Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Readings in the Age of Empire, Review of :State of Denial

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
PerfectSage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:13 PM
Original message
Readings in the Age of Empire, Review of :State of Denial
http://antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=9921

<snip>When reality unfortunately did impinge, it was primarily viewed as a PR problem. The White House was thrilled by the capture of Baghdad but seemed more irritated by the press coverage of the ensuing looting and pillaging than by the events themselves. Reports Woodward, GOP communications specialist Margaret Tutwiler, who had been sent to Iraq, soon "was getting calls from the White House and Pentagon complaining about the pictures of the looting and chaos on television and in the newspapers. Get those pictures off, they said." Apparently it didn't occur to administration officials that the better approach would be send more troops to suppress the lawlessness.

When better PR proved to be an elusive target, the administration simply went negative. In late 2005, as the consequences of the president's many mistakes were becoming more obvious, he and his minions attacked their critics. Writes Woodward: "The other, bigger message in Bush's speech, however, was that the White House was going to come out swinging at anyone who claimed Bush and Cheney had misled the country before the war. The effect was to equate criticism with undermining the troops."

Such a tactic defines chutzpah. President Bush put American soldiers into danger based on flawed intelligence that he manipulated for his own political ends. Yet in his view anyone pointing out his misbehavior is a traitor who is putting U.S. troops into danger.<snip>


HaHa * is the penultimate loser in chief. He should retire into a mental institution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Next to last" loser-in-chief? Who is going to be the last one? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerfectSage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The last one will be America's Mikhail Gorbachev
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC