'Progressively' More Crazy

'Names' by Gilbert & George 2005, Private Collection

 

Have the so called self styled 'progressives' completely lost it? The only 'progress' they have made is one of falling into further psychotic 'Michael Moore clone' abyss: Russel Shaw of The Huffington Post wishes for another terrorist attack on the US to enforce a change of Administration. Eh?

What if another terror attack just before this fall’s elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has “kept us safe,” and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “Bush has kept us safe” thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the “he’s kept us safe” revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate...

Hidden deep into the text is a false premise of "Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history..." unfortunately getting quickly unraveled by an all too obvious deep sense of wishful thinking on the part of the author.

(H/T my friend Michael van der Galien @ The Moderate Voice)

Jeff Medcalf deservedly tears Shaw from limb to limb. and delivers a powerful sock in the jaw to some previous attempts by the Democrats to play @ Administration:

Shaw also misses a larger point: it was the Clinton administration that turned Somalia into a war mission, instead of an aid mission, and the Clinton administration who launched wars in the Balkans when there was no US interest involved, and little possibility of stopping future violence. It was the Clinton administration that tried to get Israel to "lay back and take it" when under constant terrorist attacks, leading to the recent battles in Lebanon as well as far more terrorism than would have occurred if Israel had not relented on the occupation. It was Carter who let the Soviets invade Afghanistan without a meaningful response, and let the Iranians take American hostages with impunity. Frankly, I don't like our chances in military affairs with the Democrats in charge as a general rule. The party of Scoop Jackson and JFK died a lonely death in the rice paddies of SE Asia, and what's left of their spine is now in the Republican party.

Gaius @ Blue Crab Boulevard is markedly unimpressed calling it 'an immoral calculus' and Rick @ The Real Ugly American is wandering "who is Russel Shaw and what the hell is he thinking?". Dusty @ Argghhh is simply disgusted, and Misha is finding it 'progressively' more difficult to tell the difference between the left and Ahmadinejad.

Kim Priestap @ Wizbang: "Note how Shaw believes we are the reason we got hit on 9/11. If we just didn't launch wars, when the terrorists wouldn't hate us. Not only is Shaw's argument offensive, but he fails to explain how his liberal policies will save more lives than another 9/11 style terrorist attack will kill."

Rick Moran: "...this fake controversy generated by Shaw is extremely helpful in exposing the left’s curious detachment from reality regarding the War on Terror. I guess as long as it happens to someone else, as long as someone else is incinerated or drops out of the sky in an airplane that has been blow to kingdom come, the war is only a domestic political battleground and not a life and death struggle with fanatical jihadists."

UPDATE: It seems that the Huffingtons puff in pairs: Shaw's twin, a certain Cliff Schecter (any relation to one of my Formula One heroes of days gone by?), dedicates an entire post to slamming our Michael van der Galien for daring to suggest that Schecter was less than honest in his questioning the so called "timing of the terrorist arrests in the UK". As usual the Huffington Post and its authors are generous with conspiracy theories and economical with facts:

...the Bush Administration pressured England to make the arrests before they were ready, and well before these plots could have been hatched

Considering the terrorists were planning a dry run for August 11th (2 days after the arrests were made) on United, American and Continental Airlines, which fly to New York, Washington and California, with a series of deadly mid air explosions on flights from London to the US, actually planned for August 16th merely a few days later, Schecter needs to spend a little more time fact checking and a little less worrying about his wounded ego.

I know, I know...it's so much more fun to simply carry on peddling the conspiracy theories that 12 (orig.24) British born Muslims in England, co-ordinated their terrorist plans to coincide with some kind of Lieberman/Bush political agenda. 'Progressively more crazy' still stands....

