U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 1, 2005
"WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.
"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.
But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.
The article was one of several in a storyboard, the military's term for a list of articles, that was delivered Tuesday to the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm paid by the Pentagon, documents from the Pentagon show. The contractor's job is to translate the articles into Arabic and submit them to Iraqi newspapers or advertising agencies without revealing the Pentagon's role. Documents show that the intended target of the article on a democratic Iraq was Azzaman, a leading independent newspaper, but it is not known whether it was published there or anywhere else.
Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism.
In addition to paying newspapers to print government propaganda, Lincoln has paid about a dozen Iraqi journalists each several hundred dollars a month, a person who had been told of the transactions said. Those journalists were chosen because their past coverage had not been antagonistic to the United States, said the person, who is being granted anonymity because of fears for the safety of those involved. In addition, the military storyboards have in some cases copied verbatim text from copyrighted publications and passed it on to be printed in the Iraqi press without attribution, documents and interviews indicated.
In many cases, the material prepared by the military was given to advertising agencies for placement, and at least some of the material ran with an advertising label. But the American authorship and financing were not revealed.
Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Wednesday that they had no information on the contract. In an interview from Baghdad on Nov. 18, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, a military spokesman, said the Pentagon's contract with the Lincoln Group was an attempt to "try to get stories out to publications that normally don't have access to those kind of stories." The military's top commanders, including Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, did not know about the Lincoln Group contract until Wednesday, when it was first described by The Los Angeles Times, said a senior military official who was not authorized to speak publicly.
Pentagon officials said General Pace and other top officials were disturbed by the reported details of the propaganda campaign and demanded explanations from senior officers in Iraq, the official said.
When asked about the article Wednesday night on the ABC News program "Nightline," General Pace said, "I would be concerned about anything that would be detrimental to the proper growth of democracy."
Others seemed to share the sentiment. "I think it's absolutely wrong for the government to do this," said Patrick Butler, vice president of the International Center for Journalists in Washington, which conducts ethics training for journalists from countries without a history of independent news media. "Ethically, it's indefensible."
Mr. Butler, who spoke from a conference in Wisconsin with Arab journalists, said the American government paid for many programs that taught foreign journalists not to accept payments from interested parties to write articles and not to print government propaganda disguised as news.
"You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility," he said.
The Government Accountability Office found this year that the Bush administration had violated the law by producing pseudo news reports that were later used on American television stations with no indication that they had been prepared by the government. But no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad."
Here is the full article:
Phony Journalism: yet another Bush export
Note that "no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad."
Here is the rest of the story:
The Lincoln contract with the American-led coalition forces in Iraq has rankled some military and civilian officials and contractors. Some of them described the program to The New York Times in recent months and provided examples of the military's storyboards.
The Lincoln Group, whose principals include some businessmen and former military officials, was hired last year after military officials concluded that the United States was failing to win over Muslim public opinion. In Iraq, the effort is seen by some American military commanders as a crucial step toward defeating the Sunni-led insurgency.
Citing a "fundamental problem of credibility" and foreign opposition to American policies, a Pentagon advisory panel last year called for the government to reinvent and expand its information programs.
"Government alone cannot today communicate effectively and credibly," said the report by the task force on strategic communication of the Defense Science Board. The group recommended turning more often for help to the private sector, which it said had "a built-in agility, credibility and even deniability."
The Pentagon's first public relations contract with Lincoln was awarded in 2004 for about $5 million with the stated purpose of accurately informing the Iraqi people of American goals and gaining their support. But while meant to provide reliable information, the effort was also intended to use deceptive techniques, like payments to sympathetic "temporary spokespersons" who would not necessarily be identified as working for the coalition, according to a contract document and a military official.
In addition, the document called for the development of "alternate or diverting messages which divert media and public attention" to "deal instantly with the bad news of the day."
Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said the terms of the contract did not permit her to discuss it and referred a reporter to the Pentagon. But others defended the practice.
"I'm not surprised this goes on," said Michael Rubin, who worked in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 and 2004. "Informational operations are a part of any military campaign," he added. "Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents - replete with oil boom cash - do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind our backs."
Two dozen recent storyboards prepared by the military for Lincoln and reviewed by The New York Times had a variety of good-news themes addressing the economy, security, the insurgency and Iraq's political future. Some were written to resemble news articles. Others took the form of opinion pieces or public service announcements.
One article about Iraq's oil industry opened with three paragraphs taken verbatim, and without attribution, from a recent report in Al Hayat, a London-based Arabic newspaper. But the military version took out a quotation from an oil ministry spokesman that was critical of American reconstruction efforts. It substituted a more positive message, also attributed to the spokesman, though not as a direct quotation.
The editor of Al Sabah, a major Iraqi newspaper that has been the target of many of the military's articles, said Wednesday in an interview that he had no idea that the American military was supplying such material and did not know if his newspaper had printed any of it, whether labeled as advertising or not.
The editor, Muhammad Abdul Jabbar, 57, said Al Sabah, which he said received financial support from the Iraqi government but was editorially independent, accepted advertisements from virtually any source if they were not inflammatory. He said any such material would be labeled as advertising but would not necessarily identify the sponsor. Sometimes, he said, the paper got the text from an advertising agency and did not know its origins.
Asked what he thought of the Pentagon program's effectiveness in influencing Iraqi public opinion, Mr. Jabbar said, "I would spend the money a better way."
The Lincoln Group, which was incorporated in 2004, has won another government information contract. Last June, the Special Operations Command in Tampa awarded Lincoln and two other companies a multimillion-dollar contract to support psychological operations. The planned products, contract documents show, include three- to five- minute news programs.
Asked whether the information and news products would identify the American sponsorship, a media relations officer with the special operations command replied, in an e-mail message last summer, that "the product may or may not carry 'made in the U.S.' signature" but they would be identified as American in origin, "if asked."
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington for this article, and Kirk Semple and Edward Wong from Baghdad.
Here is the rest of the story:
The Lincoln contract with the American-led coalition forces in Iraq has rankled some military and civilian officials and contractors. Some of them described the program to The New York Times in recent months and provided examples of the military's storyboards.
The Lincoln Group, whose principals include some businessmen and former military officials, was hired last year after military officials concluded that the United States was failing to win over Muslim public opinion. In Iraq, the effort is seen by some American military commanders as a crucial step toward defeating the Sunni-led insurgency.
Citing a "fundamental problem of credibility" and foreign opposition to American policies, a Pentagon advisory panel last year called for the government to reinvent and expand its information programs.
"Government alone cannot today communicate effectively and credibly," said the report by the task force on strategic communication of the Defense Science Board. The group recommended turning more often for help to the private sector, which it said had "a built-in agility, credibility and even deniability."
The Pentagon's first public relations contract with Lincoln was awarded in 2004 for about $5 million with the stated purpose of accurately informing the Iraqi people of American goals and gaining their support. But while meant to provide reliable information, the effort was also intended to use deceptive techniques, like payments to sympathetic "temporary spokespersons" who would not necessarily be identified as working for the coalition, according to a contract document and a military official.
In addition, the document called for the development of "alternate or diverting messages which divert media and public attention" to "deal instantly with the bad news of the day."
Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said the terms of the contract did not permit her to discuss it and referred a reporter to the Pentagon. But others defended the practice.
"I'm not surprised this goes on," said Michael Rubin, who worked in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 and 2004. "Informational operations are a part of any military campaign," he added. "Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents - replete with oil boom cash - do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind our backs."
Two dozen recent storyboards prepared by the military for Lincoln and reviewed by The New York Times had a variety of good-news themes addressing the economy, security, the insurgency and Iraq's political future. Some were written to resemble news articles. Others took the form of opinion pieces or public service announcements.
One article about Iraq's oil industry opened with three paragraphs taken verbatim, and without attribution, from a recent report in Al Hayat, a London-based Arabic newspaper. But the military version took out a quotation from an oil ministry spokesman that was critical of American reconstruction efforts. It substituted a more positive message, also attributed to the spokesman, though not as a direct quotation.
The editor of Al Sabah, a major Iraqi newspaper that has been the target of many of the military's articles, said Wednesday in an interview that he had no idea that the American military was supplying such material and did not know if his newspaper had printed any of it, whether labeled as advertising or not.
The editor, Muhammad Abdul Jabbar, 57, said Al Sabah, which he said received financial support from the Iraqi government but was editorially independent, accepted advertisements from virtually any source if they were not inflammatory. He said any such material would be labeled as advertising but would not necessarily identify the sponsor. Sometimes, he said, the paper got the text from an advertising agency and did not know its origins.
Asked what he thought of the Pentagon program's effectiveness in influencing Iraqi public opinion, Mr. Jabbar said, "I would spend the money a better way."
The Lincoln Group, which was incorporated in 2004, has won another government information contract. Last June, the Special Operations Command in Tampa awarded Lincoln and two other companies a multimillion-dollar contract to support psychological operations. The planned products, contract documents show, include three- to five- minute news programs.
Asked whether the information and news products would identify the American sponsorship, a media relations officer with the special operations command replied, in an e-mail message last summer, that "the product may or may not carry 'made in the U.S.' signature" but they would be identified as American in origin, "if asked."
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington for this article, and Kirk Semple and Edward Wong from Baghdad.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
Note: Note: This covert propaganda is aimed at us. These articles have been cited as signs of our progress and Iraqi support for our mission.Note that "no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad."
Note: Note: Note: Covert propaganda is still alive here. Yes, The GAO has called the paying of Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, Mike McManus etal totally illegal but the Bush administration has ignored its own Accountability Office and even worse our compliant press has forgotten its role.
A reporter cites an unnamed source claiming that XYZ is the case.
The next day Deputy Secretary of _______ cites the news article as proof that XYZ is the case. He does not say that he was the unnanmed source and he has used the reporter to print his words anonymously so he can trumpet them as corroboration.
Judy Judy Judy
If you read the Iraqi press, I suppose they're aimed at "us". But most Americans don't.Classicus Maximus wrote:Note: Note: This covert propaganda is aimed at us. These articles have been cited as signs of our progress and Iraqi support for our mission.Note that "no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad."
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
I read what you wrote. There's nothing coherent about it. According to the NYT, the paid-for articles are aimed at the Iraqi public as propaganda, not at Americans. There's nothing new or unusual about paid-for propaganda during a war.Classicus Maximus wrote:You wrote:I wrote:If you read the Iraqi press, I suppose they're aimed at "us". But most Americans don't.If you read what I wrote, we could have a much more coherent discussion.These articles have been cited as signs of our progress and Iraqi support for our mission.
As far as what has been "cited as signs of our progress" is concerned, the fact that it's bought and paid for doesn't affect the truth of its content. Either it's true or it isn't. The NYT article makes no claim in that regard one way or the other.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
1) Does that mean you accept the NYT as a reputable source? If so, you surprise me.According to the NYT, the paid-for articles are aimed at the Iraqi public as propaganda, not at Americans.
2) The articles being aimed at the Iraqi public is the DoD justification for their use. That does not make it so.
3) As I noted with Armstrong Williams etal and even with anonymous sources, it is the ability to cite so-called independent articles that enables the Bush administration t to do what it does best - SPIN SPIN SPIN.
1. No, but sometimes they forget themselves.Classicus Maximus wrote:1) Does that mean you accept the NYT as a reputable source? If so, you surprise me.According to the NYT, the paid-for articles are aimed at the Iraqi public as propaganda, not at Americans.
2) The articles being aimed at the Iraqi public is the DoD justification for their use. That does not make it so.
3) As I noted with Armstrong Williams etal and even with anonymous sources, it is the ability to cite so-called independent articles that enables the Bush administration t to do what it does best - SPIN SPIN SPIN.
2. That does not make it not so, either.
3. When at war, it's important to do everything possible to win it; that includes spin.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
They re-elected him nonetheless. Not a bad result for an adversary.Classicus Maximus wrote:It seems that we are in full agreement here.When at war, it's important to do everything possible to win it; that includes spin.
The Bush administration has been at war with the American public since January 20, 2001.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
That is exactly right.They re-elected him nonetheless. Not a bad result for an adversary.
The whole point of this administration has been to spin and win.
Can we get back to what I wrote from the start.
They use their own illegal (Williams, Gallagher,etal) actions to front an agenda.
They pay for favorable stories in Iraq which they then relate here in USA as signs of success.
They use a compliant press to cite them anonymously and then they agree with themselves.
Not a bad result for them but a horrid result for the country.
I must be losing my sarcastic touch. Of course the point of the administration is to spin and win -- we're at war. Even if you disagree with the administration, to subvert its efforts to bring the war to a successful conclusion is self-defeating. Every administration in the history of the country has followed the same pattern, and everything needed to win the war is not only acceptable but obligatory.Classicus Maximus wrote:That is exactly right.They re-elected him nonetheless. Not a bad result for an adversary.
The whole point of this administration has been to spin and win.
Can we get back to what I wrote from the start.
They use their own illegal (Williams, Gallagher,etal) actions to front an agenda.
They pay for favorable stories in Iraq which they then relate here in USA as signs of success.
They use a compliant press to cite them anonymously and then they agree with themselves.
Not a bad result for them but a horrid result for the country.
It's absurd to call the American press compliant, isn't it? NYT compliant? Washington Post compliant? Los Angeles Times compliant? What planet do you live on? The mainstream press has shamefully done everything in its power to short-circuit the administration's war effort instead of supporting it. Included in its subversive effort is a steady stream half-truths, flat-out lies and character assassinations. Everything the administration can do to place its efforts in the best possible perspective is both acceptable and necessary. This isn't a high-school debate we're having with radical Islam. It's all-out war and the sooner the press realizes it, the better off we all will be.
But just to soothe your offended sensibilities, there is plenty of unpaid feedback from many Iraqis supporting our efforts to allow them the opportunity to rule themselves as a free people for the first time in their sordid history.
-
Alban Berg
Given the state of war, the issue is not solely or even primarily whether these tactics are legal and ethical, but whether they're helpful to our cause. We're living in an age of global communication and articles like the one originally posted on this thread could be just as easily found by Al-Zarqawi or Osama as by Herman. In other words, the covert propaganda risks becoming overt just by virtue of technology like the Internet. I have no doubt our enemies are constantly reading our newspapers and watching our news programs, and for all we know a musically minded member of Al-Zarqawi's team is even monitoring CMG as we speak, laughing his ass off at - well, at some here. Once it becomes obvious the Pentagon is playing puppetteer in the background, these articles risk losing all credibility and instead backfire in our faces. Would it have been so hard to find Iraqis who would write similar articles of their own volition?
-
Alban Berg
By little more than a simple (pun intended) majority.pizza wrote:They re-elected him nonetheless.Classicus Maximus wrote:It seems that we are in full agreement here.When at war, it's important to do everything possible to win it; that includes spin.
The Bush administration has been at war with the American public since January 20, 2001.
You might well have a point if our enemies are as clever as you think. But I doubt they read our newspapers and watch our news programs for intelligence purposes. They have Al Jazeera to entertain them.Alban Berg wrote:Given the state of war, the issue is not solely or even primarily whether these tactics are legal and ethical, but whether they're helpful to our cause. We're living in an age of global communication and articles like the one originally posted on this thread could be just as easily found by Al-Zarqawi or Osama as by Herman. In other words, the covert propaganda risks becoming overt just by virtue of technology like the Internet. I have no doubt our enemies are constantly reading our newspapers and watching our news programs, and for all we know a musically minded member of Al-Zarqawi's team is even monitoring CMG as we speak, laughing his ass off at - well, at some here. Once it becomes obvious the Pentagon is playing puppetteer in the background, these articles risk losing all credibility and instead backfire in our faces. Would it have been so hard to find Iraqis who would write similar articles of their own volition?
I don't see an ethical difference between government managed news that emphasizes its success for propaganda purposes during wartime, and privately managed news that withholds news favorable to the government for political gain. If anything, the equities favor the government in time of war.
Just proves beyond a doubt that it's the lowest form of humor!Alban Berg wrote:By little more than a simple (pun intended) majority.pizza wrote:They re-elected him nonetheless.Classicus Maximus wrote:It seems that we are in full agreement here.When at war, it's important to do everything possible to win it; that includes spin.
The Bush administration has been at war with the American public since January 20, 2001.
It's amusing to see pretty much everybody is oblivious to the point of this.
Remember the US invaded Iraq to bring democracy (after a couple of other reasons turned out to be fake)?
One of the elements of democracy as we know it is a free press / media. And the US is now using Pravda media techniques.
That's self-defeating. And expensive.
Don't those two things sum up the whole Iraq War?
Remember the US invaded Iraq to bring democracy (after a couple of other reasons turned out to be fake)?
One of the elements of democracy as we know it is a free press / media. And the US is now using Pravda media techniques.
That's self-defeating. And expensive.
Don't those two things sum up the whole Iraq War?
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
Perhaps you didn't see the editor's note in the NYT admitting the serious errors they made in trumpeting Bushies' WMD claims in the run up to war in Iraq.It's absurd to call the American press compliant, isn't it? NYT compliant? Washington Post compliant?
Perhaps you didn't see the WaPo admission that they buried Walter Pincus' articles that questioned the Bushies' WMD claims.
Perhaps you didn't read the LAT admit similar mistakes.
But then perhaps it is you who is from another planet.
And then again you slip and slide and avoid the truth.
The Bushies are using this to spin Americans.
It is not Iraqis who are being spun. It is and always has been about spinning Americans.
Did they call it "admissions" or is that your interpretation? And you still call the American press compliant?Classicus Maximus wrote:Perhaps you didn't see the editor's note in the NYT admitting the serious errors they made in trumpeting Bushies' WMD claims in the run up to war in Iraq.It's absurd to call the American press compliant, isn't it? NYT compliant? Washington Post compliant?
Perhaps you didn't see the WaPo admission that they buried Walter Pincus' articles that questioned the Bushies' WMD claims.
Perhaps you didn't read the LAT admit similar mistakes.
But then perhaps it is you who is from another planet.
And then again you slip and slide and avoid the truth.
The Bushies are using this to spin Americans.
It is not Iraqis who are being spun. It is and always has been about spinning Americans.
You still don't get the point and there's obviously little reason to repeat it, but I'll try once more. Morale is just as important as battlefield victory. The mainstream press was savvy enough during WW2 to realize it and they adjusted to the reality. The disingenuous current crop whose principal objective is to sabotage the Bush administration for political gain is doing the country a great disservice and they couldn't care less about the consequences. When jihadists bomb the NYT building, maybe they'll change their tune, but more probably they'll blame Bush.
The Iraqis don't need to be spun. They're in Iraq. They know the truth. Over 200,000 Jordanians, Iraqis and Palestinians demonstrated against Zarqawi's atrocity in Amman, telling him to get the hell out of Iraq. You won't find 200 demonstrators telling Americans to leave. It's faint-hearted Americans who roll over at the slightest hint of bad news that require it.
No.herman wrote:It's amusing to see pretty much everybody is oblivious to the point of this.
Remember the US invaded Iraq to bring democracy (after a couple of other reasons turned out to be fake)?
One of the elements of democracy as we know it is a free press / media. And the US is now using Pravda media techniques.
That's self-defeating. And expensive.
Don't those two things sum up the whole Iraq War?
It's you who are oblivious to the obvious.
The press is free to say whatever it wants to say, even if it's self-defeating. It just did, or neither the lead article nor this thread would be here.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
Why don't you read what they wrote?Did they call it "admissions" or is that your interpretation?
Yes - less than before Katrina but still compliant.And you still call the American press compliant?
The press has been placed in the position of catering to this adminsitration or getting shut out of WH news.
Before Katrina, the main street media would not have pointed out that in Bush's "Plan for Victory" speech (huh - why are we planning for victory when the Mission was Accomplished over 2 years ago?) his reference to the recent mission by Iraqi troops was not done by American trained troops but Kurdish Peshmerga who do not owe allegiance to the Iraqi government.
NoYou still don't get the point and there's obviously little reason to repeat it, but I'll try once more. Morale is just as important as battlefield victory.
You don't get the point.
This administration is using taxpayer dollars to spin the American public.
They did so before the war.
They do so with non-war related policies.
It is pretty obvious that you get your talking point from Rush & Bill and crew. Now that is non-partisan journalism at its best.When jihadists bomb the NYT building, maybe they'll change their tune, but more probably they'll blame Bush.
Perhapps you missed this
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/polit ... r=homepage
Funny how Bush and even his water carrier McClellan are upset by this but not you and your news sources.Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
More about winning the "war" to get Republicans elected.
===================================
http://www.govexec.com/features/1205-01/1205-01s1s2.htm
What's Lincoln Group?
It's tough to follow the history of Lincoln Group, a contractor that won a $100 million contract with the Special Operations Command to assist with psychological operations. The common denominator to the firm's history is Christian Bailey, listed on its Web site as executive vice president, capital markets. After graduating from Oxford University in England in the 1990s, Bailey moved to the San Francisco area around 1998, and in 1999, founded Express Action, an e-commerce company he apparently later sold. In the Nov. 15, 2002, issue of HedgeWorld Daily News, Bailey was identified as the founder and chairman of a New York-based hedge fund called Lincoln Asset Management. On March 1, 2003, the Alternative Investment News reported that Lincoln Asset Management had an initial $100 million in commitments to underwrite a leveraged buyout fund to acquire defense and intelligence companies.
In 2003, the Lincoln Alliance Corp. (a subsidiary of Lincoln Asset Management) made its debut, presenting itself primarily as a purveyor of what it called "tailored intelligence services" for "government clients faced with critical intelligence challenges," and as an Iraq business development catalyst. Its Web site listed no officers, principals or partners, but described operations as focused on an ambitious mix of political campaign intelligence and commercial real estate. With one office in Baghdad and more projected, Lincoln would act as a clearinghouse for U.S. and foreign companies doing business in Iraq, providing "the information, research and contacts necessary to develop and grow businesses" in the post-Saddam era.
During this time, Lincoln appears to have maintained a business address at 1130 17th St. NW in Washington, and shared phone and fax numbers with Omnicept, a firm located at the time at 1432 T St. NW. Omnicept described itself as an "advanced information technology and systems design firm" and "analytic and intelligence firm" comprising "experts whose experience encompasses military intelligence, education and academia, big business, money managers, political activists, law enforcement, entrepreneurs, artists, and more."
Paige Craig was listed at the same phone numbers as Omnicept's September 2003 point of contact for Internet solicitations for interns. He also represented Lincoln as vice president at the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority's Nov. 19, 2003, Industry Day in Crystal City, Va. According to phone records, the T Street address was a residence with listings for Bailey and Craig.
In late 2003 or early 2004, however, the Lincoln Alliance Corp. became Iraqex, and in a Sept. 27, 2004, Agence France Press news story, was referred to as "a U.S. firm involved in a range of activities from manufacturing construction materials to providing logistics for U.S. forces." In October 2004, it apparently added communications to its repertoire, scoring a $6 million contract from the Multi-National Corps-Iraq (formerly known as Combined Joint Task Force-7, which had operational control of all troops in Iraq) to design and execute an "aggressive advertising and public relations campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the coalition's goals and gain their support," as the contract's August 2004 request for proposal put it.
O'Dwyer's PR Services Report, an influential public relations trade publication, struck a somewhat skeptical tone in its coverage of the tender. MNC-I's contract officer refused to disclose the five other bidders. Bailey said "more information would be forthcoming" about Iraqex and its efforts. Little came, save a November 2004 brief in the trade publication, PR Week, that reported, "Iraqex has a policy of not speaking to the press regarding its work, but has hired 5W PR as its mouthpiece," and quoted 5W PR's chief as saying of Iraqex, "We have more experience working in Iraq than any other firm or organization anywhere in the world."
Oddly, at the December 2004 Destination Baghdad Expo in Iraq, Iraqex listed itself as Iraq-based, but provided only its Washington telephone and address. Then, in March 2005, it changed its name yet again, to Lincoln Group, a communications and PR firm "providing insight and influence in challenging and hostile environments." And on June 11, along with SYColeman and Science Applications International Corp., Lincoln Group got its JPSE contract.
While the group's current Web site does list noteworthy examples of successful endeavors apparently part of its MNC-I work, some find it curious that a firm set up by two thirty-something guys has come so far so fast. Also giving pause has been the company's apparent tendency to solicit staff by way of internships. And it is curious that records of Bailey's Republican affiliations have disappeared from certain Web sites since the JPSE contract was announced.
Bailey was a founder and active participant in Lead21, a fund-raising and networking operation for affluent young Republicans, some of whom have gone on to serve in the Bush administration. Click on the links to Lead21's site today and no mention of Bailey is to be found. But on a subscriber business and social networking site, there's an archived e-mail of Bailey discussing setting up a New York branch of Lead21, and his "personal network," which lists a half-dozen members of the organization's current board, including the chairman of the California Republican Party and the senior policy adviser to the Justice Department's chief information officer. "These are going to be the big supporters, the big donors to the Republican Party in five years' time," Bailey told The New York Times in an Aug. 31, 2004, video interview during a Lead21 party at the Republican convention in New York.
Neither JPSE nor Lincoln Group responded to verbal or written requests for interviews, but the Project on Government Oversight has reservations. "Any time we see leaders who cultivate political influence for a particular party suddenly receive major government contracts, it sends up red flags," says POGO spokeswoman Beth Daley.
===================================
http://www.govexec.com/features/1205-01/1205-01s1s2.htm
What's Lincoln Group?
It's tough to follow the history of Lincoln Group, a contractor that won a $100 million contract with the Special Operations Command to assist with psychological operations. The common denominator to the firm's history is Christian Bailey, listed on its Web site as executive vice president, capital markets. After graduating from Oxford University in England in the 1990s, Bailey moved to the San Francisco area around 1998, and in 1999, founded Express Action, an e-commerce company he apparently later sold. In the Nov. 15, 2002, issue of HedgeWorld Daily News, Bailey was identified as the founder and chairman of a New York-based hedge fund called Lincoln Asset Management. On March 1, 2003, the Alternative Investment News reported that Lincoln Asset Management had an initial $100 million in commitments to underwrite a leveraged buyout fund to acquire defense and intelligence companies.
In 2003, the Lincoln Alliance Corp. (a subsidiary of Lincoln Asset Management) made its debut, presenting itself primarily as a purveyor of what it called "tailored intelligence services" for "government clients faced with critical intelligence challenges," and as an Iraq business development catalyst. Its Web site listed no officers, principals or partners, but described operations as focused on an ambitious mix of political campaign intelligence and commercial real estate. With one office in Baghdad and more projected, Lincoln would act as a clearinghouse for U.S. and foreign companies doing business in Iraq, providing "the information, research and contacts necessary to develop and grow businesses" in the post-Saddam era.
During this time, Lincoln appears to have maintained a business address at 1130 17th St. NW in Washington, and shared phone and fax numbers with Omnicept, a firm located at the time at 1432 T St. NW. Omnicept described itself as an "advanced information technology and systems design firm" and "analytic and intelligence firm" comprising "experts whose experience encompasses military intelligence, education and academia, big business, money managers, political activists, law enforcement, entrepreneurs, artists, and more."
Paige Craig was listed at the same phone numbers as Omnicept's September 2003 point of contact for Internet solicitations for interns. He also represented Lincoln as vice president at the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority's Nov. 19, 2003, Industry Day in Crystal City, Va. According to phone records, the T Street address was a residence with listings for Bailey and Craig.
In late 2003 or early 2004, however, the Lincoln Alliance Corp. became Iraqex, and in a Sept. 27, 2004, Agence France Press news story, was referred to as "a U.S. firm involved in a range of activities from manufacturing construction materials to providing logistics for U.S. forces." In October 2004, it apparently added communications to its repertoire, scoring a $6 million contract from the Multi-National Corps-Iraq (formerly known as Combined Joint Task Force-7, which had operational control of all troops in Iraq) to design and execute an "aggressive advertising and public relations campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the coalition's goals and gain their support," as the contract's August 2004 request for proposal put it.
O'Dwyer's PR Services Report, an influential public relations trade publication, struck a somewhat skeptical tone in its coverage of the tender. MNC-I's contract officer refused to disclose the five other bidders. Bailey said "more information would be forthcoming" about Iraqex and its efforts. Little came, save a November 2004 brief in the trade publication, PR Week, that reported, "Iraqex has a policy of not speaking to the press regarding its work, but has hired 5W PR as its mouthpiece," and quoted 5W PR's chief as saying of Iraqex, "We have more experience working in Iraq than any other firm or organization anywhere in the world."
Oddly, at the December 2004 Destination Baghdad Expo in Iraq, Iraqex listed itself as Iraq-based, but provided only its Washington telephone and address. Then, in March 2005, it changed its name yet again, to Lincoln Group, a communications and PR firm "providing insight and influence in challenging and hostile environments." And on June 11, along with SYColeman and Science Applications International Corp., Lincoln Group got its JPSE contract.
While the group's current Web site does list noteworthy examples of successful endeavors apparently part of its MNC-I work, some find it curious that a firm set up by two thirty-something guys has come so far so fast. Also giving pause has been the company's apparent tendency to solicit staff by way of internships. And it is curious that records of Bailey's Republican affiliations have disappeared from certain Web sites since the JPSE contract was announced.
