Neither Rove nor the democrats he is attacking is guilty of propaganda here - both are using facts and speculating as to the true motives of their action and interpreting the meaning of their actions. That's not propaganda or disinformation. It's just opinions. Again, propaganda is knowingly being untruthful or repeating untruthful claims in order to affect people's minds. None of the above is about disinformation. Rove is a spin master.
apparently Pelosi needs to get some skin care tips from Elizabeth Warren WaPo calls foul: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c6f56c-32e7-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html
Why are you posting random people's opinions now in this specific thread? Are you trying to prove some sort of meta point here?
disinformation (propaganda). There is no liberal dismay or disappointment that a Trump presidency-ending war did not happen. Surprised you can't see it, I didn't take you for a Trump fan.
But we all know your take on this and that you genuinely believe that narrative and trying to be cute.
I am very happy things are de-escalating. I don't think anyone but Neocons want war with Iran. The idea that Liberals are this or that IS propaganda. It's totally made up based on what? Some tweet they dug up or some interpretation because the attack was criticized for exceeding the war powers act? This is an example of propaganda - striaight from the source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-toledo-ohio-rally-iran-impeachment
I will give congressman collins credit for walking back his comment and more commendably apologizing. Though looking at the trump supporter responses to his tweet(s) show the hatred that trump has set off...
Looks like I struck a nerve with O's. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. But really I hope everything is ok with you because this is very erratic behavior.
You would wonder what sort of working environment there would be in congress with some congressman calling other congressmen "terrorist lovers"?
Okay, Obama didn't kill Gaddafi, but he did make the decision to do airstrikes on the Libyan column headed to slaughter the rebels in Benghazi. Looks like he had the authority to do so, and indications that Congress wanted him to, but he did not get explicit authorization from Congress. The Senate had passed a non-binding resolution urging the UN to install a no-fly zone. The French and British wanted it, and eventually Obama signed on. The UN made the resolution and then we shot a bunch of missiles to enforce it. Here is an interesting article about it from The Atlantic in 2012: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ss-and-misled-america-on-war-in-libya/262299/. He is very critical of how it went down, arguing that Obama knew a no-fly zone would result in an escalation to striking ground targets but didn't tell the American people that nor seek authorization from Congress. This Iranian situation does have a lot of parallels. Both were for countries we've long held animosity toward. Both bypassed Congress. Both raised the spectre of escalating our involvement in some Middle East quagmire. But the Libya attack had some things going for it that the Iran attack did not. We had allies in agreement. We had a Resolution in the UN. The imminent threat to the Benghazi rebels was clear to the public and being reported on. Libya was a much weaker opponent. And, we were still in the fever of the Arab Spring and a public optimism (now mostly crushed) that our assistance could enable real reform. I think Obama was able to skate by on the criticism because the public support was more widespread. But, it'd probably been good for us if we'd demanded more accountability regarding Congressional authorization for the use of force. The other thing the article points out, contrary to this tweet, is that Democrats in Congress did object to the attack. A group of Democrats issued a statement that Obama should withdraw. Kucinich said it might be an impeachable offense. Btw, the same Atlantic journalist wrote about Trump's intervention as well. He didn't write about his authority to attack, but argues that Trump does not have the respect and support from the public he would need to successfully conduct a war against Iran. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/trump-war-choice/604444/ As for OBL and al-Awlaki, we were already at war with AQ. I don't think there is any doubt about the authority of the C-in-C in conducting a war he's been told to fight.
NY Post editorial this morning: https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-times-disgraceful-smear-of-americas-top-defense-officials/