Comments

[Saul Davis]

GD: You obfuscate again; the SBVs despised Kerry for his hypocrisy, undermining the war, and primarily for his slanderous statements regarding his "fellow" soldiers. They felt he was unfit to be President; they used all proper means to show his record as a veteran was primarily fiction, and thus his reliance on that record as a basis for being Commander-in-Chief was a fiction. If you had listened to their statements -- especially by the one who received the Congressional Medal of Honor (forgot his name), and by those who were POWs, you should clearly see that one of the central themes of their opposition was his slander against the American soldiers in Vietnam.

Also, the Pentagon Papers are not as authoritative as you, or others, would make them.

There is substantial disagreement with the Pentagon Papers' assessments, including admissions by General Giap. I would imagine that Giap had a better understanding of who was winning the war from a military standpoint.

See the following:
1. http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/vietnam/tet.htm

2. http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/vietnam_war/3035906.html?showAll=y&c=y
"VN:After the war, Giap told a group of Western reporters that Communist losses in the Tet Offensive were so devastating that if the Americans had kept up that level of military pressure much longer North Vietnam would have been forced to negotiate a peace on American terms. Do you agree?

Huy:If the American army had fought some more, had continued, I don't know. Maybe. I can't say what would have happened."

3. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/96winter/record.htm

"The United States, to repeat, was not militarily beaten in Vietnam. Indeed, by 1973 the United States and its South Vietnamese ally had stalemated the North Vietnamese conventional military threat and were decisively defeating the indigenous southern insurgent component of the communist threat.

In the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, which politically and militarily was the Continental Divide of the Vietnam War, the communist leadership relied increasingly on conventional military operations, and it did so in part because of a dramatic erosion of the communist political base in South Vietnam. The Viet Cong never recovered from their disastrous Tet losses, and the NLF's political and military viability was further compromised by the US firepower-generated flight of millions of rural Vietnamese into the cities, and by an accelerated pacification program that both killed off many remaining Viet Cong cadre as well as delivered genuine land reform and prosperity to much of rural South Vietnam. By virtually all accounts, the percentage of South Vietnam's population under effective communist control dropped sharply during the period between the Tet Offensive and the Paris peace agreement.[24]"

4. http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?t=56006

"As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington, Grant, Lee and MacArthur as a great commander. Still, militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts. It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if not total destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. The Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered. The Tet Offensive succeeded on only one front and that was the News front and the political arena. This was another example in the Vietnam War of an inaccuracy becoming the perceived truth. However, inaccurately reported, the News Media made the Tet Offensive famous."

GD get back on track and stop obfuscating.

[Ghost Dansing]

"GD: Leaving everything else aside, including your massive obfuscations of the purpose of Alexandra's article -- why is it that you cannot understand the reason for the Swift Boat Veterans' deep felt opposition to everything Kerry stood for, and the unmitigated hypocracy of Kerry? Kerry consulted with the North Vietnamese in Paris while we were at war with them! That is a simple fact that is absolutely undisputed. He consulted with them regarding the manner in which the "peace" movement would act to force the US to get out of Vietnam! That is an undisputed fact. He completely undermined the US while we were at war! That is a fact. He lied when he slurred honorable American soldiers -- the vast vast majority of soldiers fighting in Vietnam! That is a fact. Why would not the vast majority of Vietnam Vets vehemently oppose Kerry? That is the proper meaning of Swift Boating>"

But that's not what they did...they questioned the man'd medals. And, if they had questions about his medals or his service in Vietnam, they could write them all down and send them to the Department of the Navy.

As far as his length of service in Vietnam... Kerry actually suited-up and showed-up, which trumped his political opponent. Gringoman

And I don't know who "wrote-up" the citations for the medals, so I don't know how I could have "admitted" Kerry did it himself. I said "even if"... I have no idea who did...but that is the kind of unprovable nonsense the Swifties got into...in the end, they had nothing but accusations...and Kerry still had his medals, awarded by the United States Navy. They were simply political operatives.

Kerry, appearing before Congress, provided a list of AMVETS that had admitted war crimes, at their behest. Kerry was not the accuser.

And it's interesting that you hold Kerry responsible for any anti-war activity, after the Pentagon Papers revealed their assessment that the war was unwinnable...but politicians kept pushing it along anyway.