Bailey was a founder and active participant in Lead21, a fund-raising and networking operation for affluent young Republicans, some of whom have gone on to serve in the Bush administration. Click on the links to Lead21's site today and no mention of Bailey is to be found. But on a subscriber business and social networking site, there's an archived e-mail of Bailey discussing setting up a New York branch of Lead21, and his "personal network," which lists a half-dozen members of the organization's current board, including the chairman of the California Republican Party and the senior policy adviser to the Justice Department's chief information officer. "These are going to be the big supporters, the big donors to the Republican Party in five years' time," Bailey told The New York Times in an Aug. 31, 2004, video interview during a Lead21 party at the Republican convention in New York.
Neither JPSE nor Lincoln Group responded to verbal or written requests for interviews, but the Project on Government Oversight has reservations. "Any time we see leaders who cultivate political influence for a particular party suddenly receive major government contracts, it sends up red flags," says POGO spokeswoman Beth Daley.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
Bush Did Not Mention Attacks in Rose Garden Appearance
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/polit ... nted=print
How many times can they do the same thing before you wake up?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/polit ... nted=print
In the OVERT war to manipulate the news and fool PIZZA (again), the White House withheld news of the deaths of 10 Marines so it wouldn't make the weekday papers.As he went before the cameras in the Rose Garden on Friday morning, President Bush was aware of bad news that had not yet been made public: that 10 marines had been killed by a bomb in Iraq.
How many times can they do the same thing before you wake up?
Don't be silly. Do you expect the president to make personal announcements every time an American soldier is killed? That's the kind of garbage one can expect from the NYT these days.Classicus Maximus wrote:Bush Did Not Mention Attacks in Rose Garden Appearance
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/polit ... nted=print
In the OVERT war to manipulate the news and fool PIZZA (again), the White House withheld news of the deaths of 10 Marines so it wouldn't make the weekday papers.As he went before the cameras in the Rose Garden on Friday morning, President Bush was aware of bad news that had not yet been made public: that 10 marines had been killed by a bomb in Iraq.
How many times can they do the same thing before you wake up?
The hiring of Iraqi correspondents to write articles that put forth the government's position in a favorable light is certainly no different than Sulzberger and owners of other liberal and leftist mainstream news sources paying hacks like Dowd, Rich and others to attack the administration and to deliberately withhold news showing the progress being made in Iraq.
I haven't the slightest doubt that there will be many more casualties -- this is going to be a long and difficult war -- and they will be used by opponents of the administration as emotional ammunition to deflect public opinion from security and other issues that must be understood and addressed.
Having lived through several wars during the past century, I've been around a bit too long to be fooled; and having seen how the press and media were generally conscious of their primary obligation to support our war efforts, it's appalling to see not only the lack of self-discipline the mainstream press has shown during the present conflict, but also their deliberate and shameful attempts to subvert the war effort by any means possible, including the callous and calculated withholding of news favorable to the administration for political gain.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
First - I see. One can cite the NYT only when you agree with it.Do you expect the president to make personal announcements every time an American soldier is killed? That's the kind of garbage one can expect from the NYT these days.
Second - The Pentagon withheld news of the deaths of the 10 Marines so it would not make Friday's papers..
Please read this again:
The Pentagon withheld news of the deaths of the 10 Marines so it would not make Friday's papers..
If you're referring to Stevenson's NYT article, the precise quote is:Classicus Maximus wrote:First - I see. One can cite the NYT only when you agree with it.Do you expect the president to make personal announcements every time an American soldier is killed? That's the kind of garbage one can expect from the NYT these days.
Second - The Pentagon withheld news of the deaths of the 10 Marines so it would not make Friday's papers..
Please read this again:
The Pentagon withheld news of the deaths of the 10 Marines so it would not make Friday's papers..
"Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Bush did not allude to the marines' deaths because he defers to the Pentagon as to when such news should be released, out of concern for the families."
It was not "so it would not make Friday's papers.." but rather out of concern for the families of the casualties."
Do you think it's better that they learn of their loved ones' deaths in the Friday papers? I don't.
-
Donald Isler
- Posts: 3195
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
- Contact:
The claim that hiring Iraqi "correspondents" to produce articles favorable to the Bush administration's policies is just like the New York Times producing articles to the opposite effect is absurd.
The latter is a company which can hold any political position its owners choose. The former is our government using our money to tell lies, and pretending that this is journalism.
The latter is a company which can hold any political position its owners choose. The former is our government using our money to tell lies, and pretending that this is journalism.
Donald Isler
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
Once again I repeat.Do you think it's better that they learn of their loved ones' deaths in the Friday papers? I don't.
The Pentagon withheld the news of the deaths so it would be in Saturday's papers - the least read day of the week.
The Penatgon NEVER publishes the names of our fallen heroes until their families are notified.
so
Stop figting strawmen.
The Pentagon withheld the news.
The White House knew about it.
This is absurd. Sometimes I really wonder why you even bother about this war, and about who wins. You clearly don't care a fig's end about Western and American values such as liberty, truth and democracy.pizza wrote:The hiring of Iraqi correspondents to write articles that put forth the government's position in a favorable light is certainly no different than Sulzberger and owners of other liberal and leftist mainstream news sources paying hacks like Dowd, Rich and others to attack the administration and to deliberately withhold news showing the progress being made in Iraq.
The NYT is a family owned newspaper. You don't like what they print; you don't buy it. Not a penny of yours lost. (BTW Dowd and Rich are just columnists; they don't even contribute 0,01 percent of the NYT's content.)The US gvt is telling us they went to Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. The costs (your tax dollar) will be crippling the budget for many years to come, and will increase the hold that China and Japan have on the US. And the sad thing is, while talking about freedom and democracy the US are using Pravda media techniques, they're jailing "terrorist supects" without any form of process and torturing people.
In totalitarian regimes the press is obliged to support the government. In a democracy the press reports the truth first and last. That is the first obligation.having seen how the press and media were generally conscious of their primary obligation to support our war efforts
Discipline is a word beyond your understanding, and self-discipline is a concept beyond the understanding of the generation X press. During WW2, a time during which the country was under attack as it is now, the press supported the government -- not because everyone was a New Deal Democrat and FDR was the President; not because the government paid it to support it; and not because America was a totalitarian regime; but because we were all in it together for the common good, and we all had a common objective.herman wrote:This is absurd. Sometimes I really wonder why you even bother about this war, and about who wins. You clearly don't care a fig's end about Western and American values such as liberty, truth and democracy.pizza wrote:The hiring of Iraqi correspondents to write articles that put forth the government's position in a favorable light is certainly no different than Sulzberger and owners of other liberal and leftist mainstream news sources paying hacks like Dowd, Rich and others to attack the administration and to deliberately withhold news showing the progress being made in Iraq.
