibility to date: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials. President Bush's press spokesman says that is not the case. We should hope not.

During a recent trip to Iraq, I had an opportunity to see for myself what is being accomplished in that country. There is a great deal of good news to report, even though much of it is not getting the press coverage it deserves, either in this country or abroad.

For example, real progress is being made in restoring a sense of security and normalcy to the people of Iraq. Basic public services such as power, water and sewage are being brought up to and, in some cases, surpassing pre-liberation levels. This is allowing businesses to reopen and creating new opportunities for employment. Iraq's children are attending schools rebuilt and re-equipped, this time with textbooks purged of Saddam Hussein's cult of personality and hatred.

Without a doubt, the preponderance of these important accomplishments are a credit to the men and women of the American armed forces, their coalition counterparts and the growing number of Iraqi security personnel being trained and reorganized by the U.S. military. The greatest progress is being made at the local and regional levels, where uniformed and civilian Defense Department personnel have the greatest latitude to tackle problems in innovative and non-bureaucratic ways.

To be sure, there have been -- and will continue to be -- significant challenges and occasional setbacks in consolidating freedom in Iraq. It is not clear, though, that any of these will be alleviated by adding new layers of bureaucracy or by diluting the authority and responsibility of the agency that deserves credit for the greatest successes to date in liberating Iraq and assuring its future freedom: the Department of Defense.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Now, if the letters were signed by unknowing soldiers, then maybe I'd see your point.

reread both articles, particularly the USAtoday article, and you'll see that's EXACTLY what happened.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
reread both articles, particularly the USAtoday article, and you'll see that's EXACTLY what happened.

One said he didn't even sign it.

But the rest signed on to it..."When he asked other soldiers in his unit to sign it, they did," Oliver explained in an e-mail response to a GNS inquiry.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
But the operation in Iraq IS a success. No portrayals are necessary.

So you keep saying. Where are those WMDs you promised us?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
B: that the military leaders are trying to protect their soldiers from being misused by the liberal pinko media?

you forgot 'puke'.

[icruise]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
One said he didn't even sign it.

But the rest signed on to it..."When he asked other soldiers in his unit to sign it, they did," Oliver explained in an e-mail response to a GNS inquiry.

You conveniently overlook the soldier who had no idea the letter even existed until he was congratulated by his father for having "written" it. "What letter?" he says. You don't think there's something a little odd about that?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
One said he didn't even sign it.

But the rest signed on to it..."When he asked other soldiers in his unit to sign it, they did," Oliver explained in an e-mail response to a GNS inquiry.

heh. you say you could see the point if there were examples, I provide one, you continue to deny it.

here's the thing: read the content of the letter: its a FIRST PERSON ACCOUNT that relies on actual experience to make a point...when that becomes astroturf that's more than just PR spin, that's outright falsehood and deception practiced intentionally to mislead the american public.

Now, apparently you have no problem with being lied to by your goverment...you defend them again and again for doing so.
But you'll have to accept that there are others of us who are not willing to led about like mindless sheep.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
here's the thing: read the content of the letter: its a FIRST PERSON ACCOUNT that relies on actual experience to make a point...when that becomes astroturf that's more than just PR spin, that's outright falsehood and deception practiced intentionally to mislead the american public.

Then make petitions illegal as well.

Now, apparently you have no problem with being lied to by your goverment...you defend them again and again for doing so.
But you'll have to accept that there are others of us who are not willing to led about like mindless sheep.

Bwahahahaha!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Bwahahahaha!

That's eerily similar to Baaaah, baaaah.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Where are those WMDs you promised us?

I don't recall 'promising' WMDs. I said stuff was being found. No barrels of chemicals yet.

Have you read the statements made to congress by David Kay? It's more than obvious that dozens of weapons programs were ongoing and in violation of UN resolutions, including numerous violations of resoulution 1441.

Aren't you curious as to why a huge stink by the left/press wasn't made about the report?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Then make petitions illegal as well.

There is no pretense that the signatories of a petition actually composed its terms. There was a pretense that the soldiers signing their names to these letters actually wrote them.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Aren't you curious as to why a huge stink by the left/press wasn't made about the report?

What do you mean, a huge stink? You mean like this article from Fred Kaplan?

From "The U.N. Sanctions Worked":

David Kay's interim report on whether Saddam Hussein had a serious program to build weapons of mass destruction—an investigation that Kay and 1,500 agents from the Pentagon's Iraq Survey Group have been conducting for three months now—is a shockingly lame piece of work.

President Bush has insisted that the report proves Saddam "was a danger to the world" and thus vindicates the war. Secretary of State Colin Powell chimed in that the Kay report left him "even more convinced … that we did the right thing."

These statements were mustered to counter criticisms from Democratic senators who, upon reading the report, proclaimed that it proves only that Bush had no basis for whipping up prewar fears of an imminent Iraqi danger.

