the GOP is starting the "stab in the back" defense

Kevin Baker's essay this month in Harper's put a name (for me) to the tactic the right is using now in Iraq. The left is being blamed for the war gone bad because we opposed it, supported the terrorists blah blah

Here's the opening paragraph (sorry, not online so no link):

Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled the tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to inscrease the number of internal enemies.

Listen to Rush:
This Haditha story, this Haditha incident, whatever, this is it folks, this is the final big push on behalf of the Democratic Party, the American left, and the Drive-By Media to destroy our effort to win the war in Iraq. That's what Haditha represents -- and they are going about it gleefully. They are ecstatic about it... Folks, let me just put it in graphic terms. It is going to be a gang rape. There is going to be a gang rape by the Democratic Party, the American left and the Drive-By Media, to finally take us out in the war against Iraq. Make no bones about it. - Rush Limbaugh
from a blog entry about the Baker article here:
http://mydd.com/story/2006/6/6/14213/48947

I remember when they did it in Vietnam. If it weren't for the peaceniks, they said, we would have won Vietnam. Of course, those of us who lived through it know differently but new generations might not.

Propaganda. Prepare your defenses.

My Lai either.

Where is Emmanuel Goldstein?

To wit, German generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff convinced the Social Democrats to form a government in 1918, convinced them that the WW I was lost and convinced them to sue for peace. After Social Democrats had signed cease fire and subsequently the Versailles Treaty, the German right wing nationalists (among them the nascent Nazi party) turned around and blamed "decadent elements" (like the Socialists and Jews) for Germany's defeat and subsequent humiliation, in other words, for "stabbing Germany in the back."

Meanwhile, real responsibility for the defeat in World War I rested with the German generals who had convinced the Kaiser in 1914 (he didn't need much convincing) to offer the Habsburg Empire a blank check in Serbia, then proceeded to put an entire generation of German young men through the meat grinder of modern trench warfare and, finally, failed to negotiate for peace with the Western powers before America entered the war on the side of the Western powers.

Be cheerful....
Write encouragingly to friends at the front....
Don't repeat foolish gossip.
Don't listen to idle rumors.


edit: to add the rest of the not-propaganda

Maybe the rethugs will start using THEIR media to start convincing each other (and THEIR media) that the whole reason why Iraq is such a fiasco is because the out-of-power, almost voiceless Democrats didn't do enough to talk them out of it.

One thing is certain: Conservatives never have and never will admit to making a mistake. How could they? -- considering that all they do is the will of God.

Including their unforgivable sins.

Attack this chickenhawk scum for profiteering off the needless deaths of American military.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Check it out:

The story claimed that "In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen.Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North."

The Giap quote is a lie. According to WashingtonDispatch.com columnist Greg Lewis , who researched the alleged quotation, "no such volume exists."

According to Indymedia among other sources.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

......and give you a kiss while he mentally masturbates you. Go to his site. You won't get any facts but, maybe, you'll achieve that "just popped the neighbor's cat" feeling you are looking for.

statement?

Democrats must portray the GOP as stabbing America in the back...

flag-draped Liberty Belle arched against the mortal wound inflicted while her back was turned and fat drops of blood; corporatism, cronyism, greed, corruption, etc.

sounds like an authentic portrayal...her face is aghast, mouth slack, the dainty slipper on the polished floor is loosing its hold, about to go down...

But what does all this mean? Does there always have to be a scape-goat?

This is really an interesting opening post and responses.

I advocate recognizing the tactic for what it is so when you hear it you can counter it with....logic and the truth.

to know the truth and have no one believe you or to lie, lie, lie and have everyone believe your version?

Since I don't believe in a Final Arbiter (God) of Truth dispensing justice come death I'm not sure.

It's disheartening to me to think that those who lie, cheat, steal and use more noble men's beliefs to send them off to their deaths in far away lands will profit throughout their life.

...always better to know the truth and I suppose you didn't want a discussion on whether we can ever really know the truth, blah, blah.

I'm not advocating lying. I guess (why am I always defending myself here?) I just like to see the argument before I get hit with it by the right wing nut cases in my life.

And since its being talked about elsewhere, I thought I'd spread the word in the hopes some folk here would help me with ammunition. I don't find calling them liars works. They expect that.

While I think truth is always the best option, the history of man has shown those who *claim* to be speaking the truth and are not, usually end up better off. Politicians who line their pockets and are caught are few and far between. For every Dan Rostenkowski and Duke Cunningham, how many "Statesmen" lied became rich and respected and were revered throughout their life were eventually shown to be the crooks they really were?

And I don't think pure truth can ever be known, until we get some fantastical Arthur C. Clarke Truth Machine ala Childhood's End or if there is a god.

So, is better to be right and disliked/ignored/blamed/hated for the Iraq failure or to lie about why it failed and be believed/re-elected/respected?

Can it be called martyrdom?

Greek tragedy incorporated this idea of scape-goating; or, did it acknowledge scape-goating as a tragedy. What I wonder is if this kind of tactic was an outgrowth of democracy by oligarchs, not plutocrats, in order to regain control of the situation (divide and conquer).

My mind got stuck on this idea. I wouldn't choose to respond that way but it does seem to be effective as a tactic. If the importance was on furthering the discussion, it wouldn't be a tactic.

Anyway...I think I'll probably keep ruminating on it.

he gets confused, so symbolic politics are more important than any reality. Quell dissent and you can accomplish ANYTHING! That's why we need a flag-burning amendment. Uh-huh.