This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama: A reincarnation of Nixon, but without ANY scruples,
masquerading in politically-correct black-face.

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there,
spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These
rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through
casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the
White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see
something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it
to ."

If you don't want lies responded to with facts, not making them public on
the internet for all to see is a good first step. lol

Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there,
spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These
rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through
casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the
White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see
something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it
to ."

If you don't want lies responded to with facts, not making them public on
the internet for all to see is a good first step. lol


You mean that 1000+ page bill is a lie?????
In a pig's eye.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:10:40 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over, while
ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.

What, that works for three year old children, so what's different with
Obama?

After all, he can only reply what is written on his teleprompter--He
proved his inability to form a logical or quality comment with the
comment about the police!

Robert Baer wrote:
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out
there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life
care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain
emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of
all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If
you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance
reform that seems fishy, send it to ."

If you don't want lies responded to with facts, not making them
public on the internet for all to see is a good first step. lol


You mean that 1000+ page bill is a lie?????

Wow, does it get any dumber than this? lol

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out
there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life
care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain
emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of
all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If
you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance
reform that seems fishy, send it to ."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration
asked the public to keep an eye out for potentially life threatening,
illegal, terrorist activity and report same to the appropriate
authorities the left went into an apoplectic fit screaming fascist,
fascist, but you think it's perfectly fine for people to collect and
send private communications to the White House for nothing more
threatening than expressing a political opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal activities
bad.

Bull****.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment doesn't say
only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like, or only speech Obama
deems politically appropriate or only speech Obama, in his great
wisdom. deems the one and only 'truth'. It protects SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but rebuttal. lol

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over, while
ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.
Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out
there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life
care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain
emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track
of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your
help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health
insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to ."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration
asked the public to keep an eye out for potentially life
threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and report same to the
appropriate authorities the left went into an apoplectic fit
screaming fascist, fascist, but you think it's perfectly fine for
people to collect and send private communications to the White
House for nothing more threatening than expressing a political
opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment doesn't
say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like, or only
speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only speech Obama, in
his great wisdom. deems the one and only 'truth'. It protects
SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted little
swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation of both free
speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing on
these rights convenient for stomping on it's political opposition" nor
is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution says, I
feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by statute passed by a
Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly snipped, all
of it is readily available on the Internet ranging from 'mainstream'
new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to youtube and the only schmucks
apparently not only deaf dumb and blind to the deluge of concern but
unable to google and click on a link to inform themselves are Mr.
Teachable Moment and his 'communications director'.

Pathetic lie.

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out
there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life
care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain
emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track
of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your
help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health
insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to ."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration
asked the public to keep an eye out for potentially life
threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and report same to the
appropriate authorities the left went into an apoplectic fit
screaming fascist, fascist, but you think it's perfectly fine for
people to collect and send private communications to the White
House for nothing more threatening than expressing a political
opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment doesn't
say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like, or only
speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only speech Obama, in
his great wisdom. deems the one and only 'truth'. It protects
SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted little
swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation of both free
speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing on
these rights convenient for stomping on it's political opposition" nor
is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution says, I
feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by statute passed by a
Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly snipped, all
of it is readily available on the Internet ranging from 'mainstream'
new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to youtube and the only schmucks
apparently not only deaf dumb and blind to the deluge of concern but
unable to google and click on a link to inform themselves are Mr.
Teachable Moment and his 'communications director'.

Pathetic lie.

Robert Baer wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over, while
ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.
Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

Sounds likely. =)


"The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false."


http://www.earthisland.org/project/n...77&subSiteID=4

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed

By Gar Smith / The-Edge

November 7, 2003

A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods

Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news stories
created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda apparatus.

Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts
about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador Joseph
Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender.

When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with
some serious rebound.

After Wilson wrote a critically timed New York Times essay exposing as
false George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium from
Niger, high officials in the White House contacted several Washington
reporters and leaked the news that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Wilson isn't waiting for George W. Bush to hand over the perp.

In mid-October, the former ambassador began passing copies of an
embarrassing internal report to reporters across the US.

The-Edge has received copies of this document.

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam
Gardiner.

"Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence,
Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic
Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories
about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in
a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

Gardiner has credentials.

He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the
Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish
Defense College.

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the
quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before
the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world.

Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had
conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic
influence" that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a
"meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress,
and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam
Hussein."

The multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White House
and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment
"irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal."

"Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies
to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains.

Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty,
democracy receives collateral damage."

For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological
operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is
that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic
psychological operations pushed their way into the important process
of informing the peoples of our two democracies."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to create an Office
of Strategic Influence early in 2002.

At the same time British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Strategy Director
Alastair Campbell was setting up an identical operation in London.

As soon as Pvt. Jessica Lynch was airlifted from her hospital bed, the
first call from her "rescue team" went, not to military officials but
to Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top propaganda official stationed
in Iraq.

White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic influence"
was a euphemism for disinformation.

Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the country's first Ministry of
Propaganda.

The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the
plan.

But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down,
Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred.

"If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse.
There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing
every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have."

Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that
passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill.

According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at
least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the
American and British people."

Those stories include:



The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false.

"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these
conclusions lightly," Gardiner admits.

"I'm not going to address why they did it. That's something I don't
understand even after all the research."

But the fact remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned
officials found how to control the process of governance in ways never
before possible."

A Battle between Good and Evil

Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a
very small part of the strategic influence, information operations and
marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic."

The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a
conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil.
Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.

"The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big
lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the
American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those attacks."

The means for pushing the message involved: saturating the media with
stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle;
managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use information
to attack and punish critics."

Audition in Afghanistan

The techniques that proved so successful in Operation Iraqi Freedom
were first tried out during the campaign to build public support for
the US attack on Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld hired Rendon Associates, a private PR firm that had been
deeply involved in the first Gulf War.

Founder John Rendon (who calls himself an "information warrior")
proudly boasts that he was the one responsible for providing thousands
of US flags for the Kuwaiti people to wave at TV cameras after their
"liberation" from Iraqi troops in 1991.

The White House Coalition Information Center was set up by Karen
Hughes in November 2001.

(In January 2003, the CIC was renamed the Office for Global
Communications.)

The CIC hit on a cynical plan to curry favor for its attack on
Afghanistan by highlighting "the plight of women in Afghanistan."
CIC's Jim Wilkinson later called the Afghan women campaign "the best
thing we've done."

Gardiner is quick with a correction.

The campaign "was not about something they did. It was about a story
they created... It was not a program with specific steps or funding to
improve the conditions of women."

The coordination between the propaganda engines of Washington and
London even involved the respective First Wives.

