Sunday, July 01, 2007

Your President Is Lying To You

Yep. No doubt about it. Your President is lying to you. At least according to the Japanese during WW2.

June 29, 2007: U.S. troops have been mystified at how differently the war they fight in Iraq is portrayed by the U.S. media back home. Most just shrug it off as "politics," and yet another reason to not trust what the mass media presents as reliable reporting. But recently, the troops have been passing around an interesting discovery. Namely, that the Japanese psychological warfare effort during World War II included radio broadcasts that could be picked up by American troops. Popular music was played, but the commentary (by one of several English speaking Japanese women) always hammered away on the same points;

1 Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.

2 This war is illegal.

3 You cannot win the war.

The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message. Fighting the enemy in Iraq is simple, compared to figuring out what news editors are thinking back home.
When it comes to the news media you have to ask yourself. Whose side are they on anyway?

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah, right. All of the Bush administration's lies and fuck-ups regarding this war are just myths created by the traitorous media. And all those retired generals who think U.S. policy in Iraq was ill-advised from the get-go are traitors, too. And all of these theories about how this war has just created more terrorists -- that's only anti-American propaganda. Yes, true patriotism requires that we all march in lock-step with our neo-conservative leaders (most of whom, by the way, have never had time to fight in any of the wars they have so enthusiastically supported).

Unknown said...

Follow the money. That's what wars are always about. Osama B.L. wanted to raise the price of oil so he had more money to build his fanatic empire and try to take control of his family's oil money. We trained him how to do it in Afghanistan. Saddam H. was not cooperating with the steadfast moneyed interests on the oil market, so Dick Cheney hated him, especially when he threatened to trade oil for Euros. The Saudi royals were fed up with Saddam's jerking the oil prices up and down, since that interfered with their investment and revenue planning. The newspaper editors make money selling cars and service to cars through advertising. The New York Times makes money selling fear. People that are afraid and confused buy more stuff (re: "Coercion" by Douglas Rushkoff).
The newspapers make money selling Hummers and they make money selling Global Warming and Prius's (Prii?).
Almost every dollar we spend adds to the lies. We are at war because we are addicted to the comforts that oil provides, and we don't want to question our purchases, since the Madison Avenue agencies have convinced us that Consumption is our Right. If it costs 10 soldiers' lives for every million barrels of oil, it's a bargain to the unthinking public.
It doesn't matter if the president is lying: this is a country "of the people, by the people, for the consumer."
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.

M. Simon said...

Auntie,

Given the number of people that would die without the oil I believe the equation you present is about at the right level of pay off.

Your idea for wrecking the economy is going to be a hard sell.

Unknown said...

Given the number of people that would die without the oil I believe the equation you present is about at the right level of pay off.
Do you mean the Iraqi oil we're not getting now? Or do you mean the oil we use to run Las Vegas and Suburbia and television and professional sports and Orlando and Anneheim?

Last one out of the Peak Oil room, shut off the lights.

I love the idea of radioactive-free fusion machines, but if they are simply going to continue the Idiocracy, what's the point?
I'm not an environmentalist; any true environmentalist would commit suicide.

Unknown said...

P.S. MY idea of wrecking the economy is the soft sell. The housing bubble/Federal Reserve/oil dependent strip mall/suburban empires idea of wrecking the economy is going to be the hard sell. Under my idea, there is at least some conscious effort to control the descent, rather than the free fall which the markets are fast approaching.

M. Simon said...

Between continuing the idiocy and a large die off I'm in favor of continuing the idiocy.

I don't see a fee fall.

The dot com bust was worse. There was zero intrinsic value in the investments. Excepting the building out of the network. Which took two or three years to work off.

For about two or three years the telcom bits/second total capacity was doubling every six months. What we got at the end was six months of too much investment (plans had been made). The amazing thing was that they kept up increasing capacity when demands were so high and the network didn't strangle. Good job guys.

BTW are you aware that people of your disposition have been predicting 200,000 of the last 3 disasters (which were only temporary setbacks in any case).

I'm not so easily panicked. I put it down to my Navy training.