Who's actions were trully supporting the troops?

[saul davis]

GD: Leaving everything else aside, including your massive obfuscations of the purpose of Alexandra's article -- why is it that you cannot understand the reason for the Swift Boat Veterans' deep felt opposition to everything Kerry stood for, and the unmitigated hypocracy of Kerry? Kerry consulted with the North Vietnamese in Paris while we were at war with them! That is a simple fact that is absolutely undisputed. He consulted with them regarding the manner in which the "peace" movement would act to force the US to get out of Vietnam! That is an undisputed fact. He completely undermined the US while we were at war! That is a fact. He lied when he slurred honorable American soldiers -- the vast vast majority of soldiers fighting in Vietnam! That is a fact. Why would not the vast majority of Vietnam Vets vehemently oppose Kerry? That is the proper meaning of Swift Boating>

[gringoman]

GD,

I'll be glad to fly any kite--following your suggestion---provided that said kite will lift us above the Death Valley of your obfuscations. But thanks for your nice big pile of pasties on military law and John Kerry's use of it to bail his butt out of the 'Nam after 4 months and then, shamelessly, instead of shutting up, going on to use his "war record"for fame and possibly to become our metrosexual Commander-in-Chief.

You make clear yet again that you have a typically Left or draft-dodger sense of military honor, i.e. virtually none. Let's even assume that your latest excursion into Pasteland is valid and legally air-tight. (Generous assumption, no?) Let's assume that this legal defense of what Kerry did is correct (yet more gringo magnanimity.) You still reveal an inability to distinguish between the correct and the craven, the legal and the dishonorable. This is why you can't grasp what the Swiftboaters were about. You can see them only and exclusively as political operatives who were too "conservative" or whatever, too "Republican"or whatever, to stomach a "fine liberal"like John Kerry. In other words, you think like a lawyer, or political operative(hopefully not an outright shyster, though.) You fudge, obfuscate, blow smoke. You use the typical technique of the Beltway Dodge-Ball artists, as they wiggle their way out of uncomfortable facts and truths (9.11 commission, anyone?) by doing "studies,""commissions," which are designed to exhaust everyone on their trail. I'm surprised. I thought that you, as a self-declared liberal of conscience (fair description?) was very wary of these essentially venal (and soooooooo 'legal) techniques.

GD, how about a little reality check, a little break from your pastý paradise? Lets say your Kerry was completely within his rights legally, and he did not just pull the cheapest of scams. You admit that he "wrote up" this naval stuff himself. Even if a monkey scratch legally entitled him to a Purple Heart (1) did he have to apply for the medal (2) Even if he was awarded such a medal for the monkey scratch, did he have to use it as an excuse to terminate his in-country service? (3) Why could he not just remain and do what most every honorable serviceman did---serve out his 12-month tour of duty in Vietnam? He was an officer, remember? Officers tend to have a little more discretion than enlisted men. They can even ärrange"things on occasion, especially in the interests of honor, duty and country. Would you understand that, CD?

Are you also up on the finer moral points of military law? Or do you stick strictly to the letters of the law, such as you and the pricey consultants know them? Or, for you, is the Kerry Served in Vietnam scenario---which was thrown in everybody's face by himself and his team---all about the law and not the honor?

ps I probably did not address everything, like your regurge of the stunningly stupid Dem fave about"Bush the Draft Dodger."

If you need a reaction on any, just say so. But be sure to get specific. (Parsers will understand.)

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

My plan to kick off Muslins of the West:

As in "Miami Vice" way, we could play fake roles as 'terror leaders conspirators' visiting every Muslim family in West; and in private, invitate them to 'do the Jihad' - blowing up themselves, shooting the crowds on streets, poisoning waters, etc, in order to 'exterminate all the infidel population very tomorrow'.

All the Muslins who don't call Police and keep secret about our 'Jihad conspiracy' would be arrested and expatriated.