The NYT is a family owned newspaper. You don't like what they print; you don't buy it. Not a penny of yours lost. (BTW Dowd and Rich are just columnists; they don't even contribute 0,01 percent of the NYT's content.)The US gvt is telling us they went to Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. The costs (your tax dollar) will be crippling the budget for many years to come, and will increase the hold that China and Japan have on the US. And the sad thing is, while talking about freedom and democracy the US are using Pravda media techniques, they're jailing "terrorist supects" without any form of process and torturing people.
having seen how the press and media were generally conscious of their primary obligation to support our war efforts
In totalitarian regimes the press is obliged to support the government. In a democracy the press reports the truth first and last. That is the first obligation.
If printing every fact in the interest of "liberty, truth and democracy" was paramount, the press would have published troop sailing schedules so the American public would have that information -- and the Axis could deploy its submarines more effectively; it would have published information about the movement of personnel and equipment by rail in order to inform the American public what the government was doing to advance its cause -- and the Axis would know the concentration and location of troops and armaments; it would have published anything and everything that was germane to the wartime issues of the day -- and we would have been the losers for it. The press exercised self-discipline and didn't publish sensitive information, much to its credit.
Family owned or not, the NYT and other mainstream media are widely published news sources which deliberately withhold news favorable to the administration's position during wartime. The government not only has a right but an obligation to bring that information to everyone by any means possible. If that requires the hiring of foreign journalists to publish the information in their local papers -- information which won't be published by the liberal and leftist-controlled mainstream American press, that's perfectly acceptable and legal. It also underscores the depths to which local media have sunk in order to advance their own political agenda.
Terrorist suspects are usually captured in the act of terrorism and are subject to detention. The mere allegation of "torture" doesn't establish it as reality and certainly not as policy. Interesting how all recent concern for the welfare of terrorist detainees has suddenly supplanted the deadly silence emanating from the left during Saddam's heinous regime of torture. Where was your "concern" then, Hermie?
You first said that "The White House" withheld the news:Classicus Maximus wrote:Once again I repeat.Do you think it's better that they learn of their loved ones' deaths in the Friday papers? I don't.
The Pentagon withheld the news of the deaths so it would be in Saturday's papers - the least read day of the week.
The Penatgon NEVER publishes the names of our fallen heroes until their families are notified.
so
Stop figting strawmen.
The Pentagon withheld the news.
The White House knew about it.
".........the White House withheld news of the deaths of 10 Marines so it wouldn't make the weekday papers".
Now you admit it's the Pentagon that withheld the news and Bush knew about it. Not quite the same, is it? You know very well that Bush doesn't control the Pentagon. The Pentagon is not a partisan institution and you know that as well. Proof positive that anything the left finds disagreeable is first pinned on the president.
Last edited by pizza on Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who besides you says the Iraqi articles are "lies"? Your bible, the NYT was careful enough to avoid comment on the veracity of the content of the articles -- something you could learn from it since you've never read them either.Donald Isler wrote:The claim that hiring Iraqi "correspondents" to produce articles favorable to the Bush administration's policies is just like the New York Times producing articles to the opposite effect is absurd.
The latter is a company which can hold any political position its owners choose. The former is our government using our money to tell lies, and pretending that this is journalism.
What I said is that there's no ethical difference between the NYT withholding news favorable to the government and the government hiring foreign journalists to publish articles placing the government's position in the most favorable light; and in wartime, the equities are probably in favor of the government. The government, in case you don't realize it, has every right to make its position known to the public, just as any private institution does.
And pictures like the ones from Abu Graib are just "allegations" to you, too. Planet Pizzapizza wrote:The mere allegation of "torture" doesn't establish it as reality and certainly not as policy.
Gosh you really are the know-it-all expert, aren't you?pizza wrote:Terrorist suspects are usually captured in the act of terrorism and are subject to detention.
Define "act of terrorism".
A lot of people in these Guantanomo Bay style no-exit prisons have simply been picked up in the streets or in their hovels, while someone from the next village said "he bad man".
If that's your criteria, you should have bowed out of most of the threads you've started.Vaseena wrote:Pizza,
It's time for you to bow out of this thread - you're getting clobbered in here by the voices of reason and truth...
Last edited by Barry on Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill
"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill
"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related
Well said. Too many people seem to think we should have to fight the war with "one hand tied behind our back." We didn't do so in the past (as you pointed out about World War II), because there was a different, we're all in this together attitude. The only difference today is the press' zeal to bring out every fact that could be damaging to our war effort. We would have lost not only World War II, but I'm sure other past conflicts as well if the press had operated like they do today in those times.pizza wrote: Discipline is a word beyond your understanding, and self-discipline is a concept beyond the understanding of the generation X press. During WW2, a time during which the country was under attack as it is now, the press supported the government -- not because everyone was a New Deal Democrat and FDR was the President; not because the government paid it to support it; and not because America was a totalitarian regime; but because we were all in it together for the common good, and we all had a common objective.
If printing every fact in the interest of "liberty, truth and democracy" was paramount, the press would have published troop sailing schedules so the American public would have that information -- and the Axis could deploy its submarines more effectively; it would have published information about the movement of personnel and equipment by rail in order to inform the American public what the government was doing to advance its cause -- and the Axis would know the concentration and location of troops and armaments; it would have published anything and everything that was germane to the wartime issues of the day -- and we would have been the losers for it. The press exercised self-discipline and didn't publish sensitive information, much to its credit.
Family owned or not, the NYT and other mainstream media are widely published news sources which deliberately withhold news favorable to the administration's position during wartime. The government not only has a right but an obligation to bring that information to everyone by any means possible....
