The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Booker Floyd]

The Real Price of Propaganda

Exporting a bunch of budding Jayson Blairs simply feeds the unhelpful image of Americans as inept and hypocritical puppetmasters.

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek[/size]

Dec. 12, 2005 issue - If you wander into a venerable Washington men's club and glimpse the distinguished older man in the corner, trying to avoid spilling soup on his Brooks Brothers suit, chances are reasonably good that he was in the CIA back in the 1940s and '50s. And if you inquired what he actually did for the CIA during the cold war, and he was inclined to tell you, the answer would likely be that he planted pro-American stories in the foreign press, often with the intention of making sure that elections in places like Greece and Turkey and Indonesia didn't end up with a victory for the communists. Until the mid-1970s, when all of this was exposed, these covert press operations were viewed within the government as a modest plus in the battle for the hearts and minds of the rest of the world.

Is the same true in today's Iraq? Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon was using U.S. troops to write positive articles about Iraq (for instance, heralding the opening of a school), hiring Washington-based contractors to translate the articles into Arabic, then secretly planting them in the Iraqi press with bribes. As long as the stories are accurate, says Mary Matalin, the former aide to Vice President Cheney who often speaks for the Bush administration, they are "absolutely appropriate" in the war of images.

This outsourcing of covert propaganda (everything is outsourced these days) tells us a lot about the two biggest stories around?the venality of Republican Washington and the colossal failure in Iraq?and how they're connected by a shadowy world of global public relations. We got into the war with the help of something called the Rendon Group, a secretive firm that won a huge government contract to "create the conditions for the removal of [Saddam] Hussein from power." (According to an article by James Bamford in last week's Rolling Stone, Rendon invented the "Iraqi National Congress" and put Judith Miller and other reporters in touch with their bum sources on WMD.) Now the PR pork scandal is moving to a different level. This year, the Pentagon granted three contractors $300 million over five years to offer "creative ideas" for psychological operations aimed at what the PR experts call "international perception management." That $300 million will buy a lot of Arabic press releases, but it's unavailable for, say, body armor.

The contractor implicated in the planted Iraqi press story is the Lincoln Group, formerly Iraqex, which boasts to prospective clients that it provides services ranging from "political campaign intelligence" (dirt on your opponents in American elections) to "commercial real estate in Iraq" (so you can buy the choicest properties and tick off the Iraqis even more). It's run by one Christian Bailey, a 30-year-old Oxford-educated fop who helped run the 2004 Republican National Convention, and once cohosted parties in New York limited to those who had graduated from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or Yale (Princeton was apparently beneath them). I tried to learn whether Bailey's British accent reflected British citizenship or more "perception management," but no one from the Lincoln Group would call me back. Other reporters were told that everything about the firm's operations was "classified." Bailey has put a bunch of Bush campaign hacks on the gravy train, finagled security clearances, then assigned them to corrupt the Iraqi media. Democracy in action!

My problem with all of this is less ethical than practical. If it helped build Iraqi democracy or blunted anti-American propaganda, it might even be worth it (though certainly not at those prices). But exporting a bunch of budding Jayson Blairs simply feeds the perception of Americans as inept and hypocritical puppetmasters. If we won't withdraw our troops, can't we at least withdraw our ham-handed propaganda efforts? Can't we stop discrediting the truly independent Iraqi reporters and editors that American journalists are helping to train? Can't we grasp the elemental point that an entirely pro-American Arab media is, on its face, not credible in the region and therefore not helpful to the cause of Iraqi independence?

Obviously the United States needs to do better in countering Arab libels. But the cold war taught us that propaganda works best when it's served straight up?by Radio Free Europe (a hugely positive influence) or by the commercial broadcasters who hawked capitalism behind the Iron Curtain. Some of that is going on in today's Middle East. The beaming of American-produced Farsi programming into Iran, for instance, is working well. It's the culture of secrecy, self-dealing and subversion of truth that's killing us.

[Charity Case]

Just an opinion piece.  It is interesting though.  Even this guy, who is very obviously biased, admits that using propaganda during wartime is a good idea (even though he doesn't think we do it the right way).  I think he goes a little overboard when he states "stop discrediting the truly independent Iraqi reporters and editors that American journalists are helping to train".  Sounds too much like a bleeding heart for my taste.  If the propaganda works, I say use it.  If it doesn't, I say don't.  Not sure why it has to become a moral issue.