Simple, doesn't it?

http://inferno_.blig.ig.com.br/

the unique Brazilian anti-Islam site

[Ghost Dansing]

"(Though this particular attempt to apply the strategy is poorly thought out, as the guilt-by-association tactic requires the thing to which you're attempting to associate your opponent, to be something held in universal contempt. "Swift Boating" is certainly held in contempt by the kind of person who thinks Bill Clinton was a pretty good guy but Dubya is a vile sort of draft dodger kind of dude, but it is not so held by the population in general; and therefore the use of that particular label will have its effect mostly on people who would never vote Republican anyway even if Jesus Christ Himself were the candidate and Moses and Mohammed had both endorsed him. Labelling all criticism of liberals "McCarthyism" was exactly the same tactic but was much more effective, and for much longer, than the use of the lable "Swift Boating" is likely to prove.)"

Military Service and Combat Service are a pretty universally held value among Americans, Kenny.

The Republicans had a problem in the sense that most Vietnam-era Veterans and probably Korea and WWII Veterans thought of "National Guard" and "Reserve Duty" as ways of avoiding Combat Service...a way to avoid the draft, while still "checking the block" for military service.

They were running candidates like Dubya (Texas Air National Guard...Rich Daddy syndrome) and others who avoided service, as Party Candidates in a Party that hangs its hat on Defense and "Patriotism"...

They were running against Combat Veterans in the Democratic Party like Kerry and Max Cleland who already had the positive stigma of being Combat Veterans...

The propaganda strategy is to de-legitimize their status... "Swift Boating" was a successful technique.

Interestingly... the McCarthy labeling phenomenon was the "backlash" of McCarthy's attempt to destroy opposition by labeling anything that was not fascist in nature, "Communist". It was actually the Liberal Press, and Liberal forces in the United States that exposed and ultimately defeated him...not the "Communists".

McCarthy had been massively successful. He is a good example of why I would say "Rightist" tendencies are more a problem in America, than "Leftest-Communist".

There were among American corporatists and politicians that have been fascist sympathizers...embracing facist ideology and propaganda...certainly identifiable pre-WW II. Old Man Kennedy was an unfortunate example.

Modern Republicanism, with its tendency toward Corporate Plutocracy is much more of a "rightest" threat to Liberal Democracy than anything coming from the "Leftest" camp...wherever the "Leftest" camp is.

"When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag"
Senator Huey Long

[Ghost Dansing]

"He then goes on--unconsciously, apparently---to demonstrate how he himself "re-gurgitates." He does this with the matter of over 100 Naval vets, many officers, who the MSM/DemCentral/Soros workers etc claim unfairly maligned their candidate John Kerry who may have set the Guiness record for length of duty in Vietnam( 4 months) after receiving 3 Purple Hearts (at least two of them questionable and Mickey Mouse.) On this basis the Kerry camp, of course, saw fit to strike back and defame or slander Kerry's detractors while praising the small number of vets on his personal team who proclaim themselves pro-Kerry. You remember the Hurricane Kerrytrina."

Look...until the United States Navy withdraws the awards...admitting there was some sort of flaw in the process...or the "...100 Naval vets, many officers" convince the United States Navy that either A. The system was flawed, or B. The system was flawed in the case of one Swift Boat Combat Veteran, you can go fly a kite Gringoman.

There are Army and Marine Corp Veterans who question combat medals to Navy in general...there are ground warriors that question medals for aviators. It's barroom talk. The fact is that there some who pay for the PH with a limb or their life...and some who receive lesser wounds. And the Navy sets the rules for rotation criterea as well.

The military services has standards for medals...the criterea varies over the years...sometimes loosening, sometimes tightening...

But the partisan assault on Kerry, if an indictment of anything, would be an indictment of the military awards and decorations system...not Kerry...Kerry didn't award medals to himself, even if he "wrote it up" himself.

