Irene, you've gone from obtuseness to incoherence and I have limited time to respond.
1. I don't believe I said we're winning. 2. Who has blamed Clinton for Bush's mistakes?3. I didn't ask you to define propaganda but what propaganda I am supposedly reading and would recommend to you. 4. I do plan on on reading the Ricks book. By the time it comes out in a few months in paperback with a new introduction I'll have finished my short list. 5. For someone who keeps going on about facts and reality you seem to be in short supply of both.
6. "losing a blue streak" is my new favorite phrase. ~Brian On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:19 PM, Andy Amago wrote:
I stand by my earlier statements. As far as defining propaganda, it might be safe to say using ideology instead of facts. "We have to win", stuff like that. Blaming Clinton for Bush's mistakes. Not having facts to support one's position, just ideological mandates and desires. Given that even Bush says we're not winning, and you're convinced we are, where are you getting your facts? I heard Kagan interviewed and he said, in so many words, that we're at the "Break Glass in Emergency" point in this war. That's why, he said, we *have* to do a surge. General Odom said a surge is a tactical solution to a strategic problem; it's more of what hasn't worked to date. Why don't you just read Tom Ricks' book? Even the troops themselves support Bush significantly less than they did. At the last talk he gave them they sat quietly staring at their hands. Gone were the whoo hoos.Also, there's no thinking involved here. It's just facts, numbers. You're applying ideology and logic and "critical thinking" while we're losing a blue streak over there. Where is your evidence that we're doing anything other than losing and/or have lost? What in your ideological bag of tricks do you counter reality with? Facts, Brian, not what we have to do and need to do and purple prose about the hazards of despair. If you want to rely on "milestones" like the election, that's de