[Skeba]

I believe that it should. Since that is really the only thing that sets 'the good guys' apart from the 'bad' ones. You know, their morals, and what they believe in. And then of course everybody's concept of what is right, wrong, and what can be done to achieve the goal that is 'your' right, and not theirs... (if this made any sense)

[shades]

Heres the Rendon Groups official site.

And heres the Rolling Stone article:

The Man Who Sold the War

Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war

By JAMES BAMFORD

The road to war in Iraq led through many unlikely places. One of them was a chic hotel nestled among the strip bars and brothels that cater to foreigners in the town of Pattaya, on the Gulf of Thailand.
On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man's chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man's brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.

Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.

It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.

The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.

Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.

"They're very closemouthed about what they do," says Kevin McCauley, an editor of the industry trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Daily. "It's all cloak-and-dagger stuff."

(Continued in link)

your basing your beliefs on a Stephen King Novel and your little cronnies are verifiing it.
funny shit

[shades]

I'm not sure why libs think using propaganda to spin the war is a bad thing?? Oh my god, we planted stories to gain support for the war or our mission?? ?? What next, will be sink as low as to start name calling?? Guys, in all seriousness, grow some balls and stop looking so damn wimpy.? Have some self respect.?

Ted Kennedy said this today:

"Now, they're confronted with a serious problem over there in Iraq -- I've now finished my sixth visit just two months ago -- and that is disinformation. An enormous amount of information is being fed the Iraqi press, both written and television, that is just plain factually wrong.

"And my point of that statement was to talk about the measure of disinformation, and I stand by the statement. I said here the disinformation is going out in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving and what our troops are fighting and dying for and being wounded. And as a consequence, we have no recourse but to try and get the truth and the facts out."

And your point for quoting ANYTHING that fat muderer of an excuse for a human being would say is?
And Michael Moore is another one of your sources?

You need new heros

[Booker Floyd]

your basing your beliefs on a Stephen King Novel and your little cronnies are verifiing it.
funny shit

1. What "beliefs" have I based on this article in your estimation?

2. What led you to believe that these vague beliefs were based upon this article? ?The fact that somebody mentioned the article and I posted it?

3. What about the article do you think is false? ?I wont even ask for evidence...baby-steps.

4. I think youve proven how keen your eye for "conspiracy theories" is:

And if you actually think the US pays journalists to write articles spinning the war.

 what am I dealing with here.

let me guess
UFO's right?

Some conspiracy theory, huh?

5. Youve still avoided explaining your own Harriet Miers conspiracy theory. ?So really, who are you to criticize anyone for so-called conspiracy theories?

[Booker Floyd]

I'm not sure why libs think using propaganda to spin the war is a bad thing?? Oh my god, we planted stories to gain support for the war or our mission?? ?? What next, will be sink as low as to start name calling?? Guys, in all seriousness, grow some balls and stop looking so damn wimpy.? Have some self respect.?

Ted Kennedy said this today:

"Now, they're confronted with a serious problem over there in Iraq -- I've now finished my sixth visit just two months ago -- and that is disinformation. An enormous amount of information is being fed the Iraqi press, both written and television, that is just plain factually wrong.

"And my point of that statement was to talk about the measure of disinformation, and I stand by the statement. I said here the disinformation is going out in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving and what our troops are fighting and dying for and being wounded. And as a consequence, we have no recourse but to try and get the truth and the facts out."

And your point for quoting ANYTHING that fat muderer of an excuse for a human being would say is?
And Michael Moore is another one of your sources?

You need new heros

 

Youre not much of a reader, are you?

[pilferk]

your basing your beliefs on a Stephen King Novel and your little cronnies are verifiing it.
funny shit

Prove it.

[shades]

To even elude to a story that suggests America went to war on eveidence such as this... based on a thug holed up in a chic hotel room hooked up to a lie detector, even in a metaphorical sense is a reach far beyond reason.
imagine for a minute the wealth of intelligence that had to be sorted through to come to such a ?decision as going to war.
And the people lined up to blow a hole in the content realizing the depth of consequences.
These people didnt line up until weeks after Bagddad went down.
 To err and not go in and have a catastophic event happen again on our soil because of the err, would be, in my opinion the mother of all bad judgement, and you and Kerry and Kennedy etal would be first in line to point that out in the immediate aftermath Im sure.

