I'm hearing more and more worrying propaganda on the news, mainly coming from George W Bush.
We all know about the WMD lies during the lead up to invasion of Iraq, but there's a new batch now about Iran. Mostly rubbish about terrorism, the usual crap and untruths, but the latest stuff about Iran being able to develop a nuclear ICBM capable of reaching anywhere in Europe or mainland USA by 2015 is just FAR too silly!

In this case it's wasn't so much to do with manufacturing another case for invasion, but to justify deployment of the so-called "missile shield" in Eastern Europe. Basically what he's trying to do is deploy a missile defence against the Russian Federation and China, and using Iran as a sort of paper tiger to justify what's basically a threatening action against Russia and China (it means the US can annihilate them and they can't retaliate effectively). Hardly clever, or original, but pretty much a standard tactic of misdirection. The thing is though: how many lies and how much propaganda on this kind of awesome scale is appropriate before it starts to harm the reputation of a country irreparably?

The USA already has a pretty bad name around the world in most countries after the Iraq fiasco, is it really a good idea to dig a deeper hole by making its face look even more false and untrustworthy? How far is it ok to push the lies? And what will this mean for the US in future?

Seems like a big loss of position. The reputation of fair dealing is starting the dry up... :(

The President once famously said "I have political capital and I'm going to spend it" and he did - he spent it on all sorts of things, and now it's gone.

See, you aren't supposed to spend capital - you're supposed to invest it in things that will give you more capital. Things like honesty.

You've taken propaganda too far when no one believes you anymore. It's the same for nations as it is for us in our personal lives. If you tell the truth, people will tend to believe you. If you tell a lot of lies, people will eventually tune you out.

The US has told a few too many, Im afraid, and it will be hard work to get our reputation back. Assuming, of course, that Americans decide that it matters.

us presidents are the same as kings nowadays...not much checks and balances anymore.
washington would roll over his own grave if he finds out what this country has turned into.

subcultured
us presidents are the same as kings nowadays...not much checks and balances anymore.
washington would roll over his own grave if he finds out what this country has turned into.

Actually Bush was the first to grab so much power unilaterally, let's hope we learn our lesson about that.

Actually the spin machine has been in high gear since Bush took office, and especially since 911. The thing is that the American public can be pretty dense, but sufficiently prodded, they can be equally unforgiving of bullshit, and I think they're akmost there now. A few more mistakes on Bush's part and i think that's it for the reign of the neocons.

Good riddance.

On a practical if chillingly macabre basis We used to be able to paste the old Soviet Union from border to border with our missile carrying submarines that carried long range nuclear warheads and could be launched in secret from nearly anywhere beneath the ocean waters. Guess what our chicken-hawk conservative regime in Washington DC has been doing since 2000 however? They have been converting those boomers into much shorter range rocket launching platforms. This means that Russia is no longer quite as much under the gun, so to speak, as it was in its Soviet Union days.

None of which really matters though when we consider that the up front and obvious rationale for any Bush declared war justification is really just a boat load of drifting smoke and funhouse mirrors designed to confuse and misdirect the citizens of the United States every bit as much as the putative enemies of the month.

I've come to believe over the years of scratching my head in wonder as the Bush Administration makes the Keystone Cops of yore look competent and the Nazi propagandists look honest in comparison that most of it all boils down to looting our national treasury and transferring a great deal of its contents into Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and et. al and Big Business pockets while methodically reducing the nation's lower middle class and poor to the status of peasantry.

The above conjectures make about as much sense anyway as any claims that members of the bush Administration make as to their motivations regarding any national and foreign policy.

As far as the nation's ruined reputation goes, the conservative followers will never believe that any of that was a result of any conservative misjudgments or faults. They have been conditioned both by their own inclinations and by talk radio conservative propagandists doing the bidding of the conservative leadership to automatically blame liberals for everything under the sun. Logic need not apply.

Bush and Cheney and the conservative leadership know this and are counting on this combination of deliberate propaganda programming and the dependable nature of hard core conservatives to spare them the slings and arrows of just punishment.

Centrists and Left of Center thinkers on the other hand believe that after the Bush gang is gone from office they can simply blame the leadership of the party for all resulting ills and that the rest of the world will allow them a honeymoon period to prove that they are not simply a different breed of the same sort of predator. This may indeed turn out to be the case. In other words, for many people both in the United States and the wider world itself, the democrat president, assuming such becomes the next president, will be given ample chances to apologize for the evil and insane actions of the Bush Administration while proving that he or she is indeed very much different in nature.

It will be interesting to see if it works out as the democrats hope.

DO NOT underestimate the USA propaganda machine.

1) They have the best media/special effects in the world. No matter how you bash hollywood and call their movies crap, they still got the EFFECTS and the DRAMA power to make their propaganda more effective.

2) The cold war. Don't you think the USA hasnt learned shit from it? Communism is known for its propaganda ability. Commie states are notorious for brainwashing. USA has studied these commie regimes. Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc... etc...

3) Just like misinformation is easily spread in a democratic society, so is propaganda. Even with all these conspiracy guys popping out... If I was the US govt... in order to disprove these conspiracy theorists I will just make a website (or a bunch of websites and books) full of conspiracies and make them say outrageously stupid things to make them look outrageously stupid in the eyes of the general public. Because if I crack down on those conspiracy people it will only validate their claims and it will risk rebellion of the people.

4) USA must have learned better propaganda techniques than its communist and islamic enemies. Based on my reading about communism and islamic extremism, both these ideologies have the religion factor involved. I saw a documentary on North Korea... and I was amazed how the people worship Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il until their faces are red with tears. I saw those vids on youtube with hamas and iraqi insurgent propaganda... they all have this religious twist in them. Its the duty of every muslim to destroy infidel USA.

Observe how the USA has effectively neutralized the effects of its Christian religious roots. Look how it seems that God or Christianity just has a bad impression these days. Atheism is sooo coool! As if its a state religion these days. I suspect systematic USA govt propaganda to destroy the reputation of religious groups.


So there... The USA propaganda machine is probably better than communism or any religious type. :(

Just my thoughts on this.

And yes I think the USA will be able to get its war with Iran... even though its stupid. Since Iran has a REAL army that is at least 10x stronger than that shit army of Saddam that they fought back in 2003. (they cant even get proper uniforms and enough ammo and food for their troops!!! Iraqi soldiers fought wearing flipflop sandals or worn out shoes!!!)

Yep. As Hillary said, "It's a right-wing conspiracy." We all know those conservatives control the news!

It's sort of related...
http://www.davidbrin.com/ostrich2a.html
it's fun.

I think there is a difference between propaganda in general and political dishonesty fuled by propaganda.

For example putting out a super hero book where the bad guys happen to be a group you are at war with is propaganda but not nessesarily politically dishonest.

Your main complaint seems to be what you feel a lack of honesty, tranparency and thusly accountability from government. Assuming your analasis is totally correct it isn't nessesarily propaganda to say you are installing missles bomb Iran even if they have an eye to China. They may well after all serve a duel purpose of guarding both contries but it would be politically dangerous or tactically unwise to say you are worried about China. For example in for years the US denied they had stealth bombers to increase their tactical value even though other contries suspected the US had them, similarly certain satlite photo's are not released not because the photo's themselves has tactical value but because they don't want people to know the extents/limitations of their satilites.

I would say the question you really care to ask is at what level is secrecy and polical manipulation (of which proaganda is only one part) dangerous?

I'm not sure where that line is myself but I'd have to say while Bush has tried to consoliated some political power to the presidency he has probably been far more transparent and accumulated less power then Nixon did. In the case of Nixon I think the US got a lucky break when he got his hand caught in the cookie jar. The man was a dangerously paranoid yet political and legally savy and all reports suggest it was getting worse as his administration continued. In anycase it is not at all uncommon for their to be a tug of war between the various powers of US government for their powers. Indeed it is probably healthy for each branch be active in this matter and if Bush has to much power it is qually a falure of the other branches to stop him. For example both congress and the presidents for years have tip toed around the issue of the presidents report of military action to congress by explicently saying on each report that the president complies as a courtesy rather then because he is bound two. Since however each president has actually turn over said reports even with said stipulation both sides have let the matter be for fear of being ruled against as the law may or may not be consitutional as it restricts a power given to the president by the constitution even if it is does so to allow congress to better do its job. Similarly past presidents have tried to add the line item veto to their powers and was only narrowly defeated in this matter. However since they did it in an open manner once again I assume your complain is not the usually business of the powers trying to check each other but the way in which the presidency has gone about challenging the other two branches and increasing its scope which goes back to transparency.

It seems to me most people in reality are far more bothered more by what the current administration is doing as opposed to how they are doing it given the intense secrecy and propaganda of past presidents including Bill Clinton who was highly secretive as his many scandals (not just the interns one) show or how FDR actively pushed propaganda to conceal his disability, rally americans into the war and proceeded to stay in office an unheard of four terms.

Historically it is very hard to say this adinistration is more secretive or power hungery then all others. Is it extream? Probably, but clearly not unique. Most such controveries however has been smoothed over and white washed by history. Assuming the administration stays on it current course and finishes out realtively quietly historically speaking it is highly likely it will share the same fate of being mostly forgotten and sanitized by history with most of the details forgotten to the population and only the flashy short sensation of 9/11 holding any lasting power in the public mind. While Bush might not be romantisized(SP) the way some presidents have been it is unlikely he'll be villianized by history either. Much of his legacy will probably be equally determined by his own actions and how effectively they are followed up by the next president. At least I have to assume so since no one says things like "Bush is the worst president we've had since that blowhard cowboy Teddy!" or "He has performed in the same style as FDR" only "Bush is the worst/best president ever!"

Personally I think Bush has been very Nixon like in his early presidency but he seems to have shyed away from that in his second term becoming more or less hamstrung unable to get much politcal traction having lost his party unity by becoming a lame duck and therefor action and dogged by his foriegn enemies keeping his distracted from other issues in a very Carter like sort of way. I'm not saying he is like either in terms of personality or presumed motives but in historical context based on how his administration has gone.

As for your actually topic I think the limits of normal propaganda are:

1.) Outright dishonestly as opposed to over simplfying or slanting an issue.
2.) Suppression of the truth/disagreeing opinions and/or domination of information to the point of effectively suppressing information.
3.) allowing propaganda to dominate the issue and use propaganda as discussion as opposed to using propaganda as a support tool. After all effectively most talking points are used effectively as propaganda & many interviews.
4.) When propaganda becomes more important then the issue the propaganda is supposed to support.
5.) When propaganda is your first/last and only open stance on the subject.

In short I feel propadanda is okay to use when you are trying to simply a subject to explain in a short easy to digest bit, to counter other propaganda and lastly as promotional tool to get your message out expediantly. It become unacceptable when propaganda is no longer use to support/inform as part of a large movement and decends into the dominant form of communication & attempted brain washing. "Good" propaganda or as good as it gets should contain a simplified version of the truth and hopefully be presented as one side in summery.

IE: Propaganda might be a talking point or comercial saying "We must revise X system and my opponent won't do it, I however have a plan." where as transparent honesty might be "My opponent has tried to revise this system but his stance has been to partisan and he has seen limited progress for various reasons. I for X, X & X reasons will be able to effect change without total compromise allowing me to make X change to the system."

Saying so might be totally honest but it knocks the wind out of your sales where as a simplifcation of the truth is more effective to communicate your point and hopefully with cause those interested to seek your plan which you have hopefully made clear elsewhere in longer formats but was to long and complicated to push into your propaganda talking point or commerical.

By and large the american style of propaganda is not to give a free pass to people you agree with but simply to demonize those who oppose you.

propaganda is a stament (picture, writting et et et) that lies or misleads it viewer in think a way the maker of the stament whats you to think. Am i the only one who sees this ever ware. You can walk drown the sheet without being told what to think. Form the poilical suff that you see advertised as well as the anti-goverment giffi. Its all trying to trun you made one way or the ofter.

Taking form a propaganda vai images, theres no pice that dosn't misleads, most poeple think that a images only show what you can see but they then doin't look at what been leave out. Read a images or a stament by somone and then deside what they have leave out and then you get a idear of the view that thier trying feed you.

The main proble with propaganda is that many poeple want there choice made for them so that they don't have to worrie about making the wong one. So the propaganda works and as long as poeple are more scaerd of making a wong choice they will continue to let propaganda work and then it will let it go as far as it can.

