Subtlety is not one of my strengths

Welcome to Small.To v2.0
Sunday, July 15 2018

Moron Majority

PoliticTed Rall is decidedly against the war on Iraq. But that's not why I've linked to his editorial. No, what I linked to were his notes on how internal propaganda is working fabulously in this country. "Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

There is no reason to think that. None. True, George W. Bush has asserted the existence of indirect links between low-level Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officials--a lame lie repeatedly denied by the CIA (news - web sites)--but even our professional prevaricator has never gone so far as to accuse Saddam of direct involvement in 9-11."
Moron Majority | 10 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
It\'s everywhere
Authored by: dbsmall onSaturday, March 22 2003
I read on Yahoo! that Marines were tearing down posters of Wham-bam-Saddam and some had put up banners that said \"9/11 - We will never forget\". Apparently, our internal propaganda\'s working fine. Our boys are risking their lives because they think they\'re getting revenge. Of course, if we really would never forget we\'d be attacking Saudi Arabia right now. (And if we want a war for oil, the Saudis have the largest reserves in the world. Iraq\'s in second.)
Authored by: dbsmall onSaturday, March 22 2003
Now that U.S. forces are showing their dominance, approval ratings for the war being started at the right time are wayyy up. Way up. What\'s up?! Did millions of Americans doubt our military might? Do they think the war was justified if we win, but not if we encounter resistance?
Authored by: dbsmall onThursday, March 27 2003
Anyone remember George Orwell's 1984? The main thesis (as I remember) was that one could take over a society by taking over their language. That's what stuck in my head as I read this editorial:

" dialogue is possible with Washington's current leadership.

We no longer speak the same language. To them, terms like "freedom," "humanity," "democracy" and "liberation" signify the opposite of what they mean to me. I resent this theft and abuse of language."

The rest of the editorial discusses his "no war" stance, and implies that folks in favor of this war don't have his same appreciation for humanity. In that, he's likely wrong. But his statement on language struck me as telling.