On November 17, 2001, Laura Bush issued a shocking statement:

"Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's
fingernails for wearing nail polish."

Three days later, a horrified Cherie Blaire told the London media, "In
Afghanistan, if you wear nail polish, you could have your nails torn
out."

Misleading via Innuendo

Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without
question.

Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the
"anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to
attack Iraq.

In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady
diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and Al
Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden
letters.

It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it
was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military
installation.

The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more
prominent White House "announcement."

As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax
plot continued to persist.

Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda
campaign.

"If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around."

In a successful propaganda campaign, Gardiner wrote, "We would have
expected to see the creation [of] stories to sell the policy; we would
have expected to see the same stories used on both sides of the
Atlantic. We saw both. The number of engineered or false stories from
US and UK stories is long."

The US and Britain: The Axis of Disinformation

Before the coalition invasion began on March 20, 2003, Washington and
London agreed to call their illegal pre-emptive military aggression an
"armed conflict" and to always reference the Iraqi government as the
"regime."

Strategic communications managers in both capitols issued lists of
"guidance" terms to be used in all official statements.

London's 15 Psychological Operations Group paralleled Washington's
Office of Global Communications.

In a departure from long military tradition, the perception managers
even took over the naming of the war.

Military code names were originally chosen for reasons of security.

In modern US warfare, however, military code names have become "part
of the marketing."

There was Operation Nobel Eagle, Operation Valiant Strike, Operation
Provide Comfort, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Uphold
Democracy and, finally, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The "Rescue" of Jessica Lynch

The Pentagon's control over the news surrounding the capture and
rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch receives a good deal of attention in
Gardiner's report.

"From the very beginning it was called an 'ambush'," Gardiner noted.

But, he pointed out, "If you drive a convoy into enemy lines, turn
around and drive back, it's not an ambush. Military officers who are
very careful about how they talk about operations would normally not
be sloppy about describing this kind of event," Gardiner complained.

"This un-military kind of talk is one of the reasons I began doing
this research."

One of the things that struck Gardiner as revealing was the fact that,
as Newsweek reported:

"as soon as Lynch was in the air, [the Joint Operations Center] phoned
Jim Wilkinson, the top civilian communications aide to CENTCOM Gen.
Tommy Franks."

It struck Gardiner as inexplicable that the first call after Lynch's
rescue would go to the Director of Strategic Communications, the White
House's top representative on the ground.

On the morning of April 3, the Pentagon began leaking information on
Lynch's rescue that sought to establish Lynch as "America's new
Rambo."

The Washington Post repeated the story it received from the Pentagon:
that Lynch "sustained multiple gunshot wounds" and fought fiercely and
shot several enemy soldier... firing her weapon until she ran out of
ammunition."

Lynch's family confused the issue by telling the press that their
daughter had not sustained any bullet wounds.

Lynch's parents subsequently refused to talk to the press, explaining
that they had been "told not to talk about it."

(Weeks later, the truth emerged. Lynch was neither stabbed nor shot.
She was apparently injured while falling from her vehicle.)

Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers let the story stand during an April 3 press
conference although both had been fully briefed on Lynch's true
condition.

"Again, we see the pattern," Gardiner observed.

"When the story on the street supports the message, it will be left
there by a non-answer. The message is more important than the truth.
Even Central Command kept the story alive by not giving out details."

Gardiner saw another break with procedure.

The information on the rescue that was released to the Post "would
have been very highly classified" and should have been closely
guarded. Instead, it was used as a tool to market the war.

"This was a major pattern from the beginning of the marketing campaign
throughout the war," Gardiner wrote.

"It was okay to release classified information if it supported the
message."

Robert Baer wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over, while
ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.
Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

Sounds likely. =)


"The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false."


http://www.earthisland.org/project/n...77&subSiteID=4

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed

By Gar Smith / The-Edge

November 7, 2003

A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods

Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news stories
created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda apparatus.

Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts
about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador Joseph
Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender.

When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with
some serious rebound.

After Wilson wrote a critically timed New York Times essay exposing as
false George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium from
Niger, high officials in the White House contacted several Washington
reporters and leaked the news that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Wilson isn't waiting for George W. Bush to hand over the perp.

In mid-October, the former ambassador began passing copies of an
embarrassing internal report to reporters across the US.

The-Edge has received copies of this document.

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam
Gardiner.

"Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence,
Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic
Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories
about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in
a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

Gardiner has credentials.

He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the
Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish
Defense College.

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the
quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before
the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world.

Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had
conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic
influence" that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a
"meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress,
and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam
Hussein."

The multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White House
and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment
"irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal."

"Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies
to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains.

Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty,
democracy receives collateral damage."

For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological
operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is
that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic
psychological operations pushed their way into the important process
of informing the peoples of our two democracies."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to create an Office
of Strategic Influence early in 2002.

At the same time British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Strategy Director
Alastair Campbell was setting up an identical operation in London.

As soon as Pvt. Jessica Lynch was airlifted from her hospital bed, the
first call from her "rescue team" went, not to military officials but
to Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top propaganda official stationed
in Iraq.

White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic influence"
was a euphemism for disinformation.

Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the country's first Ministry of
Propaganda.

The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the
plan.

But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down,
Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred.

"If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse.
There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing
every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have."

Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that
passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill.

According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at
least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the
American and British people."

Those stories include:



The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false.

"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these
conclusions lightly," Gardiner admits.

"I'm not going to address why they did it. That's something I don't
understand even after all the research."

But the fact remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned
officials found how to control the process of governance in ways never
before possible."

A Battle between Good and Evil

Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a
very small part of the strategic influence, information operations and
marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic."

The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a
conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil.
Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.

"The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big
lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the
American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those attacks."

The means for pushing the message involved: saturating the media with
stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle;
managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use information
to attack and punish critics."

Audition in Afghanistan

The techniques that proved so successful in Operation Iraqi Freedom
were first tried out during the campaign to build public support for
the US attack on Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld hired Rendon Associates, a private PR firm that had been
deeply involved in the first Gulf War.

Founder John Rendon (who calls himself an "information warrior")
proudly boasts that he was the one responsible for providing thousands
of US flags for the Kuwaiti people to wave at TV cameras after their
"liberation" from Iraqi troops in 1991.

The White House Coalition Information Center was set up by Karen
Hughes in November 2001.

(In January 2003, the CIC was renamed the Office for Global
Communications.)

The CIC hit on a cynical plan to curry favor for its attack on
Afghanistan by highlighting "the plight of women in Afghanistan."
CIC's Jim Wilkinson later called the Afghan women campaign "the best
thing we've done."

Gardiner is quick with a correction.

The campaign "was not about something they did. It was about a story
they created... It was not a program with specific steps or funding to
improve the conditions of women."

