Posted on 08/09/2003 6:11:22 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Adolf Hitler once observed that it was easier to convince people of a "big lie" repeated often enough than it was to deceive them with a lot of small ones.
In their frenzied bid to displace President Bush in 2004, leading Democrats have evidently taken to heart this tip from one of the world's most successful propagandists.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What are you thinking the "real reasons" could be?
I myself don't think the Bush admin exaggerated one bit. I don't think the American people needed to be sold on the idea of our intervention into Iraq again.
Here's the neocon letter to President Clinton urging regime change in Iraq
Notice the names of the signators. Notice also that they thought the threat from Iraq was very significant back in '98 and advocated a very specific remedy - removal of Saddam Hussein.
Despite this I continue to believe that the Administration, and the neocons, have larger goals. I'm not saying they believed that Iraq and WMDs constituted no threat. Quite the contrary. The evidence is overwhelming that the last 3 Administrations worried about Iraq. I'm saying they chose to exagerate the specifics of the threat in order to sell their policy - which was to overturn Muslim culture - because that policy couldn't be sold directly. I think that is their policy because the neocons - and many others -have argued it consistently over a long period of time, because its obvious that many, many others in the Muslim world hate our guts and would do us harm if they could, and because the Muslim world has been failing for centuries and that failure has bred hatred, frustration, envy, misery, jealosy, poverty, you name it.
The original meaning of the word has been lost. Today "neocon" is used almost entirely by the left. Often by those on the left who oppose Israel. Over 95% of Republicans support Bush on the war. Yet you try to make it seem the entire war is the work of "neocons". Why?
As I've said repeatedly, the danger comes from Muslim culture, not just Iraq and Saddam. It's this culture that breeds such people as Saddam, Osama, Khomeini, suicide bombers, Ghaddafi, etc., etc. They don't need WMDs to do us great harm - as 911 showed. Since we can't defend against boxcutters we've decided to attack the threat at its source. That's the real reason.
I'm arguing that we're trying to overturn Muslim culture and political structures and that emphasis on Iraq and WMDs is only a small part of that strategy - emphasized because it was most saleable, likely exagerated for the same reason.
I know why you're casting it in partisan terms - because the Democrats are. Of course, they are. That's the nature of politics. And they and their attitudes are the reason the Administration has to disguise its real intentions - in my view, and Stratfor's, and many others.
Well, I can't argue it any further. I could make the effort and cite many influential people who make the same argument I've been making...but I simply don't have the energy.
Actually, you were arging "the idea that the Administration exagerated the immediate dangers because its real reasons could not honestly be sold to the American public". We've already proven that "immediate" is a fantasy you and the left are trying to pass off as fact. The other part of your point is that Bush wants to "overturn Muslim Culture". That is also a fantasy. If it weren't, you wouldn't see the powers in Iraq kissing up to the Islamic leaders there.
No, Bush is going after Islamic Fundamentalism, not all of Islam. Even if he wanted to, it would be folly to declare war against over one-fifth of the population of the planet, millions of whom are residing within your own borders.
That doesn't capture all the opposition and hatred towards us in the Muslim world but - ok - Islamic fundamentalism. Where do they live? Last I looked there were plenty in Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, much of Muslim southeast Asia, at least. So Bush is going after all those countries. Right?
Culture is one of those mushy words with no real definition. But there's something about the way the Muslim world does things that's caused it to decline over the centuries by comparison with European Christian countries. And it is a world in some way - distinct from Christian Europe.
Yep, he is. So what's your point?
Think deeply. After a century or two it might come to you.
Obviously not. Why don't you tell me?
He's gone after Afghanistan and Irag. And he's going after Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, much of Muslim Southeast Asia, at least
...but not the entire Muslim world. Any clues yet?
Nope.
sigh.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.