Propaganda On The March

President Bush regularly heralds himself as a champion of democratic
principles; yesterday, he declared one of his prime goals in Iraq to be
"providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region." Yet hours
earlier, it was revealed that his administration has spent tens of
millions of dollars on a coordinated campaign to spread misleading
covert propaganda through Iraqi media outlets. As numerous analysts,
including White House ally and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
John Warner (R-VA), have acknowledged, these ham-handed efforts not
only undermine the development of Iraq's civil society, but dangerously
risk the credibility of our nation's military at home and abroad.

DISSECTING THE PROPAGANDA: U.S. media manipulation efforts in Iraq,
largely directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" (IOTF) in
Baghdad, have been extensive. Officials not only planted "paid
propaganda in the Iraqi news media and [paid] friendly Iraqi
journalists monthly stipends," but have recently "intensified" the
operations by purchasing an Iraqi newspaper and radio station to
"channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is
identified as a military mouthpiece." These actions apparently do not
violate any laws. Yet according to the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. law
forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or
planting propaganda through American media outlets," and the Pentagon's
efforts "were carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the
foreign press inevitably 'bleeds' into the Western media and influences
coverage in US news outlets." Moreover, according to a recent expose by
military analyst James Bamford, the IOTF closely resembles the
Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), a short-lived operation
shut down after strong resistance from Congress and military officials.
OSI's functions "were apparently shifted to [the IOTF], deeper in the
Pentagon's bureaucracy," Bamford wrote.

PROPAGANDA EFFORTS SAP CREDIBILITY OF U.S. MILITARY: According to the
L.A. Times, the propaganda efforts have "sparked a backlash among some
senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that
attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's
credibility in other nations and with the American public." Said one
senior Pentagon official, "Here we are trying to create the principles
of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about
democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy
when we're doing it."

PROPAGANDA EFFORTS UNDERMINE DEVELOPMENT OF IRAQI DEMOCRACY: The
"National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" released yesterday by President
Bush included among its eight "strategic pillars" the importance of
promoting "the vitality of a free press" by "working to promote civic
understanding and enable Iraq's public and private media institutions
to flower." To further this goal, the State Department and the U.S.
Agency for International Development today "pay contractors millions of
dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and
independent Iraqi media." Many of these programs specifically instruct
foreign journalists "not to accept payments from interested parties to
write articles and not to print government propaganda disguised as
news." In other words, the administration's propaganda program not only
works against U.S. efforts to help bolster democratic reform and
develop Iraqi civil society, but counteracts programs on which millions
of taxpayer dollars have been spent.

LONG HISTORY OF ADMINISTRATION MANIPULATION IN IRAQ: This is not the
first time that U.S. officials have taken a heavy-handed approach to
influencing social and political developments in Iraq. In the months
leading up to last January's elections, President Bush approved a plan
for covert U.S. agents to support Iraqi candidates and political
parties favorable to White House interests. The plan was purportedly
rescinded after congressional opposition led by House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). But "the Bush Administration decided to override
Pelosi's objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election," the
New Yorker reported. The Pentagon has also engaged in suspect efforts
to influence Iraqi press coverage. Last year, Rumsfeld's office issued
a private memo detailing how a Pentagon-sponsored group of Iraqis would
be touring the country with presentations "designed to be uplifting
accounts with good news messages;" the memo recommended that that U.S.
officials "seek local news coverage, noting that 'these events and
presentations are positive public relations opportunities.'"

LINCOLN GROUP STAFFED BY CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL OPERATIVES: The Lincoln
Group, a DC-based contracting firm, has been paid millions to carry out
these sloppy propaganda efforts. In October 2004, Lincoln (then called
Iraqex) "was awarded a one-year $6 million contract from the Pentagon
to do PR work for the military in Iraq;" Lincoln negotiated a new deal
worth roughly $100 million earlier this year. Kevin McCauley, editor of
the PR industry journal "O'Dwyer's Newsletter," called the 2004 deal "a
blockbuster -- in terms of dollars -- for PR. ... Those are big
numbers, even if one is operating in a war zone." What about the firm
justified such high fees? Though a Lincoln spokesman claimed the firm
had "more experience working in Iraq than any other firm or
organization anywhere in the world," facts suggest otherwise. A 2004
Chicago Tribune report found that Lincoln's PR workers in Iraq were
conservative campaign operatives with no apparent experience in Iraq:
"When [Jonathan Blessing] and another political consultant [Brian
Swift] who had been working for the Bush campaign in Illinois heard
about an opportunity to work for a company doing public relations in
Iraq, the two jumped at the chance. ... Swift worked for the
Bush-Cheney campaign in Illinois, and Blessing worked for the state
GOP." Such bona fides extend to the group's top officials, including
longtime senior executive Christian Bailey, a top operative in
conservative circles for years.