The coordination between the propaganda engines of Washington and
London even involved the respective First Wives.

On November 17, 2001, Laura Bush issued a shocking statement:

"Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's
fingernails for wearing nail polish."

Three days later, a horrified Cherie Blaire told the London media, "In
Afghanistan, if you wear nail polish, you could have your nails torn
out."

Misleading via Innuendo

Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without
question.

Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the
"anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to
attack Iraq.

In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady
diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and Al
Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden
letters.

It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it
was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military
installation.

The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more
prominent White House "announcement."

As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax
plot continued to persist.

Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda
campaign.

"If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around."

In a successful propaganda campaign, Gardiner wrote, "We would have
expected to see the creation [of] stories to sell the policy; we would
have expected to see the same stories used on both sides of the
Atlantic. We saw both. The number of engineered or false stories from
US and UK stories is long."

The US and Britain: The Axis of Disinformation

Before the coalition invasion began on March 20, 2003, Washington and
London agreed to call their illegal pre-emptive military aggression an
"armed conflict" and to always reference the Iraqi government as the
"regime."

Strategic communications managers in both capitols issued lists of
"guidance" terms to be used in all official statements.

London's 15 Psychological Operations Group paralleled Washington's
Office of Global Communications.

In a departure from long military tradition, the perception managers
even took over the naming of the war.

Military code names were originally chosen for reasons of security.

In modern US warfare, however, military code names have become "part
of the marketing."

There was Operation Nobel Eagle, Operation Valiant Strike, Operation
Provide Comfort, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Uphold
Democracy and, finally, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The "Rescue" of Jessica Lynch

The Pentagon's control over the news surrounding the capture and
rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch receives a good deal of attention in
Gardiner's report.

"From the very beginning it was called an 'ambush'," Gardiner noted.

But, he pointed out, "If you drive a convoy into enemy lines, turn
around and drive back, it's not an ambush. Military officers who are
very careful about how they talk about operations would normally not
be sloppy about describing this kind of event," Gardiner complained.

"This un-military kind of talk is one of the reasons I began doing
this research."

One of the things that struck Gardiner as revealing was the fact that,
as Newsweek reported:

"as soon as Lynch was in the air, [the Joint Operations Center] phoned
Jim Wilkinson, the top civilian communications aide to CENTCOM Gen.
Tommy Franks."

It struck Gardiner as inexplicable that the first call after Lynch's
rescue would go to the Director of Strategic Communications, the White
House's top representative on the ground.

On the morning of April 3, the Pentagon began leaking information on
Lynch's rescue that sought to establish Lynch as "America's new
Rambo."

The Washington Post repeated the story it received from the Pentagon:
that Lynch "sustained multiple gunshot wounds" and fought fiercely and
shot several enemy soldier... firing her weapon until she ran out of
ammunition."

Lynch's family confused the issue by telling the press that their
daughter had not sustained any bullet wounds.

Lynch's parents subsequently refused to talk to the press, explaining
that they had been "told not to talk about it."

(Weeks later, the truth emerged. Lynch was neither stabbed nor shot.
She was apparently injured while falling from her vehicle.)

Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers let the story stand during an April 3 press
conference although both had been fully briefed on Lynch's true
condition.

"Again, we see the pattern," Gardiner observed.

"When the story on the street supports the message, it will be left
there by a non-answer. The message is more important than the truth.
Even Central Command kept the story alive by not giving out details."

Gardiner saw another break with procedure.

The information on the rescue that was released to the Post "would
have been very highly classified" and should have been closely
guarded. Instead, it was used as a tool to market the war.

"This was a major pattern from the beginning of the marketing campaign
throughout the war," Gardiner wrote.

"It was okay to release classified information if it supported the
message."

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Every one of these stories was false."


You are full of ****.

Your statement is false. My statement is abso-****ing-lutely true.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Every one of these stories was false."


You are full of ****.

Your statement is false. My statement is abso-****ing-lutely true.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed


Are you Rosie O'donnell's puppy dog?

Let me guess... you don't think a plane hit the Pentagon, and you do
not believe that we sent men to the Moon 7 times, and you think that WTC
6 was a demo.

Grow up, you little pussified bitch.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed


Are you Rosie O'donnell's puppy dog?

Let me guess... you don't think a plane hit the Pentagon, and you do
not believe that we sent men to the Moon 7 times, and you think that WTC
6 was a demo.

Grow up, you little pussified bitch.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods


Like the one where Obama said there would be no more pork out of one
side of his mouth to the American people, while the other side muttered
to his buddies "Right after we get this last one in, and (pointing to the
republicans) you guys can join in too!"

Yes. He is feeding us a steady diet of lies and stupid moves. It's an
abomination. It is obvious he knows nothing about a free market economy,
and it is obvious that when ours recovers, he'll be attempting to take
credit for it. As will his party. It really is sad what the politicians
in this country have turned into, and what that is doing to certain
American mind sets.

You are all stained with ill informed, ill focused mind sets.

I call for redress! It is time to discontinue the abuse of the
American coffers under the guise of crisis management.

Obama is a liar. Most likely the worst president that ever wormed his
way into office. Thanks a lot, ACORN, you fraudulent *******s.

What did he do about gangs in Chicago when he was in the legislature
there? Oh, that's right... he was having steak dinners with his buddy
Ayers.

Let's examine Obama's bank account activity from 1994 on up. I'll bet
that right about the time of the Annenburg grants, he got a magical
raise.

Las Vegas should start running some betting games on Obaminized
society.

We won't get fooled again.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods


Like the one where Obama said there would be no more pork out of one
side of his mouth to the American people, while the other side muttered
to his buddies "Right after we get this last one in, and (pointing to the
republicans) you guys can join in too!"

Yes. He is feeding us a steady diet of lies and stupid moves. It's an
abomination. It is obvious he knows nothing about a free market economy,
and it is obvious that when ours recovers, he'll be attempting to take
credit for it. As will his party. It really is sad what the politicians
in this country have turned into, and what that is doing to certain
American mind sets.

You are all stained with ill informed, ill focused mind sets.

I call for redress! It is time to discontinue the abuse of the
American coffers under the guise of crisis management.

Obama is a liar. Most likely the worst president that ever wormed his
way into office. Thanks a lot, ACORN, you fraudulent *******s.

What did he do about gangs in Chicago when he was in the legislature
there? Oh, that's right... he was having steak dinners with his buddy
Ayers.

Let's examine Obama's bank account activity from 1994 on up. I'll bet
that right about the time of the Annenburg grants, he got a magical
raise.

Las Vegas should start running some betting games on Obaminized
society.

We won't get fooled again.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:46:41 -0700, UltimatePatriot
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed


Are you Rosie O'donnell's puppy dog?

