October 26, 2005
GOP Spin Makes Them Look Foolish*
The objective of spin is to put a positive light on something bad. So the more spin there is, the worse the "something bad" is.
But sometimes the politician doing the spinning goes so far, that he not only insults the public's intelligence, but his own as well; i.e. Dick Cheney when he said the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes."
But as incredible as it sounds, there's Republican spin that's worse then that.
In a July press conference while trying to spin more laughable "progress"
Somehow the so called "liberal" media allowed him to get away with that because not only are the insurgents using cell phones to communicate, they're using them to set off IEDs! Also, these groups are putting video of car bombings, executions, ambush's and IED attacks on the Internet to recruit new members!
So let me see if I have this straight: Americans are getting killed and maimed so we can give Iraqi's cell phones and Internet access, which are then used to kill Americans.
Yup, sounds like Republican logic to me!
But wait, there's more!
One of the "oldie but goodie" talking points that Republicans use to spin/minimize this colossal disaster, is that with "only" 2000 dead (so far) and "only" 15,000 wounded (so far), that's nothing compared to WWII, when on some days we lost as many as a thousand men.
Well, let's compare WWII to Iraq, shall we?
First, WWII was a world war fought on three continents with five million men. Iraq is being fought by 150,000 troops in a country the size of California.
Second, The Japanese attacked us, they controlled the Pacific and the Nazis invaded Europe.
Unless I missed something, Saddam Hussein's Baathists didn't invade the Mid East, they didn't attack us, nor could they have attacked us:
"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to WMDs. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
- Colin Powell, Feb. 2001
And since Hussein couldn't step foot in northern or southern Iraq because of the no-fly zones, he was in his box where we could keep an eye on him.
Therefore, we had absolutely no reason to invade Iraq, obviously, while in 1941 we had no choice and had to go to war. So only a brainwashed Republican who's unable to admit he was wrong about Iraq would compare the two (I love using logic to prove Republicans and their spin wrong. It's so easy!).
But since trying to win an unwinnable argument - at the expense of their own "intellect," no less - is more important then anything else, the Republican base will continue using this moronic comparison.
And to think Republicans made fun of "Baghdad Bob." Heck, when you compare what's going on in Iraq to all the Republican spin, it's "Bob" that's credible!
But wait, there's more!
Mindless and gullible Republicans also spin/minimize our casualties in Iraq by comparing them to the casualties we took in Vietnam. But we've lost more soldiers in two and a half years in Iraq then we did during the first four years in Vietnam!
And keep in mind, that while casualties in Vietnam did escalate as the war did, we'll never have nearly the same number of troops in Iraq that we had in south east Asia at the height of the war.
To illustrate Republican logic, they're trying to spin one disaster for another. It would be like sticking your head into a beehive and saying it wasn't so bad because you weren't stung as much as you were when you foolishly did it 40 years earlier.
But using Vietnam to spin Iraq shows just how ignorant Republicans are because they must be the only ones who never heard of the phrase's "no more Vietnams" and "learn from history, or you'll be doomed to repeat it."Another talking point the GOP handed to their brainwashed base to use against "liberals," is that if you oppose the war, then you "hate our troops."
Does a baseball fan "hate" his favorite team if they're having a lousy year? Does he stop "supporting" them? Doesn't he admit they are a lousy team, or does he try and put a positive spin on them (do Met fans brag about the 40 games they won in 1962 and blame the "liberal" media for making a big deal about the 120 losses?)?
So why does opposing a war automatically mean you hate our troops? It's not our soldiers fault their Commander in Chief is a dick.
The objective of spin is to put a positive light on something bad. So the more spin there is, the worse the "something bad" is.
But sometimes the politician doing the spinning goes so far, that he not only insults the public's intelligence, but his own as well; i.e. Dick Cheney when he said the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes."
But as incredible as it sounds, there's Republican spin that's worse then that.
In a July press conference while trying to spin more laughable "progress" in Iraq, Don Rumsfeld said that Iraqi's now have cell phone availability and Internet access.
Somehow the so called "liberal" media allowed him to get away with that because not only are the insurgents using cell phones to communicate, they're using them to set off IEDs! Also, these groups are putting video of car bombings, executions, ambush's and IED attacks on the Internet to recruit new members!
So let me see if I have this straight: Americans are getting killed and maimed so we can give Iraqi's cell phones and Internet access, which are then used to kill Americans.
Yup, sounds like Republican logic to me!
But wait, there's more!