SPINNING THE PROPAGANDA: Conservative U.S. media outlets and pundits
offered virtually unqualified praise for the covert propaganda efforts.
National Review's Stephen Spruiell wrote, "We need more operations like
this in Iraq, and more respect for their classified nature," arguing
that the misleading planted stories "wouldn't undercut the trust of the
Iraqi people if papers like the LA Times weren't blowing their cover."
Meanwhile, Fox News reporter Steve Centanni said the function of the
Pentagon program was merely "to offer favorable articles to Iraqi
newspapers as a way to counter the misinformation put out by the
insurgency." Fox contributor Bill Cowan is an official advisor to the
Lincoln Group, according to the firm's website.

Kevin,
That is an excellent well written post, I had no idea you could express your
ideas so coherently. Your really should submit this to the NYT editorial
page.




wrote in message
oups.com...
Propaganda On The March

President Bush regularly heralds himself as a champion of democratic
principles; yesterday, he declared one of his prime goals in Iraq to be
"providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region." Yet hours
earlier, it was revealed that his administration has spent tens of
millions of dollars on a coordinated campaign to spread misleading
covert propaganda through Iraqi media outlets. As numerous analysts,
including White House ally and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
John Warner (R-VA), have acknowledged, these ham-handed efforts not
only undermine the development of Iraq's civil society, but dangerously
risk the credibility of our nation's military at home and abroad.

DISSECTING THE PROPAGANDA: U.S. media manipulation efforts in Iraq,
largely directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" (IOTF) in
Baghdad, have been extensive. Officials not only planted "paid
propaganda in the Iraqi news media and [paid] friendly Iraqi
journalists monthly stipends," but have recently "intensified" the
operations by purchasing an Iraqi newspaper and radio station to
"channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is
identified as a military mouthpiece." These actions apparently do not
violate any laws. Yet according to the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. law
forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or
planting propaganda through American media outlets," and the Pentagon's
efforts "were carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the
foreign press inevitably 'bleeds' into the Western media and influences
coverage in US news outlets." Moreover, according to a recent expose by
military analyst James Bamford, the IOTF closely resembles the
Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), a short-lived operation
shut down after strong resistance from Congress and military officials.
OSI's functions "were apparently shifted to [the IOTF], deeper in the
Pentagon's bureaucracy," Bamford wrote.

PROPAGANDA EFFORTS SAP CREDIBILITY OF U.S. MILITARY: According to the
L.A. Times, the propaganda efforts have "sparked a backlash among some
senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that
attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's
credibility in other nations and with the American public." Said one
senior Pentagon official, "Here we are trying to create the principles
of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about
democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy
when we're doing it."

PROPAGANDA EFFORTS UNDERMINE DEVELOPMENT OF IRAQI DEMOCRACY: The
"National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" released yesterday by President
Bush included among its eight "strategic pillars" the importance of
promoting "the vitality of a free press" by "working to promote civic
understanding and enable Iraq's public and private media institutions
to flower." To further this goal, the State Department and the U.S.
Agency for International Development today "pay contractors millions of
dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and
independent Iraqi media." Many of these programs specifically instruct
foreign journalists "not to accept payments from interested parties to
write articles and not to print government propaganda disguised as
news." In other words, the administration's propaganda program not only
works against U.S. efforts to help bolster democratic reform and
develop Iraqi civil society, but counteracts programs on which millions
of taxpayer dollars have been spent.

LONG HISTORY OF ADMINISTRATION MANIPULATION IN IRAQ: This is not the
first time that U.S. officials have taken a heavy-handed approach to
influencing social and political developments in Iraq. In the months
leading up to last January's elections, President Bush approved a plan
for covert U.S. agents to support Iraqi candidates and political
parties favorable to White House interests. The plan was purportedly
rescinded after congressional opposition led by House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). But "the Bush Administration decided to override
Pelosi's objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election," the
New Yorker reported. The Pentagon has also engaged in suspect efforts
to influence Iraqi press coverage. Last year, Rumsfeld's office issued
a private memo detailing how a Pentagon-sponsored group of Iraqis would
be touring the country with presentations "designed to be uplifting
accounts with good news messages;" the memo recommended that that U.S.
officials "seek local news coverage, noting that 'these events and
presentations are positive public relations opportunities.'"

LINCOLN GROUP STAFFED BY CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL OPERATIVES: The Lincoln
Group, a DC-based contracting firm, has been paid millions to carry out
these sloppy propaganda efforts. In October 2004, Lincoln (then called
Iraqex) "was awarded a one-year $6 million contract from the Pentagon
to do PR work for the military in Iraq;" Lincoln negotiated a new deal
worth roughly $100 million earlier this year. Kevin McCauley, editor of
the PR industry journal "O'Dwyer's Newsletter," called the 2004 deal "a
blockbuster -- in terms of dollars -- for PR. ... Those are big
numbers, even if one is operating in a war zone." What about the firm
justified such high fees? Though a Lincoln spokesman claimed the firm
had "more experience working in Iraq than any other firm or
organization anywhere in the world," facts suggest otherwise. A 2004
Chicago Tribune report found that Lincoln's PR workers in Iraq were
conservative campaign operatives with no apparent experience in Iraq:
"When [Jonathan Blessing] and another political consultant [Brian
Swift] who had been working for the Bush campaign in Illinois heard
about an opportunity to work for a company doing public relations in
Iraq, the two jumped at the chance. ... Swift worked for the
Bush-Cheney campaign in Illinois, and Blessing worked for the state
GOP." Such bona fides extend to the group's top officials, including
longtime senior executive Christian Bailey, a top operative in
conservative circles for years.

SPINNING THE PROPAGANDA: Conservative U.S. media outlets and pundits
offered virtually unqualified praise for the covert propaganda efforts.
National Review's Stephen Spruiell wrote, "We need more operations like
this in Iraq, and more respect for their classified nature," arguing
that the misleading planted stories "wouldn't undercut the trust of the
Iraqi people if papers like the LA Times weren't blowing their cover."
Meanwhile, Fox News reporter Steve Centanni said the function of the
Pentagon program was merely "to offer favorable articles to Iraqi
newspapers as a way to counter the misinformation put out by the
insurgency." Fox contributor Bill Cowan is an official advisor to the
Lincoln Group, according to the firm's website.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Propaganda On The March

President Bush regularly heralds himself as a champion of democratic
principles; yesterday, he declared one of his prime goals in Iraq to be
"providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region." Yet hours
earlier, it was revealed that his administration has spent tens of
millions of dollars on a coordinated campaign to spread misleading
covert propaganda through Iraqi media outlets. As numerous analysts,
including White House ally and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
John Warner (R-VA), have acknowledged, these ham-handed efforts not
only undermine the development of Iraq's civil society, but dangerously
risk the credibility of our nation's military at home and abroad.

While this is a weird thing to do, it happens all of the time in 100% of the
major newspapers here, too. Papers may not be paid for writing certain
things, but they can be punished by the withholding of advertising dollars.

On 2 Dec 2005 05:03:34 -0800, presented another old news
cut'n'paste:

snippage

the
Pentagon program was merely "to offer favorable articles to Iraqi
newspapers as a way to counter the misinformation put out by the
insurgency." Fox contributor Bill Cowan is an official advisor to the
Lincoln Group, according to the firm's website.

Sounds like a great idea! Don't the Washington Post, the NY Times, and the LA
Times, not to mention the major television media, pay reporters and journalists
to 'discredit' the United States and the administration?
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 08:17:15 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my
driveway leading up to my manor. wrote:

Kevin,
That is an excellent well written post, I had no idea you could express your
ideas so coherently. Your really should submit this to the NYT editorial
page.

When Kevin sets his mind to it, he can do a damn fine job with the words!
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

JohnH,
You are correct, it read like it was written by a seasoned journalist. If I
read that in a newspaper, I might not agree with it, but I would say, darn,
that is a well written article.

Kevin, must have been hiding his talent for all these years.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 08:17:15 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about
my
driveway leading up to my manor. wrote:

Kevin,
That is an excellent well written post, I had no idea you could express
your
ideas so coherently. Your really should submit this to the NYT editorial
page.

When Kevin sets his mind to it, he can do a damn fine job with the words!
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

What was also impressive was the lack of vulgar language and personal
attacks in his post. He also did not use the word *idiot* once in his
entire essay.

Keep it up Kevin!


"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
JohnH,
You are correct, it read like it was written by a seasoned journalist. If
I read that in a newspaper, I might not agree with it, but I would say,
darn, that is a well written article.

Kevin, must have been hiding his talent for all these years.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 08:17:15 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about
my
driveway leading up to my manor. wrote:

Kevin,
That is an excellent well written post, I had no idea you could express
your
ideas so coherently. Your really should submit this to the NYT editorial
page.

When Kevin sets his mind to it, he can do a damn fine job with the words!
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

*JimH* wrote:
What was also impressive was the lack of vulgar language and personal
attacks in his post. He also did not use the word *idiot* once in his
entire essay.

Keep it up Kevin!
I'm not Kevin, you ignorant little boy.
Jim are you ever going to act like an adult?


The edict of Reverend Jim! Do not use profanity unless you are a right
wing circle jerk member. Do not tell lies about others here, unless you
are Reverend Jim, then it's acceptable. Do not insult, demean, or speak
negatively of anyone, unless you are Reverend Jim, then it's perfectly
okay. If you are Reverend Jim, you may talk badly about someone's wife
or mother, but no one may make any remarks about the reverend's wife
without being chastised.

wrote:
Propaganda On The March


This must represent the "progress" we keep hearing about.

Is there any truth to the rumor that Rush Limbaugh is studying Arabic
via correspondence course?.

Kevin,
JimH was complementing you on a well written post. Keep it up Kevin.
wrote in message
ups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
What was also impressive was the lack of vulgar language and personal
attacks in his post. He also did not use the word *idiot* once in his
entire essay.

Keep it up Kevin!
I'm not Kevin, you ignorant little boy.
Jim are you ever going to act like an adult?


The edict of Reverend Jim! Do not use profanity unless you are a right
wing circle jerk member. Do not tell lies about others here, unless you
are Reverend Jim, then it's acceptable. Do not insult, demean, or speak
negatively of anyone, unless you are Reverend Jim, then it's perfectly
okay. If you are Reverend Jim, you may talk badly about someone's wife
or mother, but no one may make any remarks about the reverend's wife
without being chastised.