Let me guess... you don't think a plane hit the Pentagon, and you do
not believe that we sent men to the Moon 7 times, and you think that WTC
6 was a demo.

Grow up, you little pussified bitch.


I need help. I'm agreeing with Archie. That's gotta be a sure sign
of some form of mental illness. Perhaps an enema would help. All of
the conspiracy ****wits can then suck the enema solution from my ass
instead of drinking the kool aid they're being served by the
pork-faced morons who promulgate this crap.

It's hard to accept that anyone who subscribes to the stupid
conspiracy stories can read and breathe regularly enough to stay
alive.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:46:41 -0700, UltimatePatriot
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed


Are you Rosie O'donnell's puppy dog?

Let me guess... you don't think a plane hit the Pentagon, and you do
not believe that we sent men to the Moon 7 times, and you think that WTC
6 was a demo.

Grow up, you little pussified bitch.


I need help. I'm agreeing with Archie. That's gotta be a sure sign
of some form of mental illness. Perhaps an enema would help. All of
the conspiracy ****wits can then suck the enema solution from my ass
instead of drinking the kool aid they're being served by the
pork-faced morons who promulgate this crap.

It's hard to accept that anyone who subscribes to the stupid
conspiracy stories can read and breathe regularly enough to stay
alive.

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:59:19 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform
out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of
life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via
chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't
keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking
for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web
about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to
."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration
asked the public to keep an eye out for potentially life
threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and report same to the
appropriate authorities the left went into an apoplectic fit
screaming fascist, fascist, but you think it's perfectly fine for
people to collect and send private communications to the White
House for nothing more threatening than expressing a political
opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment doesn't
say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like, or only
speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only speech Obama,
in his great wisdom. deems the one and only 'truth'. It protects
SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation of
both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing on
these rights convenient for stomping on it's political opposition"
nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution says, I
feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by statute passed by a
Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly snipped,
all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging from
'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to youtube and
the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and blind to the
deluge of concern but unable to google and click on a link to
inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his 'communications
director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:59:19 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform
out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of
life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via
chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't
keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking
for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web
about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to
."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration
asked the public to keep an eye out for potentially life
threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and report same to the
appropriate authorities the left went into an apoplectic fit
screaming fascist, fascist, but you think it's perfectly fine for
people to collect and send private communications to the White
House for nothing more threatening than expressing a political
opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment doesn't
say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like, or only
speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only speech Obama,
in his great wisdom. deems the one and only 'truth'. It protects
SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation of
both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing on
these rights convenient for stomping on it's political opposition"
nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution says, I
feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by statute passed by a
Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly snipped,
all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging from
'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to youtube and
the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and blind to the
deluge of concern but unable to google and click on a link to
inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his 'communications
director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over,
while ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.
Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

Sounds likely. =)

Congratulations. You just did a near perfect imitation of Hitler and
Goebbles.

translation: drooool



"The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false."


http://www.earthisland.org/project/n...77&subSiteID=4

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed

By Gar Smith / The-Edge

November 7, 2003

A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods

Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news
stories created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda
apparatus.

Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts
about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador
Joseph Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender.

When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with
some serious rebound.

After Wilson wrote a critically timed New York Times essay exposing
as false George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium from
Niger, high officials in the White House contacted several Washington
reporters and leaked the news that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Wilson isn't waiting for George W. Bush to hand over the perp.

In mid-October, the former ambassador began passing copies of an
embarrassing internal report to reporters across the US.

The-Edge has received copies of this document.

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam
Gardiner.

"Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence,
Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic
Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories
about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists
in a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

Gardiner has credentials.

He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and
the Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish
Defense College.

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the
quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before
the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world.

Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had
conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic
influence" that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a
"meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress,
and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam
Hussein."

The multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White
House and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment
"irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal."

"Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies
to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains.

Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty,
democracy receives collateral damage."

For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological
operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is
that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic
psychological operations pushed their way into the important process
of informing the peoples of our two democracies."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to create an Office
of Strategic Influence early in 2002.

At the same time British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Strategy
Director Alastair Campbell was setting up an identical operation in
London.

As soon as Pvt. Jessica Lynch was airlifted from her hospital bed,
the first call from her "rescue team" went, not to military
officials but to Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top propaganda
official stationed in Iraq.

White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic
influence" was a euphemism for disinformation.

Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the country's first Ministry of
Propaganda.

The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the
plan.

But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down,
Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred.

"If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse.
There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing
every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have."

Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that
passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill.

According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at
least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the
American and British people."

Those stories include:



The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false.

"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these
conclusions lightly," Gardiner admits.

"I'm not going to address why they did it. That's something I don't
understand even after all the research."

But the fact remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned
officials found how to control the process of governance in ways
never before possible."

A Battle between Good and Evil

Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a
very small part of the strategic influence, information operations
and marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic."

The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a
conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil.
Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.

"The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big
lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the
American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those
attacks."

The means for pushing the message involved: saturating the media with
stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle;
managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use
information to attack and punish critics."

Audition in Afghanistan

The techniques that proved so successful in Operation Iraqi Freedom
were first tried out during the campaign to build public support for
the US attack on Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld hired Rendon Associates, a private PR firm that had been
deeply involved in the first Gulf War.

Founder John Rendon (who calls himself an "information warrior")
proudly boasts that he was the one responsible for providing
thousands of US flags for the Kuwaiti people to wave at TV cameras
after their "liberation" from Iraqi troops in 1991.

The White House Coalition Information Center was set up by Karen
Hughes in November 2001.

(In January 2003, the CIC was renamed the Office for Global
Communications.)

The CIC hit on a cynical plan to curry favor for its attack on
Afghanistan by highlighting "the plight of women in Afghanistan."
CIC's Jim Wilkinson later called the Afghan women campaign "the best
thing we've done."

Gardiner is quick with a correction.

The campaign "was not about something they did. It was about a story
they created... It was not a program with specific steps or funding
to improve the conditions of women."

The coordination between the propaganda engines of Washington and
London even involved the respective First Wives.

On November 17, 2001, Laura Bush issued a shocking statement:

"Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's
fingernails for wearing nail polish."

Three days later, a horrified Cherie Blaire told the London media,
"In Afghanistan, if you wear nail polish, you could have your nails
torn out."

Misleading via Innuendo

Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without
question.

Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the
"anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to
attack Iraq.

In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady
diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and
Al Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden
letters.

It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it
was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military
installation.

The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more
prominent White House "announcement."

As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax
plot continued to persist.

Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda
campaign.

"If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around."

