"His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis than George Bush."

[Steve A Play]

Got that? The accurate quote is "His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis than George Bush.

Funny how twice, in two days time, the exact same misquote has been posted here on DU.

Yesterday someone posted this thread that received over 300 responses, Cindy Sheehan Claims Clinton Killed More Iraqis Than Bush!!!. Note the use of no less than three exclamation points to drive the rhetoric home. Never mind that Cindy never said those words, she said his policies were responsible, and she has plenty of facts to back that statement up.

Now today someone posts this thread, Cindy Sheehan interview- "Bill Clinton killed more Iraqis than Bush" Note the use of "quotation marks" to make the misquote seem like her actual words.

Are DUers using right wing 'spin' tactics now to help cover for the past wrongs committed by our party leaders? Are we not a party that believes in holding our elected representatives accountable anymore?

And then there's this thread, So Robert Byrd and Cindy Sheehan are officially drunk on the koolaid, where the OP opines, "I never imagined in my most demented dreams that I'd ever post this." I find it kind of odd myself that someone who, according to their user profile, uses the UN symbol as their avatar, would post an out of context fabrication and in quote marks no less. I would expect them to know better about things like the US pushing for the UN sanctions, the fact that the "no fly zones" in Iraq weren't legally sanctioned by the UN, and about the UNICEF report detailing the deaths of half a million innocent Iraqi children due to those policies. I never imagined in my most demented dreams that I'd ever see posts like this on DU stand without correction.

What happened to our "reality based community"? Did someone open a Blue KoolAid stand to compete with the Red KoolAid stand down the street? Where are our critical thinkers?

Is this the future of DU? Our guy's OK because their guy is worse and if you're not 100% with us you're 100% against us? :wtf:

What can we do about this trend? :shrug:

Steven P. :kick:

[Vincardog]

1. When the Trolls post we can and should let them sink like a stone

[JuniperLea]

2. There really are a lot of them around lately!

Everything needs to be backed up by links and we should all hold our anger a little better.

[Steve A Play]

4. Problem is, I'm not certain that these people are really 'trolls'

perhaps misguided or uninformed party faithful, but not trolls.

How do we get through to them?

Steven P. :kick:

[LisaL]

5. What is the freaking difference? She is not accusing of

either Clinton or Bush personally committing murders with their own hands, is she?

[Steve A Play]

11. No, she's not, but some people here

have taken the extreme stand that she's now somehow in league with Bush because she dared to speak the truth about her own party. Some here believe that it weakens our argument against the Bush Administration's misuse of force to admit that our own party has at times done so.

I feel it strengthens our position to admit to the facts and 'pull the weeds from our own front lawn' before demanding that the neighbors 'trim their bushes'. Throwing anyone who mentions the weeds on the lawn out of the house only makes it harder to pay the mortgage. :(

Steven P. :kick:

[eve_was_framed]

14. I never thought she was in league with the Bushevics but I think she

fails to appreciate that everything isn't black and white. One policy was to curb a threat and the present policy has escalated threats. I guess I get a little tired of always hearing Clinton's name invoked anytime talk about the current administration comes up. If it's not 9/11 it's Clinton and I just get weary of it.

[Steve A Play]

19. You claim that "One policy was to curb a threat" but I disagree

It's very well documented fact that the Iraqi military wasn't much to begin with by modern standards and was thoroughly decimated by our forces during the first Gulf War. The so called "Highway of Death" at the end of that conflict still stands out in my mind as one of the worst atrocities committed in modern times. We not only inflicted a heavy toll on the Iraqi military in Kuwait but we completely destroyed whatever was left of it as they retreated after the fact.

You bought the claim that Iraq was a "threat" because it was our democratic leaders that sold that particular lipstick covered pig, but can you at this point offer any real proof that they were a threat to anyone?

The real evidence both then and now says they weren't a threat and our government's actions only served to escalate the tensions in the region. Remember, Osama Bin Laden even mentioned our involvement in Iraq's internal problems as part of the rational for the 9/11 attacks.

Those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it. :)

You get the representatives you're willing to accept. I'm putting my representatives on notice. I will not accept lies from them no matter what party they belong to.

Steven P. :kick:

[eve_was_framed]

20. You are quite right about knowing our history. Before the 2000 election

I didn't know or follow politics at all, 2000 changed that. Clinton made his mistakes a plenty, Rwanda comes painfully to mind but to put the deaths of those children, in Iraq during the sanctions, solely on his shoulders to me is like giving a "get out jail free" pass to Saddam. Bin Laden also mentioned the troops in Saudi Arabia, are you putting that one on Clinton too then? Bin Laden wants his theocratic empire and will find his hate and justifications for his killing with anyone or anything he sees as standing in his way.