One of the "oldie but goodie" talking points that Republicans use to spin/minimize this colossal disaster, is that with "only" 2000 dead (so far) and "only" 15,000 wounded (so far), that's nothing compared to WWII, when on some days we lost as many as a thousand men.
Well, let's compare WWII to Iraq, shall we?
First, WWII was a world war fought on three continents with five million men. Iraq is being fought by 150,000 troops in a country the size of California.
Second, The Japanese attacked us, they controlled the Pacific and the Nazis invaded Europe.
Unless I missed something, Saddam Hussein's Baathists didn't invade the Mid East, they didn't attack us, nor could they have attacked us:
"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to WMDs. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
- Colin Powell, Feb. 2001
And since Hussein couldn't step foot in northern or southern Iraq because of the no-fly zones, he was in his box where we could keep an eye on him.
Therefore, we had absolutely no reason to invade Iraq, obviously, while in 1941 we had no choice and had to go to war. So only a brainwashed Republican who's unable to admit he was wrong about Iraq would compare the two (I love using logic to prove Republicans and their spin wrong. It's so easy!).
But since trying to win an unwinnable argument - at the expense of their own "intellect," no less - is more important then anything else, the Republican base will continue using this moronic comparison.
And to think Republicans made fun of "Baghdad Bob." Heck, when you compare what's going on in Iraq to all the Republican spin, it's "Bob" that's credible!
But wait, there's more!
Mindless and gullible Republicans also spin/minimize our casualties in Iraq by comparing them to the casualties we took in Vietnam. But we've lost more soldiers in two and a half years in Iraq then we did during the first four years in Vietnam!
And keep in mind, that while casualties in Vietnam did escalate as the war did, we'll never have nearly the same number of troops in Iraq that we had in south east Asia at the height of the war.
To illustrate Republican logic, they're trying to spin one disaster for another. It would be like sticking your head into a beehive and saying it wasn't so bad because you weren't stung as much as you were when you foolishly did it 40 years earlier.
But using Vietnam to spin Iraq shows just how ignorant Republicans are because they must be the only ones who never heard of the phrase's "no more Vietnams" and "learn from history, or you'll be doomed to repeat it."Another talking point the GOP handed to their brainwashed base to use against "liberals," is that if you oppose the war, then you "hate our troops."
Does a baseball fan "hate" his favorite team if they're having a lousy year? Does he stop "supporting" them? Doesn't he admit they are a lousy team, or does he try and put a positive spin on them (do Met fans brag about the 40 games they won in 1962 and blame the "liberal" media for making a big deal about the 120 losses?)?
So why does opposing a war automatically mean you hate our troops? It's not our soldiers fault their Commander in Chief is a dick.
But why do I get the impression that if this was Clinton's disaster, the GOP would be saying it's fine to support our troops, but oppose the mission?
Oh wait, they did say that!
"I still do support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy."
- Tom Delay, on the House Floor, Apr. 1999 in regards to the air strikes in Kosovo
(Also see GOP (Hypocrisy) on Kosovo)
And recently, a new GOP talking point has emerged: "our troops 'volunteered' for service."
I can only imagine what the GOP would be screaming if Bill Clinton sent our "volunteers" into this disaster (speaking of which: Blatant GOP Hypocrisy*).
The spin continued last week when Bush naturally made a big deal about the vote on the Constitution - just like he did with last January's "elections" - as if Iraq has become this flourishing democracy.
But what George Bush and the "liberal" media failed to mention, is that the Constitution brings Islam into the "government" - thereby turning Iraq into a theocracy, similar to Iran's - and comes down hard on women's rights. In fact, they have less rights under this Constitution, then they did under Saddam Hussein!
But the "vote" itself was all spin because with the violence, chaos and instability in the country, and militia and insurgent groups controlling some areas and regions, the Constitution is meaningless since it will be impossible to implement and enforce. So these "elections"- rigged elections at that - have absolutely nothing to do with freedom or democracy. And why should Bush care? As long as he has something to spin, that's all that matters.But let me see if I have this straight: We've risked the lives of our brave men and women so we can give Iraqi's cell phones and Internet access, which are then used to kill our brave men and women, so the Shiites can turn a stable secular country into an Islamic Theocracy - which may have ties to Iran - that not only gives them the opportunity to take revenge against the Sunni's, but treats women as second class citizens, with the possibility of a civil war breaking out at any time.
Yup, sounds like more Republican logic to me!
I don't know what's more sad. The spin coming out of the White House or those who believe it.
(For more Iraq war spin: More Foolish GOP Spin.)
+/- show/hide this post