A close reading of the actual, unclassified report—which Kay delivered as testimony on Oct. 2 to a panel of several congressional committees—reveals not only that Bush's critics are closer to the mark, but something much more significant: that Saddam wanted and, in some cases, tried to resurrect the weapons programs that he had built in the 1980s, but that the United Nations sanctions and inspections prevented him from doing so.

...

The report cites "multiple sources" who told Pentagon agents "that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years." But there is no indication Iraq went any further. In fact, the report adds, when Saddam asked a senior military official "in either 2001 or 2002" how long it would take to produce new chemical weapons, "he responded it would take six months for mustard" gas. Another senior Iraqi official, replying to a similar request in mid-2002 from Saddam's son Odai, estimated it would take "two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin."

Though the report doesn't say so explicitly, these exchanges reveal fairly conclusively that, in 2001-02, Iraq had no ongoing CW program. Just about any country, starting from scratch, could produce mustard gas or Sarin along this timetable, given access to the materials. Nor does the report cite any indication that, after posing the question, Saddam or Odai ordered production to commence.

...

The section of the report on Saddam's nuclear aspirations is still more revealing—and disingenuous. The section begins with the Pentagon teams learning from several sources that Saddam "remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons." But read the next two sentences: "These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions."

In other words, Saddam might have restarted his nuclear-weapons program—except for the U.N. sanctions.

"At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program," the report notes.

However, the evidence that Saddam acted on this impatience is flimsy at best. "Starting around 2000," the report states, Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id, Saddam's senior atomic-energy official (who was killed during the fall of Baghdad when his driver tried to run a U.S. roadblock), "began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development."

The report adds, "These initiatives did not in and of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term." This sentence, which seems very carefully written, is so devoid of meaning that it could accurately be invoked to describe the purchase of a college-level textbook in nuclear physics.

Apparently in the Bush administration's eyes, merely wanting a WMD program is grounds for invasion.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Apparently in the Bush administration's eyes, merely wanting a WMD program is grounds for invasion.

I recall a previous thread:

[quote]Posted on : 12-06-2002 02:53 PM __

quote:
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For example, if Iraq is really convinced that Bush means it, Bush may succeed in making the inspections really effective. Under those circumstances, there probably could be no war regardless of Bush's "true intentions." Bush does still have to deliver some form of smoking gun because, in the end, he isn't a dictator.

Lerkfish: this is where our opinions are going to have to disagree. Ifirmly believe war and regime change is going to happen, come hell or high water. If Bush cannot do it through inspections, and even if Hussein rolls over completely, then we'll start to see Intelligence leaks to justify the invasion. Some way, somehow, Bush is going to get what he wants in this. Inspections are only plan A.
Why else spend all this rhetoric denouncing the UN's validity and how we do not have to wait for them, if he were not holding in reserve the intention of doing an end-run around the UN resolutions if Saddam complies with them?

I'm a lot more cynical about Bush than you are, I'm afraid. Isee too many feints within feints already being put in place for this eventuality. Troops are already being shipped over there. This is going to happen.

back then, Simey expressed that if no smoking gun were found, but we invaded anyways, that would mean Bush would be a dictator.
Interesting. The goalposts keep moving.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
There is no pretense that the signatories of a petition actually composed its terms. There was a pretense that the soldiers signing their names to these letters actually wrote them.

this bears repeating. The difference between a petition and what happened is considerable. When several people sign a petition they are not dissembling the nature of the petition.

[Lerkfish]

BACK ON TOPIC....


although this story doesn't seem on topic (in fact this story goes all over the place), further down in the story is this salient portion:

Concern about suicides

A team of U.S. mental health experts was sent to Iraq recently after several suicides were reported to see how American troops are coping with stress, a U.S. government official said Monday.

Of the 118 nonhostile deaths among American troops since the war began, 10 were from what the military calls self-inflicted wounds, and 15 other nonhostile deaths are being investigated.

There is concern regarding suicides, the official said, but a number of mental health issues are being examined, and the official refused to characterize the rate of suicide in the Iraq theater of operations.

"We monitor the number of nonhostile deaths and each one of those are investigated," said Lt. Col. George Krivo, Iraq coalition spokesman.

"I don't have specific numbers with respect to suicides. However, that is something that we pay very close attention to."

Permanent teams of psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors have been in Iraq since troops were deployed, and in this conflict, for the first time, all returning service members will undergo counseling to help them readjust to their daily lives.

now, this doesn't sound exactly like the positive impression attempted by the astroturf form blitz sent to various papers.
Sounds like there are serious problems with our troop morale. I don't revel in that fact, in fact I have relatives and friends over there, this disturbs me greatly. BUT the point is all is not roses and applebutter over there, but the administration wants us to believe it so.

[macvillage.net]

Didn't this happen for at least one other war (thinking Vietnam, but not certain).

IIRC there is a group that was believed to be behind it, but never linked.

Perhaps it was another country, but I thought it was the US.



Anyway. This idea is far from new.

[theolein]

Whether or not the American public accepts that their soldiers are happy and supportive of the effort in Iraq is probably going to be irrelevant in the long run. I think that a fair amount of reconstruction work is going on, and that even more would be going on if the guerillas woldn't keep blowing up the pipelines everytimes they're repaired. But the situation in Iraq, on the face of it, hasn't changed in months.

The governing council fights with Bremer who won't let them do anything, there are the daily killings of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

I think it's pointless. We'll see in a year if the situation has changed or improved and if the daily level of attacks on US soldiers goes down by then, but I'm not holding my breath. The media does hype bad news, but theres no smoke without fire, as the saying goes, and for the life of me, I can't imagine a country whose economy has just declined by half for the third year in a row, and whose official unemployment is going around 50% is going to be much better of in one year. Bremer wants to sell off almost all Iraqi companies to foreign investors, and then what? The economic desasters of a market oriented eastern Europe coupled with an Islamic/saddamist insurgency?

We'll see. personally I think that some or other international event will happen and make Iraq part of the world's forgotten wars, much as Afghanistan is. A conflict in N Korea would be a good candidate for that, as would a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
What do you mean, a huge stink? You mean like this article from Fred Kaplan?

No, I didn't mean a handful of articles. I meant the traditional stink - Democratic leadsership and representatives hitting every TV talkshow, front page splashes for days/weeks in every major newspaper, etc.

Apparently in the Bush administration's eyes, merely wanting a WMD program is grounds for invasion.

They were actually continuing their WMD programs, as well as developing other major armaments that were in clear violation of UN resolution 1441. Read the damn report.

As Bush said, "we must confront this threat before it becomes imminent".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
As Bush said, "we must confront this threat before it becomes imminent".

That's moving the goalposts.

First, it was possession of WMDs, imminent threat...will strike within 45 minutes, we know exactly where the WMDs are....

Then it was components of WMDs that could be put together....

Then it was plans to make WMDs

Then it was humanitarian justifications....

its easy to be right if you keep changing what you say to fit the situation.

Bush is a bald-faced liar, and anyone gullible enough to believe his changing story will believe ANYTHING as long as its said by a republican.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No, I didn't mean a handful of articles. I meant the traditional stink - Democratic leadsership and representatives hitting every TV talkshow, front page splashes for days/weeks in every major newspaper, etc.

Were this possible again without an instant branding of "Anti-American", "un-patriotic", "traitor", and "terrorist sympathizer", as appears to be the current norm, I'm sure it would happen.

-s*

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Bush is a bald-faced liar, and anyone gullible enough to believe his changing story will believe ANYTHING as long as its said by a republican.

Yea. Pretty much.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is their tolerance towards liberals.

That's really all there is. The rest is just made up propeganda from both sides. Truth is, Republicans don't eat babies. And Democrats don't intend to kill the oldest male child in each family.

[Face Ache]

This cracks me up.

News is "propaganda". Propaganda is "news".

Up = down. Round and round.

Spin, spin. Faster, faster.

Whoa I'm getting dizzy.





So... you Yanks just tolerate this propaganda huh? How much do you think seeps in?

[forkies]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
How much do you think seeps in?

far too much, and it's frightening

[Lerkfish]

Ok, this should pretty much be a source that conservatives will accept as non-liberal:

stars and stripes survey of Iraq troop morale

although I would add the caveat I always do with surveys and polls that the sample is too small, it does suggest an indication of a problem.

of interest are:

When asked how worthwhile they thought the war in Iraq was for the United States, the split among all those responding was 67 percent saying it was “worthwhile,” “probably worthwhile” or “very worthwhile,” with 31 percent saying it was of “little value” or of “no value at all.”

I didn't find yet what was listed in our local paper as "...and half saying they are unlikely to remain in the armed services after completing this hitch."

of note in the linked stars and stripes article also were the disparity in morale from Air Force to Reservists, a variance in living conditions, etc. Like was mentioned earlier in this thread, the two people I know are severely discouraged, while the person or people known by Uday have a positive morale.

I point this out because certain bush apologists tend to discount anything negative about this mission because the sources are part of a "liberal media conspiracy". What do you say now that the media is government-run, the Stars and Stripes, and still reports negative troop morale? Does that mean that you have to start calling the S & S part of the liberal media conspiracy, or do you have to accept that there is no liberal media conspiracy?

And further, back on topic, this highlights how the fraudulent form letter writing campaign is even more an intentional misleading and attempt at manipulating public opinion.