In a successful propaganda campaign, Gardiner wrote, "We would have
expected to see the creation [of] stories to sell the policy; we
would have expected to see the same stories used on both sides of the
Atlantic. We saw both. The number of engineered or false stories from
US and UK stories is long."

The US and Britain: The Axis of Disinformation

Before the coalition invasion began on March 20, 2003, Washington and
London agreed to call their illegal pre-emptive military aggression
an "armed conflict" and to always reference the Iraqi government as
the "regime."

Strategic communications managers in both capitols issued lists of
"guidance" terms to be used in all official statements.

London's 15 Psychological Operations Group paralleled Washington's
Office of Global Communications.

In a departure from long military tradition, the perception managers
even took over the naming of the war.

Military code names were originally chosen for reasons of security.

In modern US warfare, however, military code names have become "part
of the marketing."

There was Operation Nobel Eagle, Operation Valiant Strike, Operation
Provide Comfort, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Uphold
Democracy and, finally, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The "Rescue" of Jessica Lynch

The Pentagon's control over the news surrounding the capture and
rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch receives a good deal of attention in
Gardiner's report.

"From the very beginning it was called an 'ambush'," Gardiner noted.

But, he pointed out, "If you drive a convoy into enemy lines, turn
around and drive back, it's not an ambush. Military officers who are
very careful about how they talk about operations would normally not
be sloppy about describing this kind of event," Gardiner complained.

"This un-military kind of talk is one of the reasons I began doing
this research."

One of the things that struck Gardiner as revealing was the fact
that, as Newsweek reported:

"as soon as Lynch was in the air, [the Joint Operations Center]
phoned Jim Wilkinson, the top civilian communications aide to
CENTCOM Gen. Tommy Franks."

It struck Gardiner as inexplicable that the first call after Lynch's
rescue would go to the Director of Strategic Communications, the
White House's top representative on the ground.

On the morning of April 3, the Pentagon began leaking information on
Lynch's rescue that sought to establish Lynch as "America's new
Rambo."

The Washington Post repeated the story it received from the Pentagon:
that Lynch "sustained multiple gunshot wounds" and fought fiercely
and shot several enemy soldier... firing her weapon until she ran
out of ammunition."

Lynch's family confused the issue by telling the press that their
daughter had not sustained any bullet wounds.

Lynch's parents subsequently refused to talk to the press, explaining
that they had been "told not to talk about it."

(Weeks later, the truth emerged. Lynch was neither stabbed nor shot.
She was apparently injured while falling from her vehicle.)

Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers let the story stand during an April 3 press
conference although both had been fully briefed on Lynch's true
condition.

"Again, we see the pattern," Gardiner observed.

"When the story on the street supports the message, it will be left
there by a non-answer. The message is more important than the truth.
Even Central Command kept the story alive by not giving out details."

Gardiner saw another break with procedure.

The information on the rescue that was released to the Post "would
have been very highly classified" and should have been closely
guarded. Instead, it was used as a tool to market the war.

"This was a major pattern from the beginning of the marketing
campaign throughout the war," Gardiner wrote.

"It was okay to release classified information if it supported the
message."

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over,
while ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.
Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

Sounds likely. =)

Congratulations. You just did a near perfect imitation of Hitler and
Goebbles.

translation: drooool



"The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false."


http://www.earthisland.org/project/n...77&subSiteID=4

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed

By Gar Smith / The-Edge

November 7, 2003

A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods

Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news
stories created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda
apparatus.

Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts
about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador
Joseph Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender.

When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with
some serious rebound.

After Wilson wrote a critically timed New York Times essay exposing
as false George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium from
Niger, high officials in the White House contacted several Washington
reporters and leaked the news that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Wilson isn't waiting for George W. Bush to hand over the perp.

In mid-October, the former ambassador began passing copies of an
embarrassing internal report to reporters across the US.

The-Edge has received copies of this document.

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam
Gardiner.

"Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence,
Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic
Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories
about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists
in a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

Gardiner has credentials.

He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and
the Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish
Defense College.

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the
quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before
the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world.

Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had
conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic
influence" that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a
"meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress,
and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam
Hussein."

The multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White
House and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment
"irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal."

"Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies
to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains.

Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty,
democracy receives collateral damage."

For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological
operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is
that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic
psychological operations pushed their way into the important process
of informing the peoples of our two democracies."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to create an Office
of Strategic Influence early in 2002.

At the same time British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Strategy
Director Alastair Campbell was setting up an identical operation in
London.

As soon as Pvt. Jessica Lynch was airlifted from her hospital bed,
the first call from her "rescue team" went, not to military
officials but to Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top propaganda
official stationed in Iraq.

White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic
influence" was a euphemism for disinformation.

Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the country's first Ministry of
Propaganda.

The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the
plan.

But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down,
Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred.

"If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse.
There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing
every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have."

Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that
passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill.

According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at
least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the
American and British people."

Those stories include:



The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false.

"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these
conclusions lightly," Gardiner admits.

"I'm not going to address why they did it. That's something I don't
understand even after all the research."

But the fact remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned
officials found how to control the process of governance in ways
never before possible."

A Battle between Good and Evil

Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a
very small part of the strategic influence, information operations
and marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic."

The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a
conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil.
Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.

"The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big
lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the
American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those
attacks."

The means for pushing the message involved: saturating the media with
stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle;
managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use
information to attack and punish critics."

Audition in Afghanistan

The techniques that proved so successful in Operation Iraqi Freedom
were first tried out during the campaign to build public support for
the US attack on Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld hired Rendon Associates, a private PR firm that had been
deeply involved in the first Gulf War.

Founder John Rendon (who calls himself an "information warrior")
proudly boasts that he was the one responsible for providing
thousands of US flags for the Kuwaiti people to wave at TV cameras
after their "liberation" from Iraqi troops in 1991.

The White House Coalition Information Center was set up by Karen
Hughes in November 2001.

(In January 2003, the CIC was renamed the Office for Global
Communications.)

The CIC hit on a cynical plan to curry favor for its attack on
Afghanistan by highlighting "the plight of women in Afghanistan."
CIC's Jim Wilkinson later called the Afghan women campaign "the best
thing we've done."

Gardiner is quick with a correction.

The campaign "was not about something they did. It was about a story
they created... It was not a program with specific steps or funding
to improve the conditions of women."

The coordination between the propaganda engines of Washington and
London even involved the respective First Wives.

On November 17, 2001, Laura Bush issued a shocking statement:

"Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's
fingernails for wearing nail polish."

Three days later, a horrified Cherie Blaire told the London media,
"In Afghanistan, if you wear nail polish, you could have your nails
torn out."

Misleading via Innuendo

Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without
question.

Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the
"anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to
attack Iraq.

In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady
diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and
Al Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden
letters.

It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it
was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military
installation.

The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more
prominent White House "announcement."

As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax
plot continued to persist.

Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda
campaign.

"If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around."

In a successful propaganda campaign, Gardiner wrote, "We would have
expected to see the creation [of] stories to sell the policy; we
would have expected to see the same stories used on both sides of the
Atlantic. We saw both. The number of engineered or false stories from
US and UK stories is long."

The US and Britain: The Axis of Disinformation

Before the coalition invasion began on March 20, 2003, Washington and
London agreed to call their illegal pre-emptive military aggression
an "armed conflict" and to always reference the Iraqi government as
the "regime."

Strategic communications managers in both capitols issued lists of
"guidance" terms to be used in all official statements.

London's 15 Psychological Operations Group paralleled Washington's
Office of Global Communications.

In a departure from long military tradition, the perception managers
even took over the naming of the war.

Military code names were originally chosen for reasons of security.

In modern US warfare, however, military code names have become "part
of the marketing."

There was Operation Nobel Eagle, Operation Valiant Strike, Operation
Provide Comfort, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Uphold
Democracy and, finally, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The "Rescue" of Jessica Lynch

The Pentagon's control over the news surrounding the capture and
rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch receives a good deal of attention in
Gardiner's report.

"From the very beginning it was called an 'ambush'," Gardiner noted.

But, he pointed out, "If you drive a convoy into enemy lines, turn
around and drive back, it's not an ambush. Military officers who are
very careful about how they talk about operations would normally not
be sloppy about describing this kind of event," Gardiner complained.

"This un-military kind of talk is one of the reasons I began doing
this research."

One of the things that struck Gardiner as revealing was the fact
that, as Newsweek reported:

"as soon as Lynch was in the air, [the Joint Operations Center]
phoned Jim Wilkinson, the top civilian communications aide to
CENTCOM Gen. Tommy Franks."

It struck Gardiner as inexplicable that the first call after Lynch's
rescue would go to the Director of Strategic Communications, the
White House's top representative on the ground.

On the morning of April 3, the Pentagon began leaking information on
Lynch's rescue that sought to establish Lynch as "America's new
Rambo."

The Washington Post repeated the story it received from the Pentagon:
that Lynch "sustained multiple gunshot wounds" and fought fiercely
and shot several enemy soldier... firing her weapon until she ran
out of ammunition."

Lynch's family confused the issue by telling the press that their
daughter had not sustained any bullet wounds.

Lynch's parents subsequently refused to talk to the press, explaining
that they had been "told not to talk about it."

(Weeks later, the truth emerged. Lynch was neither stabbed nor shot.
She was apparently injured while falling from her vehicle.)

Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers let the story stand during an April 3 press
conference although both had been fully briefed on Lynch's true
condition.

"Again, we see the pattern," Gardiner observed.

"When the story on the street supports the message, it will be left
there by a non-answer. The message is more important than the truth.
Even Central Command kept the story alive by not giving out details."

Gardiner saw another break with procedure.

The information on the rescue that was released to the Post "would
have been very highly classified" and should have been closely
guarded. Instead, it was used as a tool to market the war.

"This was a major pattern from the beginning of the marketing
campaign throughout the war," Gardiner wrote.

"It was okay to release classified information if it supported the
message."

UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Every one of these stories was false."


You are full of ****.

Your statement is false. My statement is abso-****ing-lutely true.

translation: droool

UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Every one of these stories was false."


You are full of ****.

Your statement is false. My statement is abso-****ing-lutely true.

translation: droool

UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed


Are you Rosie O'donnell's puppy dog?

Let me guess... you don't think a plane hit the Pentagon, and you do
not believe that we sent men to the Moon 7 times, and you think that
WTC 6 was a demo.

Grow up, you little pussified bitch.

translation: drooool

UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed


Are you Rosie O'donnell's puppy dog?

Let me guess... you don't think a plane hit the Pentagon, and you do
not believe that we sent men to the Moon 7 times, and you think that
WTC 6 was a demo.

Grow up, you little pussified bitch.

translation: drooool

UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods


Like the one where Obama said there would be no more pork out of one
side of his mouth to the American people, while the other side
muttered to his buddies "Right after we get this last one in, and
(pointing to the republicans) you guys can join in too!"

You have forgotten the stimulus bill predated Obama's inauguration. lol

Yes. He is feeding us a steady diet of lies and stupid moves. It's
an abomination. It is obvious he knows nothing about a free market
economy, and it is obvious that when ours recovers, he'll be
attempting to take credit for it. As will his party. It really is
sad what the politicians in this country have turned into, and what
that is doing to certain American mind sets.

You are all stained with ill informed, ill focused mind sets.

I call for redress! It is time to discontinue the abuse of the
American coffers under the guise of crisis management.

Obama is a liar. Most likely the worst president that ever wormed his
way into office.

No, Bush's habit of lying to us all on every single issue thumps that
easily.

Thanks a lot, ACORN, you fraudulent *******s.

Sorry, no actual vote fraud from ACORN. Registration fraud, which ACORN
caught and tagged as fraudulent, cannot skew an election until the
individuals fraudulently registered vote.

Of course, I don't expect actual knowledge of the issues from someone with
your posting record.

UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods


Like the one where Obama said there would be no more pork out of one
side of his mouth to the American people, while the other side
muttered to his buddies "Right after we get this last one in, and
(pointing to the republicans) you guys can join in too!"

You have forgotten the stimulus bill predated Obama's inauguration. lol

Yes. He is feeding us a steady diet of lies and stupid moves. It's
an abomination. It is obvious he knows nothing about a free market
economy, and it is obvious that when ours recovers, he'll be
attempting to take credit for it. As will his party. It really is
sad what the politicians in this country have turned into, and what
that is doing to certain American mind sets.

You are all stained with ill informed, ill focused mind sets.

I call for redress! It is time to discontinue the abuse of the
American coffers under the guise of crisis management.

Obama is a liar. Most likely the worst president that ever wormed his
way into office.

No, Bush's habit of lying to us all on every single issue thumps that
easily.

Thanks a lot, ACORN, you fraudulent *******s.

Sorry, no actual vote fraud from ACORN. Registration fraud, which ACORN
caught and tagged as fraudulent, cannot skew an election until the
individuals fraudulently registered vote.

Of course, I don't expect actual knowledge of the issues from someone with
your posting record.

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:40:18 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over, while
ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.

Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

That's commonly thought but Hitler's oft quoted commentary on the
subject, expressed in Mein Kampf, was the "Big Lie" theory.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in
itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the
small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be
so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and
waver and will continue to think that there may be some other
explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind
it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all
expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art
of lying."

-Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Interestingly enough, that quote is often taken out of context
because, it one looks at the preceding paragraph, he is actually
accusing 'the Jews and Marxists' of doing that.

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for
falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to Justice."

That doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a liar, only that you can't 'prove' it
by using a quote where he's accusing the Jews and Marxists of being
liars.

Goebbels included both 'repetition' and 'big lie' in his theory but
there's no doubt of his intent.

""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

In this day where there is much discussion about 'the role of
government' it is interesting to note that Goebbles theory prizes
vitality of the State and he apparently concludes the State must, of
necessity, lie and, so, it is (or else it would not be) "vitally
important' for the State to repress truth and dissent.

A Constitutional democracy is diametrically opposite. It prizes the
vitality of the people and the 'State' comes and goes at their will.

Goebbels, again, on repetition

""The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must
confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

The modern left adds their own twist to the technique: regardless of
what they say accuse all dissenters of lying and, as Sen Hillary
Clinton demonstrated with Gen Petreus, do so before they even speak.

I often wax long and hard about logic and fallacies

Not as long as you do when using them. =)

flipper wrote:

Obama's oft repeated claim is you will be able to keep your current
plan, if you like, or chose the government plan.

Now, as I said from the get go, his words are 'technically correct'
but what he intentionally leads one to believe is you will have the
choice of any plan you 'like'

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:40:18 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over, while
ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.

Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

That's commonly thought but Hitler's oft quoted commentary on the
subject, expressed in Mein Kampf, was the "Big Lie" theory.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in
itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the
small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be
so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and
waver and will continue to think that there may be some other
explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind
it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all
expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art
of lying."

-Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Interestingly enough, that quote is often taken out of context
because, it one looks at the preceding paragraph, he is actually
accusing 'the Jews and Marxists' of doing that.

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for
falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to Justice."

That doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a liar, only that you can't 'prove' it
by using a quote where he's accusing the Jews and Marxists of being
liars.

Goebbels included both 'repetition' and 'big lie' in his theory but
there's no doubt of his intent.

""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

In this day where there is much discussion about 'the role of
government' it is interesting to note that Goebbles theory prizes
vitality of the State and he apparently concludes the State must, of
necessity, lie and, so, it is (or else it would not be) "vitally
important' for the State to repress truth and dissent.

A Constitutional democracy is diametrically opposite. It prizes the
vitality of the people and the 'State' comes and goes at their will.

Goebbels, again, on repetition

""The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must
confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

The modern left adds their own twist to the technique: regardless of
what they say accuse all dissenters of lying and, as Sen Hillary
Clinton demonstrated with Gen Petreus, do so before they even speak.

I often wax long and hard about logic and fallacies

Not as long as you do when using them. =)

flipper wrote:

Obama's oft repeated claim is you will be able to keep your current
plan, if you like, or chose the government plan.

Now, as I said from the get go, his words are 'technically correct'
but what he intentionally leads one to believe is you will have the
choice of any plan you 'like'

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:47:22 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:41:48 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
[snip]

The modern left adds their own twist to the technique: regardless of
what they say accuse all dissenters of lying and, as Sen Hillary
Clinton demonstrated with Gen Petreus, do so before they even speak.

I often wax long and hard about logic and fallacies

Not as long as you do when using them. =)

You just demonstrated two of your, and the left's, favorites: hurling
an accusation with no evidence whatsoever and the dishonest tactic of
partial quote.

Made even more irrational because you didn't even have anything of
substance to dispute. Just 'hurling' for the sake of 'hurling'.

[snip]

"Hurling", politically correctness for "upchucking" ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama was elected by a clear vote of the people.

So do we conclude he's doing what the people wanted him to to do?

Likewise Hitler was elected by a clear vote of the people.

See the similarities?

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:47:22 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:41:48 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
[snip]

The modern left adds their own twist to the technique: regardless of
what they say accuse all dissenters of lying and, as Sen Hillary
Clinton demonstrated with Gen Petreus, do so before they even speak.

I often wax long and hard about logic and fallacies

Not as long as you do when using them. =)

You just demonstrated two of your, and the left's, favorites: hurling
an accusation with no evidence whatsoever and the dishonest tactic of
partial quote.

Made even more irrational because you didn't even have anything of
substance to dispute. Just 'hurling' for the sake of 'hurling'.

[snip]

"Hurling", politically correctness for "upchucking" ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Obama was elected by a clear vote of the people.

So do we conclude he's doing what the people wanted him to to do?

Likewise Hitler was elected by a clear vote of the people.

See the similarities?

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:33:25 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:59:19 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform
out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of
life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface
via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we
can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're
asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on
the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send
it to ."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush
Administration asked the public to keep an eye out for
potentially life threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and
report same to the appropriate authorities the left went into
an apoplectic fit screaming fascist, fascist, but you think
it's perfectly fine for people to collect and send private
communications to the White House for nothing more threatening
than expressing a political opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment
doesn't say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like,
or only speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only
speech Obama, in his great wisdom. deems the one and only
'truth'. It protects SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation of
both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing
on these rights convenient for stomping on it's political
opposition" nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution says, I
feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by statute passed
by a Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly snipped,
all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging from
'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to youtube and
the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and blind to the
deluge of concern but unable to google and click on a link to
inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his 'communications
director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol



What I mean is exactly what I said. You speak like a good loyal
fascist.

More nothing from the nothng.

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:33:25 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:59:19 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform
out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of
life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface
via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we
can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're
asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on
the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send
it to ."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush
Administration asked the public to keep an eye out for
potentially life threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and
report same to the appropriate authorities the left went into
an apoplectic fit screaming fascist, fascist, but you think
it's perfectly fine for people to collect and send private
communications to the White House for nothing more threatening
than expressing a political opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment
doesn't say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like,
or only speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only
speech Obama, in his great wisdom. deems the one and only
'truth'. It protects SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation of
both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing
on these rights convenient for stomping on it's political
opposition" nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution says, I
feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by statute passed
by a Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly snipped,
all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging from
'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to youtube and
the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and blind to the
deluge of concern but unable to google and click on a link to
inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his 'communications
director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol



What I mean is exactly what I said. You speak like a good loyal
fascist.

More nothing from the nothng.

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:41:48 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:40:18 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over,
while ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.

Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

That's commonly thought but Hitler's oft quoted commentary on the
subject, expressed in Mein Kampf, was the "Big Lie" theory.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in
itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the
small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths,
and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to
distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove
this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will
still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be
some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves
traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which
is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire
together in the art of lying."

-Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Interestingly enough, that quote is often taken out of context
because, it one looks at the preceding paragraph, he is actually
accusing 'the Jews and Marxists' of doing that.

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for
falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to Justice."

That doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a liar, only that you can't 'prove'
it by using a quote where he's accusing the Jews and Marxists of
being liars.

Goebbels included both 'repetition' and 'big lie' in his theory but
there's no doubt of his intent.

""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

In this day where there is much discussion about 'the role of
government' it is interesting to note that Goebbles theory prizes
vitality of the State and he apparently concludes the State must, of
necessity, lie and, so, it is (or else it would not be) "vitally
important' for the State to repress truth and dissent.

A Constitutional democracy is diametrically opposite. It prizes the
vitality of the people and the 'State' comes and goes at their will.

Goebbels, again, on repetition

""The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it
must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

The modern left adds their own twist to the technique: regardless of
what they say accuse all dissenters of lying and, as Sen Hillary
Clinton demonstrated with Gen Petreus, do so before they even speak.

I often wax long and hard about logic and fallacies

Not as long as you do when using them. =)

You just demonstrated two of your, and the left's, favorites: hurling
an accusation with no evidence whatsoever

Made-up crazyassed crap.

flipper wrote:

Obama's oft repeated claim is you will be able to keep your current
plan, if you like, or chose the government plan.

Now, as I said from the get go, his words are 'technically correct'
but what he intentionally leads one to believe is you will have the
choice of any plan you 'like'



and the dishonest tactic of
partial quote.

Sorry, straw man arguments have beginnings and ends. lol

Continue squealing.

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:41:48 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:40:18 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over,
while ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.

Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

That's commonly thought but Hitler's oft quoted commentary on the
subject, expressed in Mein Kampf, was the "Big Lie" theory.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in
itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the
small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths,
and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to
distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove
this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will
still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be
some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves
traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which
is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire
together in the art of lying."

-Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Interestingly enough, that quote is often taken out of context
because, it one looks at the preceding paragraph, he is actually
accusing 'the Jews and Marxists' of doing that.

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for
falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to Justice."

That doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a liar, only that you can't 'prove'
it by using a quote where he's accusing the Jews and Marxists of
being liars.

Goebbels included both 'repetition' and 'big lie' in his theory but
there's no doubt of his intent.

""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

In this day where there is much discussion about 'the role of
government' it is interesting to note that Goebbles theory prizes
vitality of the State and he apparently concludes the State must, of
necessity, lie and, so, it is (or else it would not be) "vitally
important' for the State to repress truth and dissent.

A Constitutional democracy is diametrically opposite. It prizes the
vitality of the people and the 'State' comes and goes at their will.

Goebbels, again, on repetition

""The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it
must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

The modern left adds their own twist to the technique: regardless of
what they say accuse all dissenters of lying and, as Sen Hillary
Clinton demonstrated with Gen Petreus, do so before they even speak.

I often wax long and hard about logic and fallacies

Not as long as you do when using them. =)

You just demonstrated two of your, and the left's, favorites: hurling
an accusation with no evidence whatsoever

Made-up crazyassed crap.

flipper wrote:

Obama's oft repeated claim is you will be able to keep your current
plan, if you like, or chose the government plan.

Now, as I said from the get go, his words are 'technically correct'
but what he intentionally leads one to believe is you will have the
choice of any plan you 'like'



and the dishonest tactic of
partial quote.

Sorry, straw man arguments have beginnings and ends. lol

Continue squealing.

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:35:40 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:33:25 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:59:19 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance
reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances
to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below
the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.
Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White
House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or
see something on the web about health insurance reform that
seems fishy, send it to ."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush
Administration asked the public to keep an eye out for
potentially life threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and
report same to the appropriate authorities the left went into
an apoplectic fit screaming fascist, fascist, but you think
it's perfectly fine for people to collect and send private
communications to the White House for nothing more threatening
than expressing a political opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment
doesn't say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like,
or only speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only
speech Obama, in his great wisdom. deems the one and only
'truth'. It protects SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation
of both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing
on these rights convenient for stomping on it's political
opposition" nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution
says, I feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by
statute passed by a Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly
snipped, all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging
from 'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to
youtube and the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and
blind to the deluge of concern but unable to google and click
on a link to inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his
'communications director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol



What I mean is exactly what I said. You speak like a good loyal
fascist.

More nothing from the nothng.


So you being a fascist is "nothing."

You speak like a good loyal fascist.

More nothing from the nothing.

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:35:40 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:33:25 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:59:19 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance
reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances
to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below
the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.
Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White
House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or
see something on the web about health insurance reform that
seems fishy, send it to ."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush
Administration asked the public to keep an eye out for
potentially life threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and
report same to the appropriate authorities the left went into
an apoplectic fit screaming fascist, fascist, but you think
it's perfectly fine for people to collect and send private
communications to the White House for nothing more threatening
than expressing a political opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment
doesn't say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like,
or only speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only
speech Obama, in his great wisdom. deems the one and only
'truth'. It protects SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation
of both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing
on these rights convenient for stomping on it's political
opposition" nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution
says, I feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by
statute passed by a Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly
snipped, all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging
from 'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to
youtube and the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and
blind to the deluge of concern but unable to google and click
on a link to inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his
'communications director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol



What I mean is exactly what I said. You speak like a good loyal
fascist.

More nothing from the nothng.


So you being a fascist is "nothing."

You speak like a good loyal fascist.

More nothing from the nothing.

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:35:40 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:33:25 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:59:19 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:31:56 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Bull****.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance
reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances
to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below
the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.
Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White
House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or
see something on the web about health insurance reform that
seems fishy, send it to ."

You are such a good little mind numbed robot.

When, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush
Administration asked the public to keep an eye out for
potentially life threatening, illegal, terrorist activity and
report same to the appropriate authorities the left went into
an apoplectic fit screaming fascist, fascist, but you think
it's perfectly fine for people to collect and send private
communications to the White House for nothing more threatening
than expressing a political opinion Obama doesn't like.

Let's see, the left says reporting life threatening illegal
activities bad.

Bull****.

and the left is full of it.


Hate to burst your fascist bubble but the First Amendment
doesn't say only speech Obama likes, or only speech you like,
or only speech Obama deems politically appropriate or only
speech Obama, in his great wisdom. deems the one and only
'truth'. It protects SPEECH.

Only a complete idiot would think this is for anything but
rebuttal. lol

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation
of both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing
on these rights convenient for stomping on it's political
opposition" nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution
says, I feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by
statute passed by a Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol


And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly
snipped, all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging
from 'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to
youtube and the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and
blind to the deluge of concern but unable to google and click
on a link to inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his
'communications director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol



What I mean is exactly what I said. You speak like a good loyal
fascist.

More nothing from the nothng.


So you being a fascist is "nothing."

You speak like a good loyal fascist.

More nothing from the nothing.