The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded-

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

http://www.americal.org/awards/ph.htm

"Or do you think this is reading too much into GD, who really did nothing but an (inadvertent?) regurgitation of the Dem's clever "Swiftboating" cliche?"

Propaganda is most effective when the propaganda technique is not identified. Identifying propaganda techniques is counter-Propaganda...not itself propaganda.

However, ALL political operatives are at core propagandist. So I wasn't insinuating that one Political Party or another uses propaganda exclusively... Just that the Republicans are better at it.

[gringoman]

Somebody tell me I'm misconstruing GD-in-Pasteland. In this current thicket we note the following gem, almost hidden in the vast triple-canopy: that is, he refers to the "Republican"practice of "re-gurgitating." The sense, of course, is that this is a specifically Pub trait.

He then goes on--unconsciously, apparently---to demonstrate how he himself "re-gurgitates." He does this with the matter of over 100 Naval vets, many officers, who the MSM/DemCentral/Soros workers etc claim unfairly maligned their candidate John Kerry who may have set the Guiness record for length of duty in Vietnam( 4 months) after receiving 3 Purple Hearts (at least two of them questionable and Mickey Mouse.) On this basis the Kerry camp, of course, saw fit to strike back and defame or slander Kerry's detractors while praising the small number of vets on his personal team who proclaim themselves pro-Kerry. You remember the Hurricane Kerrytrina.

The MSM/Dem machine, in near panic, goes on to make "Swiftboating" a national mantra or cliche to be used against anyone who dares to dig up facts and material deemed unfriendly to your cause (yet another example of the continuing power of Old Media MSM---(the gaudy corpse that keeps climbing out of its coffin)

GD didn't need to reflect, just regurgitate, using the mantra the MSM/Dem machine has cleverly provided for him.

But what does this mean? Might GD really be the sly one after all? He already proclaimed the Republicans as "The Regurgitators."

Might this be a subtle way of revealing what he really is---not what you always thought he was? If he too can re-gurgitate, how bad can it really be, especially if it's in a more honest form, say, the Republican style, rather than the Democrat? True, he performed for us a standard Dem re-gurge with their "Swiftboat" mantra. But wasn't that just for demo purposes, to cleverly indicate that he too is in on the joke?

Also, might it reveal what even he himself was not aware of? That is, his long-awaited state of political and ideological recovery is beginning, with all that implies about the true meaning of his ATB-ization.

Or do you think this is reading too much into GD, who really did nothing but an (inadvertent?) regurgitation of the Dem's clever "Swiftboating" cliche?

[Kenny]

Oh, and labeling the challenging of a person's dubious claims about past performance "Swift Boating," in order to imply guilt by association, is an absolutely classic example of a propaganda tactic, a perfect instance of a tactic of distraction rather than refutation.

But you may be right that it will be effective. Dishonest propaganda tactics frequently are.

(Though this particular attempt to apply the strategy is poorly thought out, as the guilt-by-association tactic requires the thing to which you're attempting to associate your opponent, to be something held in universal contempt. "Swift Boating" is certainly held in contempt by the kind of person who thinks Bill Clinton was a pretty good guy but Dubya is a vile sort of draft dodger kind of dude, but it is not so held by the population in general; and therefore the use of that particular label will have its effect mostly on people who would never vote Republican anyway even if Jesus Christ Himself were the candidate and Moses and Mohammed had both endorsed him. Labelling all criticism of liberals "McCarthyism" was exactly the same tactic but was much more effective, and for much longer, than the use of the lable "Swift Boating" is likely to prove.)

[Kenny]

Ghost,

>
There are no extremists that believe what I believe, because I'm a Liberal.
>

That has to be the single funniest line anybody has ever put into a comment on this blog. You're killin' me here.

[Ghost Dansing]

Patrick,

"On a much earlier post, we had a similar discussion and I highlighted the problem of extremist that agree with much of what you believe, but are fanatical. They can often be a greater danger to you than the extremist that are diametrically opposed. What is your take on that Ghost?"

