Catapulting the Propaganda 2

hmmm: “The team of U.S. military experts was sent to investigate at request of UAE, but American officials have not provided details about what happened or any proof of possible Iranian involvement in the explosions” https://t.co/LP8wKWlsoK

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) May 15, 2019

Some of you readers are like me and can remember where I filched the phrase "catapulting the propaganda" from--that was from the Bush Administration. George W. Bush admitted he had to repeat things over and over again for the "truth" to set in in order to "catapult the propaganda".  That word "truth" is a pretty slippery commodity, but the idea of "catapulting the propaganda" pretty accurately described his Administration's messaging. He let that moment of reality slip while talking about privatizing Social Security, but it more truthfully describes what happened regarding the use of repetition, changing justifications, and outright frauds to create a casus belli for the war in Iraq.

Now, here comes the Trump Administration, no strangers to repeating things that are inaccurate or unclear or perpetrating frauds, talking up the possibility of a threat of war with Iran out loud and in private (looking for their "slam dunk case" perhaps?). Even though our allies indicate that there seems to be no real urgent threat.

All I'm saying is, we have sure as hell been here before, and pretty damn recently, too. I don't think it's a "wag the dog" situation, necessarily, to draw attention away from the eleventy-odd investigations into Trump, his family, his businesses, etc., the unwisdom of his trade policies, or even necessarily because blood appeases his base--although I think that last thing, right there, might be a little relevant.

I see Sen. Cotton thinks an Iran War would short and sweet:

Senator @TomCottonAR tells Firing Line if it comes to war with Iran, he is confident the United States would win, and would win swiftly. “Two strikes, the first strike and the last strike,” says the Senator. pic.twitter.com/twTdrFTwHu

— Firing Line with Margaret Hoover (@FiringLineShow) May 14, 2019

This answer seems asinine for reasons I don't think one even has to have served in the military to figure out--a "first strike" indicates we start a war of choice to send a message. What the actual entire fuck thinking is that? Maybe the message inadvertently sent won't be "Don't start a war with us", but rather, "You might as well retaliate".(This is not an invitation to try and explain his thinking to me--it's not thinking!) After the first and last strike--then what? Because a war is pointless unless you can then win the peace. (Unless you don't actually want peace. I guess that, too, is a possibility.)

We did have a diplomatic deal with Iran for a bit and I know Cotton didn't like it at all, but the funny old thing is, you don't shoot at people or bomb them and expect diplomacy. You can just do diplomacy.

I'd love to think that having been here before, and having watched how Iraq played out (and is still, really, playing out), we could expect the media to not help "catapult the propaganda" but I don't know. Trump (and his allies') propaganda seems to be repeated all the time, even if, paragraphs down or further in the conversation, someone, somehow, factchecks. And the repetition is what matters for propaganda to succeed.