Reply #149: In real life, for A to imply B

[RainDog]

I'm not convinced that Saddam was already in the pocket of the U.S., but I tend to be a person who is a little more stubborn, or willfully naive, whatever you want to call it vis a vis the Bush junta.

However, here is your logic formula:

A= the Jessica Lynch Story, which was covered by The Guardian, and a month later picked up by the BBC. Before the story was picked up by the BBC, people on this forum had already posted the Guardian story, stories from other news sites, and had many, many people on this forum who were telling them they were wacko fringe elements to even say that Lynch was a propaganda story for the Bush junta at a time when the war was stalled by logistics problems and people in the U.S. were questioning the planning behind the invasion. Nevertheless, the American media failed to do its job and merely served as a propaganda mouthpiece to make Lynch out to be a Rambo, and her saviors to be storming a hospital...which had tried to contact them to return Lynch before..

A= The Chavez coup in April 2002. Palast wrote to expect a coup attempt four months before it happened. This was covered on this forum. When the coup attempt happened, the NYTimes and every other so-called "liberal" media was spouting Ari's lines about this being "the will of the people" ---until the people surrounded the coup plotters in the prez palace and forced them out. The NYtimes then had to publish a retraction...which it buried, btw.

On this site, people knew about the events going down way before there was any acknowledgement in the American media...of course, there was also a poster here who was in Chile who wasn't in Exxon's pocket, so that made it easier to get some truth.

A= the lies which led to this illegal invasion. As a recent study showed, those who watch Fox news are the most poorly informed citizens of the this country...because they're watching the propaganda arm of the Bush junta, bascially. Tokyo Scarborough, you know... anyway, on this board, there were ample links to mainstream sources from this nation and around the world to dispute the Bush lies which led to the invasion of Iraq.

Now, even Bush admits there was no connection between Saddam and Al Q, and it has been shown that the uranium claims were lies, and there are no WMD--at least none which could match the tons which were reported by Powell and Cheney and Bush...and we've yet to find anything else, unless some botox in a refrige counts, in which case all the rich women in this country better start digging their hidey-holes.

Just from these three examples, you can imply some sort of "B" lie behind any Bush photo op moment.

And, yes, it is curious that the Pentagon has just reported that Halliburton is basically soaking the American taxpayer for billions, while creating filthy nasty conditions for our troops, and Bechtel's supposed "rebuilding of schools" turns out to mean a lot less than the "good news" Bush wanted the media to report.

So, before you dismiss everything people say about these subjects, maybe you should spend some time here. Let some time pass between the initial event and the eventual admission of what happened.

Maybe this event did happen exactly as claimed. However, since Bush has made it a trademark to stage nearly every moment of his public presence, and since Bush/Rove basically made sure this war was their ace in the hole for the mid-term elections, evidence be damned, then I don't think it's in any way unreasonable to question the "received wisdom" from the Bush junta.