There are no extremists that believe what I believe, because I'm a Liberal. I believe that extremism itself is the problem. I believe in moderating the moderating forces within the context of Liberal Democracy, like America's. And I believe that Fascism and Communism ultimately meet, full circle, in authoritarian, totalitarian governmental modalities. There are also politicized Religious extremists. Religion and Spirituality are not in themselves "bad" things...however religiousity has been exploited for the purposes of power politics for time immemorial. Even "extreme" religious beliefs can be harmless, until they are harnessed into service by political power blocks.

So...you are wrong that some extremist had similar ideas to mine.

Regarding the "evicted" comment...that was some hyperbole...however grounded in some fact. This Republican administration has been accused of running everything...all decision making...from the "Karl Rove" Department of political considerations and dirty tricks. One has to be pretty much a "yes man" to serve in the current administration, and expertise outside politics is not much appreciated.

These are most manifest in the areas of economics and environmental issues, but you will note Colin Powell is no longer with the administration either... an expert in matters both military and diplomatic...but not ideologically pure. For the war with Iraq, they also set-up their own intelligence boutique that provided them with "burger king" intelligence...they got it "their way" when the facts didn't fit the phantasy.

Modern Republicanism, by the way, I consider extremist in that their policies are actively seeking to undermine the governmental checks-and-balances that were Constitutionally established to support Liberal Democracy. Their problem with the Constitution, and the kind of governmental structure it establishes,isn't really "Liberal Judges" making "Liberal Interpretations"...their problem is that the CONSTITUTION IS A LIBERAL DOCUMENT...so they would have to amend and undermine it in order for their extreme positions to be acceptable within its framework. You can read "Our Endangered Values" by Jimmy Carter on that and other aspects. Jimmy is a Fundamentalist Christian, by the way, so even Religious Fundamentalists can be Liberals.

"Leftists have raged about how outrageous it is that we "question their patriotism" when they obliquely wish defeat or harm to American forces. But thanks to Shaw and HuffingtonPost, they can no longer deny that they'd sacrifice the national interest -- to any degree -- to regain political power."

Well here's the dilema...this is, in itself, simple regurgitation of propaganda. I would defy you to even define what a "leftest" is... Huffington? Shaw? Give me a break. And even if they are (maybe they're carrying commie cards in their wallet), the same accusation has been made of the current Republican administration...that they are sacrificing U.S. Troops for their own partisan interests and ideology...not the national interest...to maintain political power... who's correct?

Probably neither. And, I also read the Shaw article and I don't see where what you are alleging is correct.

"I hope and pray we don't get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much."

"If I somehow knew an attack was coming, I wouldn't pause for a second to report it in order to prevent it from occuring."

"But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation."

He actually sounds pretty ambivalent about the whole thing...and I'll tell you what, Dubya and the Republicans did it to themselves...they set themselves up for the kind of political backlash Shaw was talking about.

When Iraq started to become unpopular and the reasons for going in started to unravel, about the third or fourth theme Dubya came up with is this "...if we fight them over there, they won't be here..." theme.

Well...they can't guarantee that...never could. And like everything else with this administration, the facts keep clouding their rosey pictures. Europe has had several incidents and near-misses since 9/11 and since Iraq...and the administration has had to tell us over and over again that we're still in danger.

Well...it all goes back to perceived effectiveness. Shaw is correct in his political assessment...if something dramatic does happen, where Dubya got a political "bump" in the polls (maybe even got him re-elected the second time, by his own admission), this late in the game people are more likely to view the whole thing as a Republican failure.

Now, extremists would be trying to figure out ways to "make it happen"... that's a different issue.

But what Shaw said is no different than Cheney suggesting that voting for Democrats cause terrorist events... or that voting for Democrats lowers American and Western security... that is sheer propaganda. There are no sympathizers for "Islamic Extremists" or "Terrorists" in the Democratic Party. There probably aren't any in the Communist Party either, so...not really sure of the "leftest" connection.

