• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Brags About Manipulating Media on Iran

The CIA has been manipulating the Mass Media for 50 years or more. The President comes in and works at it for 8 years. That makes the President an amateur compared to the CIA operations. That was what the Church committee investigations in the 1970s revealed. We don't get the truth on any issue, just the narrative to support covert agendas. There are at least 20 Federal level Intelligence Agencies and all are manipulating the Media. That'd be manipulating you, me, and Grandma.
 
The CIA has been manipulating the Mass Media for 50 years or more. The President comes in and works at it for 8 years. That makes the President an amateur compared to the CIA operations. That was what the Church committee investigations in the 1970s revealed. We don't get the truth on any issue, just the narrative to support covert agendas. There are at least 20 Federal level Intelligence Agencies and all are manipulating the Media. That'd be manipulating you, me, and Grandma.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/
 
A member of the President's staff brags about conspiring to manipulate the media and you present this link. Conspiracy fact!

Your post took that just a wee bit further, don't you think?
 

I’ve read a fair number of books on foreign policy in recent years, yet the one that has made the greatest impression on me was assigned in the sixth grade. It was Esther Forbes’s novel “Johnny Tremain,” and the lesson I took from it was the very one Johnny himself had to learn the hard way: “Pride goeth before a fall.” Maybe too late, I recommend the book to President Obama and his foreign policy team. Their pride has already turned to smugness.
For evidence, I suggest reading a lengthy interview with Benjamin Rhodes, the president’s supremely cocky foreign-policy speechwriter and, by his own admission, master manipulator of the moronic media. The interview, published in the New York Times Magazine, makes for gripping reading. It is not usual, after all, for a senior White House official to crow about how he deceived the press (and the nation) about when negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program actually began. It was not when the more moderate current regime took power, but earlier, under the auspices of more recalcitrant hard-liners. In effect, the White House lied. . . .
 
Your post took that just a wee bit further, don't you think?

The Church Committee in 1977 found 400 CIA assetts and agents in USA Media. Nothing was done about it then and with the increases in their budget, you can be sure there are more now.
 
And one day a hot head presses his button, or gets a hold of someone else's button and presses it, and we can all watch the Middle East go up in a nuclear mushroom cloud.

How's this any sort of real progress in a positive direction? I seem to recall this as 'The End of Days' in some book someplace.

I'm sure that's how the Japanese felt when we dropped two "nukes" on them. But the world continued...

Sarcasm aside, I wasn't advocating for a nuclear Middle-East. Rather, now that ME countries know what Iran's been up to, it's in the best interest of ME countries to pressure Iran against building a nuclear bomb. And if they can't, they should do whatever is necessary to thwart their efforts, i.e., develop/obtain defensive missiles to counter a nuclear strike, use covert action to slow or destroy their nuclear weapons capability, etc., etc.)

Fact is, a nuclear Iran poses a far greater threat to the ME than it does to America. Therefore, it's in the ME's best interest to take proactive stands against it.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that's how the Japanese felt when we dropped two "nukes" on them. But the world continued...

Sarcasm aside, I wasn't advocating for a nuclear Middle-East. Rather, now that ME countries know what Iran's been up to, it's in the best interest of ME countries to pressure Iran against building a nuclear bomb. And if they can't, they should do whatever is necessary to thwart their efforts, i.e., develop/obtain defensive missiles to counter a nuclear strike, use covert action to slow or destroy their nuclear weapons capability, etc., etc.)

Fact is, a nuclear Iran poses a far greater threat to the ME than it does to America. Therefore, it's in the ME's best interest to take proactive stands against it.

The other ME countries will develop their own nuclear weapons.
 
The other ME countries will develop their own nuclear weapons.

A nuclear arms race with Allahu Akbar suicide bomber Islamic extremists within arms reach of the button.

Oh great. That sounds just wonderful.
 
Fact is, a nuclear Iran poses a far greater threat to the ME than it does to America. Therefore, it's in the ME's best interest to take proactive stands against it.
Why would you think that?

The Iranians aren't out on the streets shouting "Death To Qatar" or "Death To Saudi Arabia".
 
