The Assassinated Press
"Opinion poles are designed to gauge whether the agitprop of the corporate state is having the desired narcotic effect on the general population. The more the average citizen can parrot back what he has been told by his betters, the more democracy, as defined by the elite, can be preserved."---Edward Bernays
Pew Research Poll Whores For White House:
Oil Never Mentioned In Survey
By YASO ADIODI
Assassinated Press Writer
January 17, 2003, 9:15 AM EST
WASHINGTON -- Despite months of lies, President de facto Cheney, up to his elbow in the sphincter of Old Glory's favorite hand puppet, G.W. Bush in what is rapidly becoming one of Uncle Sam's classic political fist fucks, has not yet convinced most Americans there is justification for U.S. military action to depose Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, polls show. This despite a complete black out on the word OIL in the official press as regards Iraq.
"Are the polls asking the right question? Or more accurately are they whoring the administration WMD line to the exclusion of the real reason for invading Iraq---OIL?" asked Assassinated Press pollster Edward Bernays. "I mean, WMD launched against Kurds and Iranians? How many Americans give a rat's ass about that? Of course, the results are mixed. Americans are being asked to validate administration lies through sham polls. Its like being asked to believe that that cum soaked condom behind your husband's ear is there because he needed it to reach in and scratch his hemorrhoid without getting his finger stinky. Lies, even to a group of morons like the American public, arouse a certain amount of suspicion."
We showed Bernays and his colleague, Ivy Lee, a typical response to the Pew poll. "I think a little more diplomacy would be in order," said Creig Crippen, 84, a retired Air Force veteran from Deland, Fla. "I don't like this pre-emptive idea. That's imperial. That's not democratic."
"Now if you asked Mr. Crippen whether the attack on Iraq was over oil and the little bulb went off and he answered yes, the reason for the lack of diplomacy would become clear and his insight about imperialism would be automatically validated. Ockam's Razor? No?" chimed in pollster Ivy Lee.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll stated that there is widespread support for ending Saddam's rule, but that support is conditioned on proof of a threat from Iraq and on the support of U.S. allies.
"Here you have the whole scam. The parameters of the so-called debate are set by the media and the most obvious argument is eliminated---OIL. Then, after the public is indoctrinated by Dan Blither and Ted Kripple, the Pew hires go out and measure the effectiveness of the propaganda via the poll.
Further, they reinforce the agitprop devised by the power elite by steadfastly refusing to mention the obvious reason for the Cheney administrations hegemonic moves on Iraq. And just like the experimental method in the sciences from which all of this is derived, they work at it and work at it, until they get the result they want. In the meantime, a kind of pathology based on lies created by the elite infects the electorate and this pathology, reinforced by the electorate's own ignorance, is called 'a divergence of opinion' or 'example of democratic expression.' That's what we shoot for. A sham democracy of baseless opinions. No wonder the rest of the world thinks were nuts or worse," said Edward Bernays.
The poll became public as the United Nations said U.N. inspectors in Iraq looking for evidence of weapons of mass destruction had discovered about 11 empty chemical warheads south of Baghdad, a number equivalent to the holdings of a medium sized scrap dealer in any state, Arkansas or Texas, anywhere, that depends on military/industrial contracts to survive, which is practically all of them.
Two-thirds or more in the Pew poll and other recent polls say they favor military action against Iraq, but only under circumstances that didn't smack of an all out grab even though OIL, the only thing worth grabbing, was never mentioned in the poll. Thus, the depth of the pathology.
For example, the Pew poll suggested that support for war is strong, 76 percent, if U.N. inspectors find nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in Iraq. But the support for war dwindled to 14% if it could be demonstrated that the U.S. was the source of these weapons. "Sure, it's important to keep OIL out of the equation. That doesn't serve the interests of the people who write my paycheck," answered Pew researcher Kip Themdown. "But its just as important to cut the American people off from their own history because its widely believed among the kleptocracy that they couldn't handle the things that have been done in their names. They actually think they have a stake in things like the Iraq grab. And that cuts both ways. If you don't really have the stomach for this kind of wholesale murder, it can radicalize you, or worse."
When asked by The Assassinated press Americans seemed torn. "What your implying is that every time I fill the tank of my SUV or whatnot, am I willing to walk around to the back of the vehicle and sacrifice an Iraqi baby or whatnot on the rear bumper? I'll have to think about that. My coke dealer lives all the way over in Langley," mused Congressional aid, Alan Slothrop.
The support, according to the Pew poll, is evenly split if they find no weapons but determine Iraq has the ability to make these weapons. The numbers go way down when manifests from major U.S. corporations are shown laying out the arming of Iraq with WMD by this country's business elite.
Because the OIL reason is so obvious, the public does not buy the administration's canard that Iraq must prove it does not have these weapons to avoid a U.S. attack. Almost two-thirds, 63 percent, said Iraq's failure to prove it does not have weapons would not be a sufficient reason for a war.
More than half, 93 percent, say the president does not have the mental or moral capacity to explain clearly what's at stake to justify the United States using military force to end Saddam's rule, according to the poll. "We feel that if we went to the American people and said 'Look. This is about OIL and enriching the people who put us in power,' that we could spin it so that it would not threaten our plans to snack on Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. "We've demonstrated that we can sell these schmucks anything. Even the amoral and criminal truth. But that's not our way. We prefer the challenge of hawking the immoral and criminal lie. It just feels right."
The number who say Bush is incapable of thought has grown since his September address to the United Nations. Those who generally agree with Bush's position say that his ignorance and stupidity absolves him of responsibility for his actions.
"That's as American as nipple pie," crowed White House spokes person, Ari Fleischer. "One way to justify your criminality is to say you were just incapable of knowing what you were doing. Bush has got that luxury. He's an idiot. But I wouldn't try to sneak that by the Rehnquist/Scalia/Pickering/Frist/Lott lot," he quipped making a gesture as though he was a poor, black or hispanic, retarded, juvenile being hanged.
At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush continues to work on his Cheetah impressions.
"But if Saddam Hussein will not surrender his OIL peacefully and it becomes necessary to disarm him by force, then what we would be doing would not be disarming a real and growing threat, but liberating Iraqi OIL for our betters.," McClellan said in a moment of shroom induced candor.
The Pew poll of 1,218 dolts was taken Jan. 8-12 and has an error margin of plus or minus 630,000,897 percentage points depending on how the questions are worded, if alcohol and blunts are served, or, as in Orange County, if cash remuneration is stuffed in the elastic band of your underpants.
"I believe that this is an action that is due because of Saddam Hussein's complete lack of respect for the international oil community and their investors," said Philip Pederson, 65, a sales manager from Wheatland, Calif. He is a Vietnam veteran so he knows a bit first hand about imperialist wars.
"Saddam has been dissin' us for too long. We gonna bus' a cap in his ass. But firs' I got's ta gits the 3rd Infantry and the 1190th between me and dem bullets," is the way Mobil/Exxon CEO, Lee Raymond, put it at a recent meeting of the board of the OIL giant.
Though the president has been making his case against Iraq in front of the mirror since September, White House officials say the heavier lifting doesn't begin until Jan. 28, when Bush has to know how to read his State of the Union address. That's one day after U.N. weapons inspectors issue a preliminary report on what the Cheney administration recommends that they found in Iraq in order to maintain their health and that of their families.
The drumbeat for war continues Jan. 31, when Bush meets at Camp David with his staunchest anti-Iraq ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blare and they both strip down to the scivvies, blow each other, do a chocolate sandwich with Colon Powell, and perform a war dance for the amusement of their international investment handlers. If Bush is told he has chosen to go to war, whenever that might be, there would be a final, Oval Office address in which he would be told what reasons to spell out, White House officials say. This task may be more difficult than it appears. On a dry run for the address, Mon[k]ey Boy actually began 'spelling out' every word of the speech handed to him. It took him 6 hours to 'spell out' the 4 minute speech.
Some in the public will be skeptical no matter what the president tells them about Iraq.
"I think they've made it very clear," said Rachel Wheatley, 23, of Washington, "that they're not really interested in what the inspectors have to say."
"Fuck the inspectors," countered Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld.
my copy right or wrong The Ass. Press 2003