[Vincardog]

9. Have at it. I have worn myself talking sense to brick walls and do not Have

the time

[LisaL]

3. Well, Bush personally hasn't killed any Iraqis either.

I think it's pretty clear, regarding of the headline, she had to mean policies and not Bush or Clinton personally committing murders.

[Steve A Play]

8. My point being that the inflammatory nature of the phrasing

and intentional use of quote marks to skew what she really meant provokes an 'anger' response in the reader who will tend to take sides rather than give her real statement the thought it merits.

I've always thought this site gave voice to democrats and progressives looking to drive the Democratic Party back toward Democratic ideals. Some here seem to see it as the voice of the Democratic Party itself, love it or leave it.

Where have we seen that before? :(

[LisaL]

15. I don't think anybody thought she accused either Bush or Clinton

of personally going to Iraq and committing murder.

[Rocknrule]

18. Likewise, Hitler probably never killed anyone with his own hands

But indirectly, he was responsible for 6 million deaths

[pretzel4gore]

6. clinton went along to get along

he picked his battles; he simply couldn't undo policies the pig was intent on, and it's the pig that caused the deaths in iraq due to the sanctions-clinton was tied up with whitewater, and of course the other scandals, not to mention the oj simpson case, yugoslavia and all the rest of the crap (rush limbah humbug became a big deal during clinton's years) that the repukes were running by us. The fact is, everybody knows that if clinton could have, he would have fed every kid in iraq, but hell he lucky the nazipoohs never went after his daughter...question- how could the most powerful man on earth be brought down and humiliated by a private tryst with a willing adult groupie?
the pigmedia should be rounded up and shot for treason, all of them...

[eve_was_framed]

12. I concur with your thoughts.

[orwell]

7. Clinton upheld...

...the sanction regime, which probably did kill more Iraqis than George Bush's illegal war (to date.) But give Bush time, he's not even close to done yet.

I have faith that Bush will have more blood on his hands than the Clinton Administration. In fact, I'm fairly sure its neck and neck as I type.

Whee! We're number 1!

[eve_was_framed]

13. and now it looks like they are eying Iran...the count continues...

[Old BC]

10. Football Politics

I agree with your distaste for the disengenous deflections, the assinine strawmen, and all the other idiotic partisan tricks which ignore any respect for honest discourse. It's as if scoring team points is all that matters. To hell with aiming anything productive at reality and the issues ... just "scoreboard baby".

I spent three years banging wingnuts on the Hannity Forum; the place is filthy with the kind of neandertal to whom you refer. I came away with the opinion that most people who approach politics in this manner are losers in real life; losers whose entire, pitiful self-worth rises and falls with their party. They could care less about the truth.

[Steve A Play]

17. Hi Old BC!

Welcome to DU and thanks for weighing in. :hi:

The tactics you mention are directly out of the U.S. Department of the Army Field Manual FM 33-1, Psychological Operations - PSYOP. It was only by thoroughly reading it that I noticed that I had fallen into many of the traps set by our government. It seems that our political parties have adopted the methods for use in campaigns to the point that they manipulate the populace into choosing sides rather than choosing fit representatives of our ideals. Both parties are in it so deep at this point that they can only hope to keep the 'status quo' by keeping us fighting with each other lest we start to see through their BS and start fighting with them instead.

What I'm trying to establish is a dialog about how to bring "we, the people" together and set aside our 'politics' and stop cheer leading our teams just long enough for people to focus on how we are all being manipulated. I'd like to see us at least do it in our own party, if not between the parties.

One suggestion I have is to stop using any descriptive words like filthy, neanderthal, losers, pitiful, etc. where they don't need to be used. I may agree with you most whole heartedly, and I know all too well how good it makes me feel to let it rip like that, but it only serves to put up walls when attempting any sort of dialog with such people. They immediately tune into the 'attack' on their team and tune out any information that you try to present.

A friend bought me a copy of the manual on E-Bay but thanks to the nice people at free republic you can read the best part here!

Steven P. :kick:

[jonnyblitz]

16. an online community whose sole purpose is to cheerlead and

support a political party is NEVER going to be completely "reality based". anything that makes the party look good will be championed and embellished, anything that makes the party look bad will be discredited and condemned (whether it is true of not) and the "messenger" personally attacked and his loyalties questioned. It's the nature of the beast. an online community is apt to be more 'reality based" if it is organized around ideas and principles and not flacking for one political party or the other. we are the flip side of free republic here.

none of us are forced to stay here if we don't like it. it's just how it is.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

21. Since this is at LEAST the third time I've seen this posted, can't mods

screen this or merge the threads? Sheesh.

Funny how it's always by someone who meets, er, certain poster characteristics, too.

[Moderator]

22. Locking

Flamebait, redundancy, call-out...