Keep in mind that most of the people on our side of the argument base our support of the war on erring on the side of caution, and then spend seemingly endless effort trying to reason beyond that for the sake of justifying the lack of WMD proof.

  we, at this point realize that you would be perfectly fine with either us failing in Iraq, and, or being attacked again and having our 'invasion' of Iraq to blame it on.
Either way we find that repulsive and will never understand why it makes you feel right.

[Booker Floyd]

To even elude to a story that suggests America went to war on eveidence such as this... based on a thug holed up in a chic hotel room hooked up to a lie detector, even in a metaphorical sense is a reach far beyond reason.
imagine for a minute the wealth of intelligence that had to be sorted through to come to such a ?decision as going to war.
And the people lined up to blow a hole in the content realizing the depth of consequences.
These people didnt line up until weeks after Bagddad went down.
 To err and not go in and have a catastophic event happen again on our soil because of the err, would be, in my opinion the mother of all bad judgement, and you and Kerry and Kennedy etal would be first in line to point that out in the immediate aftermath Im sure.

Keep in mind that most of the people on our side of the argument base our support of the war on erring on the side of caution, and then spend seemingly endless effort trying to reason beyond that for the sake of justifying the lack of WMD proof.

? we, at this point realize that you would be perfectly fine with either us failing in Iraq, and, or being attacked again and having our 'invasion' of Iraq to blame it on.
Either way we find that repulsive and will never understand why it makes you feel right.

So youre not going to reference anything from the article in particular...or address my post?  Because as I pointed out, your track record on exposing "conspiracy theories" hasnt been great as of late.

[pilferk]

To even elude to a story that suggests America went to war on eveidence such as this... based on a thug holed up in a chic hotel room hooked up to a lie detector, even in a metaphorical sense is a reach far beyond reason.
imagine for a minute the wealth of intelligence that had to be sorted through to come to such a ?decision as going to war.
And the people lined up to blow a hole in the content realizing the depth of consequences.
These people didnt line up until weeks after Bagddad went down.
 To err and not go in and have a catastophic event happen again on our soil because of the err, would be, in my opinion the mother of all bad judgement, and you and Kerry and Kennedy etal would be first in line to point that out in the immediate aftermath Im sure.

Keep in mind that most of the people on our side of the argument base our support of the war on erring on the side of caution, and then spend seemingly endless effort trying to reason beyond that for the sake of justifying the lack of WMD proof.

So, in your mind, caution is : ?Hundreds of billions of dollars spent, thousands of troops lost, Continued instability in a region we could little afford to be unstable, and a whole HOST of other detrimental effects (not the least of which was a diversion of resources from the ACTUAL "nest of Terrorism" in Afghanistan/borders of Pakistan).

All based on intel we had reason to believe was not credible.

That's caution?

? we, at this point realize that you would be perfectly fine with either us failing in Iraq, and, or being attacked again and having our 'invasion' of Iraq to blame it on.
Either way we find that repulsive and will never understand why it makes you feel right.

There you go...making up what we think and feel again. ?Don't you ever get tired of that trick?

[SLCPUNK]

This is the funniest thing I have read so far. Thanks shades!

[Jamie]

It's good news as long as these people:

Among those killed in the attack were two Pakistanis and three Arabs. The attacks were reportedly carried out between 1:45 a.m. and 2 a.m. local time on Thursday.

weren't innocent civilians. I don't see why; if the US army had some sort of knowledge or certainty to where he was; couldn't have just sent one person in undercover to kill him or something. It's slightly wreckless aiming some big fuckin missile at his place of hiding, an action that could have killed many innocent people.

This is the bullshit many of us take offense too.? So you'd risk the lives of one soldier so that he might successfully assinate the leader.? Don't you think that maybe the people in that building were loyal to him and might take offense to his death and retaliate against that lone gun men?? I hate to break it to you, but the US Military cares more about the lives of its troops then the lives of other people.? If we can save the life of one troop and possibly endanger a few "possible civilians", you bet your ass we will.