Propaganda doesn't even have to be a lie for it to count as propaganda. It just needs to be some kind of medium that attempts to alter the viewer or listener's thought process is some way.

I suppose you are right Hawk.

Propadanda has such a negative image though that most tend to think of it as inherently dishonest.

True. It's that manipulative nature that makes the action dishonest. I've seen agendas I agree with pushed in ways that I don't agree with.

Anything Bush says is has valid as what Kim Jung il says. Nothing but ramblings from a jackass that use to get away with what they wanted, but then people saw they were batshit insane.

not all of the u.s. public believe bush's bullshit. in fact, i don't know too many that do eat it up. granted, i live in the north, and the south is a whole different animal. but still, bush's approval ratings have gone to crap, and i think the recent elections of congress prove that we are trying to get away from republican tomfoolery.

kyupol
Observe how the USA has effectively neutralized the effects of its Christian religious roots. Look how it seems that God or Christianity just has a bad impression these days. Atheism is sooo coool! As if its a state religion these days. I suspect systematic USA govt propaganda to destroy the reputation of religious groups.

So... wait, what? Are you suggesting that the US needs a national Christian religion?

...Granted, internally this has some bad effects... But I really meant on a geopolitical level, you know: how much it affects the reputation of the US, its diplomatic ability, strategic relationships and alliances internationally.

The trouble with internal stuff is that it just heads down the same old partisan lines, and that makes it harder to look at the bigger issues, and even less likely that pro government people will even see that there is an issue.

As an example of what I mean, currently George Bush Jnr and gang are going around everywhere saying that Iran is the greatest danger the world has ever known, and that they have "intelligence" reports to prove it. Most countries are looking at that and saying "WTF!?? You spun us the exact same line about Iraq and it was ALL lies, you expect us to fall for it AGAIN? Are you fucking kidding me?". ...I'm paraphrasing there of course lol!

The US will get even less support for an Attack on Iran than they did with the invasion of Iraq, basically because everybody's been burned by the Iraq and Afghan messes. And Iran isn't a starved weakling like Iraq was... So that means if the US does initiate an invasion of Iraq with the level of support it has, in the short term it does have the power to succeed, but in the medium and long term that action would literally begin to destroy the US as a world power: the conflict would drag and escalate, more US resources than could be afforded would be drained into it, and all the allies and good will would desert it.

The US can really only succeed (truly succeed that is, even in Iraq) in Iran by promising massive loot and spoils to China and Russia. And that will never happen because the entire point of that sort of invasion is strategic control of territory, energy, and resources: and the point of getting those is to compete and stay ahead of Russia and China.

So the US is left with what? Flaky NATO and EU allies who're getting less amenable by the minute and were never very effective or interested in the Iraq or Afghan fights either anyway... The African Union has enough trouble of its own. South East Asia could care less with only the Philippines being good allies and even THEY have their own troubles enough. Australasia can give negligible assistance. And Middle Eastern, Indian and Pakistani Allies have gone as far as their people will let them, any more and there'll be revolutions. That leaves Israel, and given the position of everybody else; that leaves Israel more alone than ever before if there ever IS an invasion.

Boondocks episode 5 best sums it up:

* The expedition to search for the Xbox Killer, who is the real threat to public safety, is likened to the hunt for Osama bin Laden. However, this quest is sidetracked by a completely unrelated detour to the Iraqi store, for no coherent purpose. This is analogous to a viewpoint that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the manhunt for bin Laden. In the car, Huey angrily affirms that they are literally "down the street from the killer," similar to how Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq are geographically close
* The fact that Wuncler and Rummy are "robbing" the store is parallel to the sentiments of many people that the United States is "robbing" Iraq of oil or at least attempting to. Additionally, the duo can be seen taking cases of liquor labeled "Black Gold".
* Huey's retort that he attained information simply by talking to people references the argument from some Iraq War strategy critics that the U.S. was using unnecessary force in dealing with Iraq, thereby causing needless harm and expenditures.
* Initially, the gas station clerk, who bears physical resemblance to Saddam Hussein, refers to Ed Wuncler III (George W. Bush) and Gin Rummy (Donald Rumsfeld) as "close friends and allies". The United States supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988).
* The clerk says to Ed Wuncler III, "Your father helped me build this store." George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush's father, was Vice-President under Ronald Reagan when the United States was supporting Iraq. This is hinted at earlier in the episode when the overhang over the gas pumps bear an insignia with the letter "W", possibly short for "Wuncler".
* Ed Wuncler III and Gin Rummy claim that the clerk has a weapon when it's obvious he doesn't. The presumption that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" was the pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
* The police officer could be considered symbolic of the U.N., or the country of France (the officer's name is Frank.) The police officer doesn't believe the clerk is a threat initially, saying, "I don't see a weapon!" However, Ed Wuncler III angrily questions his loyalty and goes so far as to point a gun at him, shouting, "Whose side you on?" This line perhaps parallels George W. Bush's statement, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Sure enough, the policeman back pedals, saying, "I think I see the gun now!"
* During the robbery, Gin Rummy tells the police officer that he won't "die in vain". In a 2004 prime time press conference, George W. Bush said, "And one of the things that's very important, Judy, as far as I'm concerned, is to never allow our youngsters to die in vain. And I made that pledge to their parents. Withdrawing from the battlefield of Iraq would be just that." (This is also one of many references throughout the series to the "Not Dead Yet" gag from Monty Python and The Holy Grail)
* At one point, the clerk says, "You're thinking about the Korean shop north of here!" He is referring to North Korea. Another popular criticism of the Iraq War is that Iraq did not have nuclear capabilities, while Kim Jong Il in North Korea did.
* During the robbery, Gin Rummy incredulously says, "I didn't think they'd actually shoot back at us!" In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld predicted that the Iraqis would welcome the Americans as liberators.
* Ed Wuncler's quote, "Bring it on, bitch!" is directly paraphrasing a George W. Bush quote, made in the summer of 2003 in reference to Iraqi attacks on American soldiers. Bush said, "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on."
* The unlawful arrest, severe mistreatment of, and forced confession of Tom Dubois could be a reference to the anti-French attitudes that plagued the United States during most of the Iraq war. The French were used as a scapegoat, originally due to the fact that they did not support the war in Iraq, and secondarily because of their extremely high Muslim immigrant population, making the country ripe for prejudice. Both Tom and the French were victims in that they were unjustly treated for no cause other than being "in the wrong place at the wrong time." This could also be a reference to anti-Islam prejudice.
* Gin Rummy's quote, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", is a direct quote by Donald Rumsfeld, referring to Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction. Rummy's quote, "That was an unknown unknown," is also a reference to a quote from Donald Rumsfeld: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."
* After the altercation, the people outside the gas station hail Ed Wuncler and Gin Rummy as heroes, chanting "USA!" This parallels the support still enjoyed by the troops actually in combat, regardless of the way the Bush administration planned, marketed, and executed the war.

ozoneocean, It's apparent that most of us mostly agree with you but since most us also seem to be U.S. citizens we sort of automatically look at things from our current perspective of shock and awe that not only has the conservative leadership in our nation destroyed our international reputation while stretching the health of our military personnel to the breaking point but has apparently done something simply horrible to our economy in the process, and all while our free press -- with the exception of NPR - pretty much pretends that this is just another presidency much the same in nature and in deeds as any of the past twenty years or so.

We feel just as helpless as the rest of the world and we also feel heartbroken.

Being a citizenry of a nation with a magnificent history of being incredibly lucky and blessed with vast natural resources that have made us almost self-sufficient we also firmly believe that Bush and Cheney and his thugs have not broken anything within our continental boundaries or even internationally that can't eventually be fixed, and this perspective includes our attitude on our internationally ruined reputation. in other words we - a great many of us anyway - believe that things will eventually work themselves out and that we and the world will recover.

Australians do not have an exclusive lock on the concept of 'She'll be alright!'

Perhaps what you want is assurance from us citizens that Bush and company cannot get away with yet another unnecessary and unjustified war. If that is the case then my reply must be a sad, "Would that we could." You see, we are also seeking such assurances from ourselves and from our various representatives. But at least twenty million of our adult citizens still do not believe that Bush lied, has done anything wrong, and do honestly believe that we are winning the Iraq War venture. Honest to God! Yes, twenty million is a relatively small percentage of our population, but if correctly roused by the professional conservative propagandists they can infect more or less normal people with the same non-thinking fervor, just as was done with the Iraq War venture in fact.