Why would you think that?

The Iranians aren't out on the streets shouting "Death To Qatar" or "Death To Saudi Arabia".

Sunni and Shia have no love lost between them. Eventually they'll probably tire of fighting amongst themselves, and its also inevitable they, or either, or both, will attempt smuggle either a nuclear explosive or a dirty bomb into the continental US or continental EU.

No safe course this, that the Iran deal has charted for the world.

It would have probably have been better to bottle up and prevent Iran and their nuclear ambitions through nearly any means necessary. And not just Iran, any other ME country as well. It's rather high risk to even allow the merest of chances for any Islamic fundamentalist extremist death cult access to these weapons and materials.
 
That is why the Iranian bomb will be so problematical.

Agreed.

Any nuclear material in, or close to, the hands of any extremist cult is a worry. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they are a worry, only because they are only slightly more stable than the militant Islamic extremist death cult.
 
The term 'manipulate' is normally used to describe a situation where someone is tricked, intimidated or otherwise pressured into doing something, but the MSM in America are rarely manipulated into helping democrats achieve their goals. They almost always do so of their own volition. Just like when they supported war in Iraq in 2003, they were fully behind that war....as long as the democrats were behind it.....but their support for the war ended the moment the democrats began coming out against it. Btw: They came out against it before the search for WMD's had even begun no less.That's proof of partisan bias!
 
As to the overall point - that the WH (whomever is in office) manipulates the media - what else is new? Think back to one of the biggest lies ever told before the UN Security Counsel in foreign policy history - that Iraq had WMD of such leathology and was attempting to sell same to terrorist - and most of the world bought hook line and sinker. When you put things in perspective, I'd much rather the latter lie be told than the former.

Don't start with that tired old lie again. What Bush said, matched what the intelligence reports said and I can rattle off a list of prominent democrats who completely agreed, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, etc...

The Obama Administration manipulating the media, is not the same as the White House, congress and the senate believing in what turned out to be flawed intelligence reports on Iraq, from both American intelligence agencies and half a dozen foreign intelligence agencies, and the media reporting on that intelligence.

You can lie to yourself all you want, but posting that lie here is just a lame ass way of trying to change a subject that doesn't look good for the Administration you have supported and the main stream news media you would like everyone to think isn't biased.
 
They bragged about how they got away with lying to the American citizens with the ACA.

Why would this minor issue about a nuclear Iran be any different.
 
Why would you think that?

The Iranians aren't out on the streets shouting "Death To Qatar" or "Death To Saudi Arabia".

This...

Sunni and Shia have no love lost between them. Eventually they'll probably tire of fighting amongst themselves, and its also inevitable they, or either, or both, will attempt smuggle either a nuclear explosive or a dirty bomb into the continental US or continental EU.

No safe course this, that the Iran deal has charted for the world.

It would have probably have been better to bottle up and prevent Iran and their nuclear ambitions through nearly any means necessary. And not just Iran, any other ME country as well. It's rather high risk to even allow the merest of chances for any Islamic fundamentalist extremist death cult access to these weapons and materials.
 
Don't start with that tired old lie again. What Bush said, matched what the intelligence reports said and I can rattle off a list of prominent democrats who completely agreed, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, etc...

I'm not going to rehash Bush-43 all over again except to make clear that one lie had devastating consequences, whereas the other only puts alittle egg on the face of an Administration. More to the point, I used the WMD briefing before the U.N. Security Counsel to add some perspective to this issue. Towit, if you're going to get all upset over being lied to OR having information manipulated by a sitting President (and/or his Administration), then at least be consistent with your outrage! Nevertheless, as I stated in my post which you quoted, "...the WH (whomever is in office) manipulates the media..." It happens on both sides of the political isle no matter which party is in office. But if I'm going to be lied to, I'd rather that lie be in pursuit of peace than it be a prelude to war.

Now, you can can keep telling yourself that the pre-Iraq War evidence was real and substantive all you want, but when an Administration draws up war plans to invade a country within months after taking office*, it makes me wonder who exactly has been more willing to swallowing the big lie more readily?