And it's those kind of people who are "liberating" the Middle East, I have heard so much bullshit from the right on this board about "valuing the life of the Iraqi people" and "you can't have a war without people dying". That's just the fuckin American military way, blow the shit out of absolutely everything and everyone that stands and hopefully you'll kill a few enemies. If you guys really think that this war is a noble one and that war can't be won without casualtys you'd send one guy in to kill one enemy rather than just fuckin blow the shit into something and risk killing innocent people.

Your lack on knowledge regarding this war and conflict in general is amazing.? Rambo was a movie, not real life.? And I'd love to hear how a war with nation building involved can be doner without casulaties.? Please enlighten us.? Also please give an example where we "just fuckin blow the shit into something and risk killing innocent people".? I'd say we take mor eprecaution than any other nation during any other conflict when it comes to collateral damage.? We go out of our way to minimize loss of innocent life.? If we didn't, we could end this insurgency in 2 seconds.

In what way? Where in the above statements did I show lack of knowledge? I am quite aware that Rambo was a movie but thanks for reminding me none the less. A war can not be carried out without casualties of course it can't, but it can be carried out by minimizing casualties which statistically the US have not done. An example when US blew the shit into something and risked innocent people, oh WW2 in Japan, and Germany, The first war on Iraq this war on Iraq the conflict in Afghanistan a few years back when according to some the US attacked a local wedding and killed a load of it's guests. And why don't you give me and incident when the US military has gone out of their way to minimize the loss of life? Quite unusual coming from the first country to ever use nuclear weaponry.

[Booker Floyd]

I anticipate Shades response to my post...in the meantime:

AP Shocker: Iraq VP Disputes Bush on Training of Forces ?

 
By Sally Buzbee, The Associated Press


Published: December 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET

DUBAI The training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months, with the army and other forces being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said Monday.

Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.

Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country.

Al-Yawer, a Sunni moderate, said he agreed the United States cannot pull out now because "there will be a huge vacuum," leaving Iraq in danger of falling into civil war. In particular, armed Shiite militias in the south might try to incite war if U.S.-led coalition forces leave, he said in an interview with The Associated Press and a U.S. newspaper at a conference here.

"I wish it were that simple," he said of calls to set a timetable for withdrawal or a drawdown.

But al-Yawer said recent allegations that Interior Ministry security forces ? dominated by Shiites ? have tortured Sunni detainees were evidence that many forces are increasingly politicized and sectarian. Some of the recently trained Iraqi forces focus on settling scores and other political goals rather than maintaining security, he said.

In addition, some Iraqi military commanders have been dismissed for political reasons, rather than judged on merit, he said.

He said the army ? also dominated by Shiites ? is conducting raids against villages and towns in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq, rather than targeting specific insurgents ? a tactic he said reminded many Sunnis of Saddam Hussein-era raids.

"Saddam used to raid villages," using security forces, he said. "This is not the way to do it."

Al-Yawer also expressed grave concern that Iraqi army units might use intimidation to try to keep Sunni voters from the polls during the country's crucial Dec. 15 general election.

American officials ? and Sunni moderates like al-Yawer ? are trying to persuade Sunnis to go to the polls, hoping that if they gain a sizable chunk of parliament, Sunnis will abandon support for the insurgency.

Al-Yawer said many Sunnis want to vote. But he noted that both intimidation and voter fraud occurred during the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, and complaints to the Iraqi Electoral Commission and U.N. voting advisers went nowhere, he said.

His supporters have made a series of requests to ensure a fair vote this time, including changes to the electoral commission and adequate numbers of polling stations and ballots in Sunni areas, he said. Most importantly, they have asked that U.S.-led coalition forces, and not Iraqi army troops, guard polling stations, he said.

Many outside experts have expressed concern that Iraqi security forces will actually increase tensions if they guard Sunni areas, rather than keep order. Al-Yawer did not specifically say that Shiites make up too much of the army, but said he would like to see more political and sectarian balance ? especially among the officer corps.

Al-Yawer, running on a slate of secular candidates along with former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, also said he believes the Saddam trial also should be postponed until after the Dec. 15 election so Iraqis can focus on the election.

He expressed frustration with the trial so far, saying it is giving Saddam an opportunity to grandstand and appear sympathetic.