So, alas and alakaday, yes, it can damn well happen again! It can happen again despite the fact that today bush enjoys only a twenty nine percent popularity rating. It can happen because we don't know when or if our free press might decide to play ball with the Bush Administration again for the simple reason that warfare sells news and makes or breaks news journalist reputations.

So can we destroy Iran while Bush is on his way out of office. Hell yes we can. Could we possibly thereafter assume control of the rubble filled nation and rehabilitate it to suit Bush/Cheney's tastes? No, because as we already know with Afghanistan - which we are currently losing to the Taliban again - and with Iraq there is only so much that superior technology alone can do. When all is said and done you have to combine resources with adequate numbers of boots on the ground, and we already don't have enough of those to go around.

So what would be the end result of our destroying Iran? We would be even more despised and hated by the rest of the world than we already are now. For some reason, though, Bush/Cheney and their inner circle of corrupt thugs don't care about that. Perhaps this is because they have been siphoning billions of dollars into secret accounts and know that they simply will never be called to account for their actions.

So what are citizens of such a nation to do? We no longer can trust our free press to act like a free press. Our representatives seem almost universally disconnected from reality. Something in our nation is broken and - unfortunately - the only ones that can fix the problem don't seem inclined to acknowledge that there really is any problem in need of fixing.

So yes, pretty much all your dire predictions as to the consequences of destroying Iran is true, or so I also believe, but there is absolutely nothing that the citizens of the United States can do while our own representatives remain determined to turn a blind eye to these realities and while our own free press remains untrustworthy.

CharleyHorse
Centrists and Left of Center thinkers on the other hand believe that after the Bush gang is gone from office they can simply blame the leadership of the party for all resulting ills and that the rest of the world will allow them a honeymoon period to prove that they are not simply a different breed of the same sort of predator. This may indeed turn out to be the case. In other words, for many people both in the United States and the wider world itself, the democrat president, assuming such becomes the next president, will be given ample chances to apologize for the evil and insane actions of the Bush Administration while proving that he or she is indeed very much different in nature.

The problem with this is that the Democrats are under the spell of the neo-cons just as much as the GOP. There's little meaningful difference in the two parties, especially in foreign policy. Liberal Democrats who decry Bush as a warmonger seem to have forgotten Clinton's "wag the dog" war in Serbia or the bombings and starvation of Iraqis throughout the 1990s. We've been at war with Iraq for almost two decades. Bush just escalated it.

TitanOne, I have to admit to agreeing with you on this assessment. Or pretty much so. I always said that the determination of the republican leadership to destroy President Clinton at any and all costs was a puzzler simply because Bill Clinton was the best president the republicans ever had. Aside from an attempt at health care reform that I still think Hillary Clinton blackmailed her husband into supporting, it seemed to me that Bill was much more of a moderate republican businessman in thought and policy decisions than any form of a compassionate liberal.

I was also against the Balkans involvement. But then again, I don't consider any war of the nineteenth century -- with the possible exceptions of the two world wars to have been genuinely justified so far as our involvement was concerned, and so what do I know?

So I agree that the democrat leadership frequently resemble neo-conservatives lite in action, if not in talk. On the other hand it is a rule of thumb with me that the determined pursuit of political office is the ultimate corrupter of humanity and that therefore nearly all upper level politicians are to some degree or the other corrupt scum; the particular party affiliation notwithstanding.

The only saving grace of the democrat leadership is that they pretty much seem too petty in their corruption schemes to try and take over the world or to establish a rule of neo-fascism in this nation. While corrupt they seem content to be corrupt on a small and individualistic scale. They just aren't all that much into scamming billions from the system while diverting people with nation-building scams. They remain on the whole content to steal only millions at a time and to sniff after pretty little interns.

The democrats are simply the vastly lesser evil in my eyes, but they I still consider essentially corrupt.

So yes, I have read between the lines and realize that most of the democrat presidential contenders fully intend to keep us involved to some degree or the other in the Afghanistan and Iraq mess after Bush slinks out of office. This is not good. But then again, if we will not unite as a people, rise up, and force our own representatives to enact changes that really are in the best interests of our nation, then we are going to have to keep settling for the lesser of two evils in our political solutions; and then watch them like hawks.