*Also see the following articles:

1) Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq...

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade...if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

2) Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses

3) Emails reveal Tony Blair's deal with George Bush over Iraq war was forged before invasion started* | Daily Mail Online

Note: Pay particular attention to the date/timeframe the meeting in Crawford, TX was to take place, read the specifics of the memo where Sec. Powell makes clear the U.S. and Britain are on a war footing with Iraq, and then recall exactly when military authorization was granted by Congress. If you're still convinced the pre-Iraq War evidence was sound after reading the above linked articles, then there's nothing I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to rehash Bush-43 all over again except to make clear that one lie had devastating consequences, whereas the other only puts alittle egg on the face of an Administration. More to the point, I used the WMD briefing before the U.N. Security Counsel to add some perspective to this issue. Towit, if you're going to get all upset over being lied to OR having information manipulated by a sitting President (and/or his Administration), then at least be consistent with your outrage! Nevertheless, as I stated in my post which you quoted, "...the WH (whomever is in office) manipulates the media..." It happens on both sides of the political isle no matter which party is in office. But if I'm going to be lied to, I'd rather that lie be in pursuit of peace than it be a prelude to war.

Now, you can can keep telling yourself that the pre-Iraq War evidence was real and substantive all you want, but when an Administration draws up war plans to invade a country within months after taking office*, it makes me wonder who exactly has been more willing to swallowing the big lie more readily?

*Also see the following articles:

1) Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community



2) Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses

3) Emails reveal Tony Blair's deal with George Bush over Iraq war was forged before invasion started* | Daily Mail Online

Note: Pay particular attention to the date/timeframe the meeting in Crawford, TX was to take place, read the specifics of the memo where Sec. Powell makes clear the U.S. and Britain are on a war footing with Iraq, and then recall exactly when military authorization was granted by Congress. If you're still convinced the pre-Iraq War evidence was sound after reading the above linked articles, then there's nothing I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise.

This forum has a conspiracy section for a reason... Why not use it instead of this lame ass attempt tp change the topic of conversation?

Take your "Bush lied, people died" nonsense somewhere else.
 
This forum has a conspiracy section for a reason... Why not use it instead of this lame ass attempt tp change the topic of conversation?

Take your "Bush lied, people died" nonsense somewhere else.

Oh My Goodness, the historical facts presented in Objective Voice's post must have touch a nerve, eh? ;) Funny how the truth can hurt sometimes.
 
They bragged about how they got away with lying to the American citizens with the ACA.

Why would this minor issue about a nuclear Iran be any different.

Everything Obama does is right and should be defended to the death by the liberals :)
 
I'm not going to rehash Bush-43 all over again except to make clear that one lie had devastating consequences, whereas the other only puts alittle egg on the face of an Administration. More to the point, I used the WMD briefing before the U.N. Security Counsel to add some perspective to this issue. Towit, if you're going to get all upset over being lied to OR having information manipulated by a sitting President (and/or his Administration), then at least be consistent with your outrage! Nevertheless, as I stated in my post which you quoted, "...the WH (whomever is in office) manipulates the media..." It happens on both sides of the political isle no matter which party is in office. But if I'm going to be lied to, I'd rather that lie be in pursuit of peace than it be a prelude to war.

Now, you can can keep telling yourself that the pre-Iraq War evidence was real and substantive all you want, but when an Administration draws up war plans to invade a country within months after taking office*, it makes me wonder who exactly has been more willing to swallowing the big lie more readily?

*Also see the following articles:

1) Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community



2) Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses

3) Emails reveal Tony Blair's deal with George Bush over Iraq war was forged before invasion started* | Daily Mail Online

Note: Pay particular attention to the date/timeframe the meeting in Crawford, TX was to take place, read the specifics of the memo where Sec. Powell makes clear the U.S. and Britain are on a war footing with Iraq, and then recall exactly when military authorization was granted by Congress. If you're still convinced the pre-Iraq War evidence was sound after reading the above linked articles, then there's nothing I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise.

Bush did 9/11, Obama is an Alien, JFK was never killed...

what else are we missing
 
Back
Top Bottom