The Democratic Party, by the way, isn't exactly like the Republican Party... many mansions and mud-huts under that Party's tent...seldom will you get all elected Democrats to follow "the Party Line" (Communists are big on "Following the Party Line" too) or staying "on message". Sure...John Dean trys...but hey...what election has he won lately?

No...Democrats would probably have gone into Afghanistan...and maybe even Iraq under UN auspices after 9/11. Madelaine Albright used to ask "...why do we even have a military if we're never going to use it for anything..."; not exactly a peacenik.

The Democratic Party's image is largely due to a long-term and effective propaganda campaign by the Republicans... because that is what they are really really good at...not so much the "governing" part, but they sure can get elected.

"For me, the connotation of propaganda was always to intentionally mislead others for your own government's benefit (or a governmental leader). It was not the act of individuals trying to shift other's opinions."

Well, different things... understand that individuals are sometimes unwitting...though most know when they are putting a spin on things. Propaganda's greatest effect is getting a large number of people repeating an untruth, as a truth, quickly, before the truth catches up to the spread of the theme.

Also...propaganda doesn't have to be untrue...however it usually involves telling only part of the story or mixing a good part of truth, to establish legitimacy, with an undermining theme or assertion.

"Swift Boat" was a classic propaganda campaign that was untrue...but the theme spread rapidly and was passed quickly by those who wanted to undermine Kerry...it leveraged internet BLOGS extensively...Kerry didn't respond in a timely way... didn't counter the spin and suffered for it.

The phenomenon is now referred to as "Swift Boating", and you'll hear that applied when that kind of thing is attempted again in the future, and having a "label" will tend to undermine its effectiveness.

However, the Republicans have been MASSIVELY effective at campaigning against Combaat Veterans like Kerry and Max Cleland...

Master propagandists... If you want a propagandist, hire a Republican.

[Francis W. Porretto]

Readers of ATB should save a copy of Ghost Dansing's comment above as a perfect example of deliberately clouding a perfectly clear issue. I've never seen a better one, nor do I expect to.

Leftists have raged about how outrageous it is that we "question their patriotism" when they obliquely wish defeat or harm to American forces. But thanks to Shaw and HuffingtonPost, they can no longer deny that they'd sacrifice the national interest -- to any degree -- to regain political power.

Revolting.

[Patrick]

GD,

So where does debate fall? How about education? Speeches?

For me, the connotation of propaganda was always to intentionally mislead others for your own government's benefit (or a governmental leader). It was not the act of individuals trying to shift other's opinions.

Yes, I did read the wiki.

As GD shows, the importance of ensuring we are using the term the same way to continue intelligent debate.

As for your post Ghost, I see propaganda coming from more than just Republicans. Can you say Connecticut?

On a much earlier post, we had a similar discussion and I highlighted the problem of extremist that agree with much of what you believe, but are fanatical. They can often be a greater danger to you than the extremist that are diametrically opposed. What is your take on that Ghost? \

I have a hard time with your EVICT idea...

[Ghost Dansing]

I find Shaw's comments irksome, but for different reasons. It is obvious why he has to caveat and embed his "wishful thinking" within the context of a simple "what if". What is possibly not so clear is why he's doing it.

What I find irksome, is that this exemplifies the thought processes of partisan political operatives, that have come to dominate much of the political discourse in America, and elsewhere. Partisan political operatives are ALL ABOUT propaganda.

Do not be for one minute deceived...Karl Rove thinks along the same lines as Mr. Shaw every waking day of the week...and he is not the exception to the rule in the world of partisan political operatives...he is the epitome; the archtype of what it has all become.

In this discourse, the aim is always propaganda: the next spin...the next manipulation of information.

I found some interesting excerpts in an article by Carl K. Savich, who was, interestingly, engaged in his own anti-propaganda propaganda on behalf of Serbia:

http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/istorija/ccsavich-propaganda.html

"The term 'propaganda' is unpopular as a description in American political and social discourse and analysis. Instead, propaganda and propagandists are known by different terms: public relations (PR), publicity, advertising, information warfare, spin doctors, image brokers, public affairs, promotion, marketing, media relations specialists, lobbyists."

