Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
I know you don't see it as either, but the funny thing is that it was both. It was, in fact:
a) a transparent staged event masterminded by a guy with a baboon heart (ok, maybe the army colonel that masterminded the event didn't have a baboon heart, but the point is the same); and
b) reported ad nauseum by breathless dolts as a monumental event in human history. |
and c) was an important event.
That you keep avoiding that, and that you misinterpreted my "either or" as an "either" really annoys me. You do a lot of propaganda to get your points across, and it's not needed here.
Quote:
Which is exactly what happened....
--the war started--then....
--the debate started--then and only then...
--we started calling the war a war because it's inappropriate to say that the US is at war before congress has discussed the matter.
|
Military action was ongoing. They picked it up in preparation for war. Congress gave up their voice in declaring war decades ago.
Quote:
|
Calling the war a war before we had any sort of a national debate (or the pretense thereof) would lead to all sorts of wrong thoughts about the lawless way our government really behaves (and the chief of the aim of propaganda is to prevent people from thinking the wrong thoughts).
|
blah, blah, black helicopters and mind control. It's easier, simpler, and more accurate to say that it would have confused the debate.
When Cuban and Co. say, "we love our team," do you get all bent out of shape because they love the team, or do you get all rant-filled 'cause they are lying to you, or are you happy they said it because it's better than publicly declaring, "we hate Dampier and are trying real hard to replace him" ?