What Propaganda is like in the USA

Sunday February 02, 2003 00:49

by redJaDe

I just had to share this clip of Peggy Noonan, former Democrat turned speech writer for Reagan, now a drivel columnist. There's nothing tongue-in-cheek about this opinion piece.

The Right Man by Peggy Noonan

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002995

''...This, truly, is a good man. And that is a rare thing. Agree with Mr. Bush's stands or disagree, there can be no doubting the depth of his seriousness and the degree to which he attempts to do what he is convinced is right, and to lead his country toward that vision of rightness. We have had many unusual men as president and some seemed like a gift and some didn't. Mr. Bush seems uniquely resolved to be as courageous as the times require and as helpful as they allow. There is a profound authenticity to him, and a fearlessness too.

A steady hand on the helm in high seas, a knowledge of where we must go and why, a resolve to achieve safe harbor. More and more this presidency is feeling like a gift. ''

save preference

Comments (5 of 5)

Re: better sources

by Terry

Mon Feb 03, 2003 13:37

The comment dismissing the website 'Jihad Unspun' as a reliable source for the
number of dead US soldiers in Afghanistan, gives no reason for their objection to
it. I can only infer it is because the word 'Jihad' appears in the title. Is this
because anything with that word is automatically unreliable. Because they are the enemy?

The site states that:
'From October 21, 2001, Jihad Unspun staff and researchers began tracking military
casualties in the US war on “terrorism” campaign in Afghanistan from approximately
40 international news sources daily'

Is the Pentagon a better source. Has the US government never lied. Have the US press
never lied or kept anything from the news in the States. I think the very numerous
scandals and inquiries over the years show that it is a daily feature of all these
establishments.

Regarding keeping deaths secret from family members and the media. -We must remember that
many dead Americans in Vietnam were listed as killed in accidents or lost in action. In that
way the official death toll was at least halved.

In these wars, family members are frequently discouraged from speaking out. Often they are
quite afraid, or else they have been taken in so much by the Patriotism crap, that they just
take it on the chin and say very little. If they go to the press, the press will actively
avoid carrying their stories, unless the trickle turns to a flood in which case they can
no longer ignore it any more. This is exactly the way it was with the Vietnam dead.
Lets face it, the media in the States, is largely in the hands of a couple of corporations.
The corporations have had always a huge influence in the US. Wars and coup d'etats all around
the world have been carried out for their benefit. The only difference today is that it has
got so bad now, that the power in the present US administration is Corporate power. They are
one and the same. There will be no reporting of US casaulities at all costs.

One of my critics above says:
'It couldn't be that few Americans are dying because of our superior technology and tactics, oh no'

This may well be true that you can kill 100 or even 1000 for every one of your own. But they have
already killed 1000's of Afghans already. So you would expect some deaths already. In fact you would
expect some accidents too. Also the bit about 'superior technology' hints at the belief that the
US has some kind of moral superiority, because of the technological superiority. Well I bet you
wouldn't throw out that line, if it was the other way around.

Finally, it just defies all logic to think that you can have a significant ground force out there
in Afghanistan and you do not have casualities. I doubt any combat experience soldier would refute this.

actually...

Mon Feb 03, 2003 01:21

I remember years after Reagan's Grenada invasion (distraction from the mess in Beruit) it came out that a bunch of Delta Force special OPs had died and they never admitted it until photo evidence was in the press.

How did they cover it up?

They told the media and families months later that they died in 'training acidents'

Sadly, for the families and dead soldiers, they have never been recognised or post-humously (spelling?) given metals etc for their efforts.

I disagree with their mission, but it sickens me how the politicians and pentagon will dispose of soldiers lives.

Oh yes, we can keep all those American battle deaths secret

by Irish American

Sun Feb 02, 2003 23:01

Of course we can keep deaths of soldiers secret. No family members talk about it, the funerals are held at midnight.

It couldn't be that few Americans are dying because of our superior technology and tactics, oh no.

better sources please

by oh please

Sun Feb 02, 2003 14:07

Jihad Unspun is the best source you have?

I'm sure the US is lying about the number of Americans dead, but certainly you can find a better news source than this??

Propaganda covering up US casualities in Afghanistan

Sun Feb 02, 2003 01:46

I bet they are doing a good job of covering up the fact that there have been quite a few US casualities in Afghanistan because that would really hurt support for the War in Iraq

So far according to the website below,
From Oct 2001 to June 2002 a total of 867 are dead and 537 injured, -the injured figure is bound to be an underestimate, because in all walks of life, the number injured is always much greater than deaths as in car crashes

See
http://www.jihadunspun.net/articles/08212002-Casualty.Report/casualty02.html

http://www.jihadunspun.net/articles/08212002-Casualty.Report/casualty03.html

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

What Propaganda is like in the USA

Comments (5 of 5)