"Moreover, the term 'propaganda' has been overused so that the term is practically meaningless today. This is so because propaganda has been one of the most prevalent and widespread phenomena of the twentieth century."

"There is a widespread misconception and myth that propaganda exists only in totalitarian states and not in democracies. The German philosopher Georg Hegel was one of the first to show that even in democracies, the public is manipulated and persuaded by "hidden persuaders" and "hidden manipulators". In his l821 The Philosophy of Right, Hegel explained how the public in a democracy is manipulated by commercial interests which seek to make a profit."

However, it is not simply that there IS propaganda that I find irksome (i really like that word "irksome" today); propaganda is ubiquitous...perhaps even inherent in human communications iteself. It is that EVERYTHING is discussed within the context of its political effects...in terms of plans for the manipulation of opinion. For example, it is difficult to have a conversation about environmental issues in a way that doesn't devolve into political affiliations and whether you believe in Science and evolution theory... because that theme has become a litmus test for political loyality and political manipulation, rather than a point for discourse within other areas of human concern...like survival.

In this sequence we see Shaw engaged in blatant political calculations...and then it is presented and rendered as if this is something unique to "progressives"!

A spin on a spinner calculating the political effects of an event... leveraging what I believe is the potential for an emotional reaction by most Americans...an almost "anti-politician" emotional reaction, and then suggesting this has something to do with being "progressive" in one's philosophy of government.

This is indeed a paradox I have mentioned before...the Republican Party has demonstrably become nothing but a vote generating machine using an "all spin all the time" philosophy; placing Party Loyalty and "being on-message" at the highest pinnacle of human values. They actually EVICT expertise from any source other than expertise in political science (in the worst sense) from their midst, from their discourse and from their message. (Yes, this is Ghost Dansing using propaganda rhetoric...you recognize it from me, but do you recognize it in your own thought processes and the themes you reflexively regurgitate?)

Yes indeed people have a reaction to the reduction of all human values to politial opportunism. When are Americans going to realize that we have inadvertantly nurtured a political monster that is nothing but a study in political opportunism and the desire to manipulate opinion?

In a free society, the best defense against propaganda is awareness of its mechanisms and tell-tale signs. From the Wiki:

"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information.

Literally translated from the Latin gerundive as "things which must be disseminated," in some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time.

In the West, the term propaganda now overlaps with distinct terms like indoctrination (ideological views established by repetition rather than verification) and mass suggestion (broader strategic methods).

In practice, the terms are often used synonymously. Historically, the most common use of the term propaganda is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, but also often covert interests. In the early 20th century the term was also used by the founders of the nascent public relations industry to describe their activities; this usage died out around the time of World War II. Individually propaganda functions as self-deception. Culturally it works within religions, politics, and economic entities like those which both favor and oppose globalization. At the left, right, or mainstream, propaganda knows no borders; as is detailed by Roderick Hindery. Hindery further argues that debates about most social issues can be productively revisited in the context of asking "what is or is not propaganda?"

Not to be overlooked is the link between propaganda, indoctrination, and terrorism. Mere threats to destroy are often as socially disruptive as physical devastation itself. See also religious terrorism.

The aim of propaganda is to influence people's opinions actively, rather than merely to communicate the facts about something.

the message in modern propaganda is often not blatantly untrue. But even if the message conveys only "true" information, it will generally contain partisan bias and fail to present a complete and balanced consideration of the issue. Another common characteristic of propaganda is volume (in the sense of a large amount). For example, a propagandist may seek to influence opinion by attempting to get a message heard in as many places as possible, and as often as possible. The intention of this approach is to a) reinforce an idea through repetition, and b) exclude or "drown out" any alternative ideas."

Read more...it provides an added dimension to any consumption of information in modern society:

Check out the differences between white, grey and black propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda