Well, your wish is granted. It IS obscure, in the same way the National Inquirer is obscure…as a NEWS source.
If the great Republican Propaganda Machine™ were going to roll out a new propaganda program I don’t think this obscure paper would be where they would start. One has but to look back on an ACTUAL propaganda push this administration has used…namely the run up to the Iraqi war. In that main stream news organs were used…cable/TV, radio, news print, internet.
Ravenman pointed out that the paper in question did, in fact, participate quite enthusiastically in the last propaganda push toward war. And they didn’t “start” there.
The Daily News has probably endorsed six of the last two wars that didn’t in some way involve Bill Clinton. The fact that they throw around course language with respect to a Muslim country should come about as much of a surprise as Rush Limbaugh liking donuts. Just because Rush eats another donut doesn’t mean Krispy Kreme should make plans to expand.
Yep. Just another tinfoil-hat wearing PSOE supporter whose seeing the rateching-up of the campaign mentioned in the OP. Remember, Rome wasn’t built in a week and neither was the Iraq debacle.
–
Oh, and just to brighten xt’s ever-enduring anti-Spain Crusade/Jihad day:
Just another paranoid lefty that thinks the US has sunk to levels never even imagined before. “The Good Guys”? Would that I could laugh in the face of unprovoked mass-murder…
Yes, Dems. They control Congress. So, this isn’t Bush.
An opinion piece simply repeating the stuff in the OP.
Same ol’ shit they’ve been saying for years. This is a ramp up of propaganda? I didn’t realize what amateurs these guys were… Oh, and this is Yahoo News, not part of the right wing media machine posited by the OP.
Tried twice, but couldn’t get this link to work.
I don’t know what PSOE stands for, but one news article posted on Yahoo is not what the OP promised. There is, of course, going to be a furry of news stories and administrations statements about Iran since their president is visiting this country lately. Did Bush orchestrate that visit he could ratchet-up the rhetoric?
Genocide? No way, no how. Remember it’s the Mighty US of A that sparked this horrific meat-grinder. And, as we all know, the US of A can never be wrong. Just not an option for the world’s most powerful nation.
The CS article won’t come-up for me either, John (?). But here’s the cached page so can hand-wave it away as all else that’s posted that differs from your political views. Par for the course.
US? Bush? Geneva Convention? Bwaahaha! Shit, this kind of made-for-drones press releases reminds me of when SNL was good. You know, for rather intelligent viewers.
I for one am glad that the Daily News gave Ahmadinejad a well-deserved jab in the eye. But no, I really don’t see it as a larger propaganda offense, except insofar as the panic-lobby is opportunistic.
I’ve documented that Bush has got it in his head to bomb Iran (whether he has made it a decision to do that is another matter). So you seem to be arguing that an Israeli or US bombing of Iran is probable. If this is the case, you can make big money at Intrade which puts the odds of action at about 25% (up from 20%!). It peaked at 28%, following Cheney’s sabre-rattling leaks last Sunday.
I salute Brainglutton for having the insight, caution and good sense to start this thread: while the market thinks that invasion probably will not occur, I think it’s fair to say that there’s been a pronounced shift in the media environment since then. Remember, Cheney is playing to the Joint Chiefs, rather than the American public at the moment, as documented irrefutably earlier.
LOL. Rhetoric aside, I think the Cheney story constitutes bona fide sabre-rattling, but the public propaganda offensive has yet to materialize. Then again, we’d expect that, since the admin wasn’t going to interfere with the Petreus’ PR testimony.
The Intrade data indicates a 25% chance of falling bombs. So it probably won’t happen.
But those who are sure that it won’t happen – those who use phrases like “Conspiracy theory” for example – can make a nice pile of loot at Inttrade by betting against military action.
As a reality check, the odds of military action against North Korea are down to 4% – so it’s fair to label that hypothetical adventure as a conspiracy theory in my view.
Props to Ravenman for his musings earlier this month on the reliability of Inttrade.
Well, let’s be careful to define what “it” is. I don’t know anyone who says it’s improbable that a few bombs will be lobbed. I for one think it would be a terrible thing to do, but I see it as a possibility. But the article linked in the OP defines “it” as “war with Iran”. No way. There is not going to be a war, which would consist of a ground invasion and occupation.
So let’s stop talk past each other with vague pronouncements like “it”. Tell us what “it” is, and let’s debate the details of that.
Just as a for instance, blockade is considered an act of war, and does not involve a ground invasion or occupation. A premptive thermonuclear strike would be a very sincere act of war, and wouldn’t leave anthing worth invading or occupying.
Let’s back up a little. From the Atlantic article, “A full-scale “regime change” operation has both obvious and hidden risks. The obvious ones are that the United States lacks enough manpower and equipment to take on Iran while still tied down in Iraq, and that domestic and international objections would be enormous.”
A full scale invasion before March 2008 is highly unlikely for logistical reasons alone: we don’t even have to discuss politics.
What about bombing? Same page:
Sam Gardiner is a retired General who made his living conducting such war simulations for the Pentagon.
So, yes, when the odds of Iranian bomb-lobbing within the next ~6 months top 20%, I find it highly disturbing – and Great Debateworthy.
So, “just” dropping a few bombs isn’t actually war? If Iran “just dropped a few bombs” on us, what would that be? I guess it depends on what “is” is, doesn’t it?
Oh wait! I can hear the refrain now! “But Clinton did it…”