[Charity Case]

In what way? Where in the above statements did I show lack of knowledge? I am quite aware that Rambo was a movie but thanks for reminding me none the less. A war can not be carried out without casualties of course it can't, but it can be carried out by minimizing casualties which statistically the US have not done. An example when US blew the shit into something and risked innocent people, oh WW2 in Japan, and Germany, The first war on Iraq this war on Iraq the conflict in Afghanistan a few years back when according to some the US attacked a local wedding and killed a load of it's guests. And why don't you give me and incident when the US military has gone out of their way to minimize the loss of life? Quite unusual coming from the first country to ever use nuclear weaponry.

Listen, I am not going pick on you.  It is just too easy to do so with this mess your wrote.  But I will say this.  We go out of our way to minimize loss of life in every conflict.  There isn't a liberal here that could disagree with a straight face.  Under Clinton we removed Milosevic while minimizing loss of life.  Going into Afganistan, we didn't just blow cities up to get rid of the Taliban.  we could have, but we didn't.  And in Iraq, if we wanted to end this insurgency, it could be done in 3 minutes.  But because we want to minimize collateral damage and innocent loss of life, we don't employ those type of weapons.  Do innocent people get hurt/killed in war?  Of course, there is really no war to avoid it altogether.  But we go out of our way to minimize it.  Look at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Look at the insurgents' tactics.  They actual TARGET inncocent civilians.  Are you more outraged by their tactics or the US's?  Just wondering whereas you decided to attack the US on this issue and not the insurgency.

[pilferk]

Listen, I am not going pick on you.  It is just too easy to do so with this mess your wrote.

Ummm...didn't you just do exactly what you said you weren't going to do simply by giving your opinion that what he wrote was a mess?

Look at the opposite end of the spectrum.? Look at the insurgents' tactics.? They actual TARGET inncocent civilians.? Are you more outraged by their tactics or the US's?? Just wondering whereas you decided to attack the US on this issue and not the insurgency.

Um, not for nothing but....since when has the subject been the insurgents??

I mean, are you really looking for the kind of "no duh" statements that would comprise a discussion of the insurgents tactics??

Here ya go:

The tactics the insurgents use, targeting innocent civilians, are reprehensible.

Anyone disagree?

(hears the sound of crickets)

Nope, didn't think so.

[shades]

And why don't you give me and incident when the US military has gone out of their way to minimize the loss of life?

you're kidding right?
Im beginning to think Im not debating with real people here, you're scaring me.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Question: Are some of you so blind by your hate of the Bush administration you want us to lose in Iraq just to make the democrats look better in `08?

[Charity Case]

Listen, I am not going pick on you.? It is just too easy to do so with this mess your wrote.

Ummm...didn't you just do exactly what you said you weren't going to do simply by giving your opinion that what he wrote was a mess?

Look at the opposite end of the spectrum.? Look at the insurgents' tactics.? They actual TARGET inncocent civilians.? Are you more outraged by their tactics or the US's?? Just wondering whereas you decided to attack the US on this issue and not the insurgency.

Um, not for nothing but....since when has the subject been the insurgents??

I mean, are you really looking for the kind of "no duh" statements that would comprise a discussion of the insurgents tactics??

Here ya go:

The tactics the insurgents use, targeting innocent civilians, are reprehensible.

Anyone disagree?

(hears the sound of crickets)

Nope, didn't think so.

And there is all the perspective you need.? Jamie, rest it.? Your bleeding heart is making a mess all over the place.

[Booker Floyd]

Question: Are some of you so blind by your hate of the Bush administration you want us to lose in Iraq just to make the democrats look better in `08?

I dont mean to sound condescending, but this question is almost childlike. ?The premise upon which its based is skewed - those who object to this war believe we lose more the longer we "stay the course." ?So its incorrect to assume that war opponents share your criteria for defeat.

To answer your question more directly: No, though I think you would like to believe that.

Now I have a question for you, and hopefully you wont avoid it:

You made this statement:

I value Lieberman's opinion much more than Murtha since Liberman actually went there and has a first hand account to base his statement on.

I posted this response:

You might want to send a correction to the author of this Post-Gazette article:

"His many visits to Iraq, he said, had convinced him that Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave. "

Heres the authors e-mail: mailto:mreston@nationalpress.com.

...But what if its true? ?I suppose that means you value Murthas opinion since its a first-hand account?

?

Itd be great if you could answer that question. ?