Getting out the message is key to winning a war. No war is fought without some degree of propoganda. Although, again, as Pizza stated, in this case, they are trying to get the truth out, albeit it in a way that offends liberal sensitivities.
If the MSM was reporting the war in a balanced, responsible manner, this probably wouldn't have been necessary.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill
"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill
"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related
Aw, you're breaking my heart, Hermie. What was happening in Abu Graib before the Americans arrived? Want to compare the difference? Did it concern you in the least what Saddam was doing there? Why the sudden interest in Abu Graib, Mr. America basher?herman wrote:And pictures like the ones from Abu Graib are just "allegations" to you, too. Planet Pizzapizza wrote:The mere allegation of "torture" doesn't establish it as reality and certainly not as policy.
Gosh you really are the know-it-all expert, aren't you?pizza wrote:Terrorist suspects are usually captured in the act of terrorism and are subject to detention.
Define "act of terrorism".
A lot of people in these Guantanomo Bay style no-exit prisons have simply been picked up in the streets or in their hovels, while someone from the next village said "he bad man".
I wouldn't expect you to know what terrorism is. You live with your head firmly planted in the sand.
Terrorism defined:
Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change. - Brian Jenkins
Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted. - Walter Laqueur
Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience. - James M. Poland
Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics. - Vice-President's Task Force, 1986
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - FBI
The terrorists who attacked NY and Washington were educated and financially independent; Zarqawi is educated and financially well-off; bin Laden is a billionaire and generous with his terrorist funding. Don't give us the "hovel" crap.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
Bush's Speech on Iraq War Echoes Voice of an Analyst
Everything this administration does is PR aimed at American public.
Pizza - How can you justfiy Armstrong Williams etal?
Everything is aimed at keeping people confused.
Nothing is true.
Some OVERT examples from our President:
"The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction."
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
"I don't pay attention to polls."
"Heckuva job Brownie."
Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the Plame's name.
"We don't torture."
"The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army — with six Iraqi battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces — 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support."
Even that was a LIE aimed at American public.
TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush’s description was completely untrue:
"I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them."
But it doesn't matter Pizza.
You can keep your blinders on.
You can keep fighting strawmen.
You can keep blaming "Liberals" for the problems of a government of which all 3 branches are controlled - no - dominated by Republicans.
http://nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/ ... r=homepage"This is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency," said Christopher F. Gelpi, Dr. Feaver's colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties. "The Pentagon doesn't need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion."
Everything this administration does is PR aimed at American public.
Pizza - How can you justfiy Armstrong Williams etal?
Everything is aimed at keeping people confused.
Nothing is true.
Some OVERT examples from our President:
"The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction."
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
"I don't pay attention to polls."
"Heckuva job Brownie."
Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the Plame's name.
"We don't torture."
"The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army — with six Iraqi battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces — 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support."
Even that was a LIE aimed at American public.
TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush’s description was completely untrue:
"I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them."
But it doesn't matter Pizza.
You can keep your blinders on.
You can keep fighting strawmen.
You can keep blaming "Liberals" for the problems of a government of which all 3 branches are controlled - no - dominated by Republicans.
And you, CM, can pick and choose little bits of information which without context are meaningless. Like the bit about Michael Ware about who was leading the Iraqi troops in a particular operation -- was he everywhere? That sort of nonsense is obviously written from a partisan perspective. And you can continue to talk about me personally -- my blinders, straw-men and so forth, because as a typical leftie, that sort of personal garbage is a requirement for you in any debate about ideas. I find it amusing.
For anyone who really wants to understand the dynamics behind the partisan attacks on Bush and the administration, the following should be required reading:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... 12005029_1
I have yet to see a point-by-point refutation from any reliable source -- or from any source for that matter.
For anyone who really wants to understand the dynamics behind the partisan attacks on Bush and the administration, the following should be required reading:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... 12005029_1
I have yet to see a point-by-point refutation from any reliable source -- or from any source for that matter.
Check the Dishonety thread for sources.pizza wrote:And you, CM, can pick and choose little bits of information which without context are meaningless. Like the bit about Michael Ware about who was leading the Iraqi troops in a particular operation -- was he everywhere? That sort of nonsense is obviously written from a partisan perspective. And you can continue to talk about me personally -- my blinders, straw-men and so forth, because as a typical leftie, that sort of personal garbage is a requirement for you in any debate about ideas. I find it amusing.
For anyone who really wants to understand the dynamics behind the partisan attacks on Bush and the administration, the following should be required reading:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... 12005029_1
I have yet to see a point-by-point refutation from any reliable source -- or from any source for that matter.
'She wants to go with him, but her mama don't allow none of that.'
Elementary school child at an opera outreach performance of "Là ci darem la mano!" Don Giovanni - Mozart.
Elementary school child at an opera outreach performance of "Là ci darem la mano!" Don Giovanni - Mozart.
So much for Hermie's "Bush exports phoney journalism" crap.
Bush 'Troubled' by Story Placements
Sunday, December 04, 2005
WASHINGTON — President Bush is disturbed by the U.S. military's practice of paying Iraqi papers to run articles emphasizing positive developments in the country and will end the program if it violates the principles of a free media, a senior aide said Sunday.
"He's very troubled by it" and has asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to look into the pay-to-print program, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.
"If it is inconsistent with the policy guidance it will be shut down," Hadley said on ABC's "This Week."
Hadley acknowledged there is a need to counter the disinformation campaigns of U.S. enemies in Iraq. "But the message we need to get out has to be truth and facts," Hadley told "FOX News Sunday."
Even if the stories are factual, "it's got to be done in a way that reinforces a free media, not undermines it," Hadley said.
Military officials on Friday detailed and generally defended the program under which a Washington-based contractor was authorized to pay Iraqi papers to run articles, compiled by coalition forces. The stories often praise the activities of U.S. and Iraqi forces, denounce terrorism and promote reconstruction efforts.
The Lincoln Group has a contract for $6 million to perform public relations and advertising work in Iraq.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the legality and policy ramifications of the program were unclear. "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do," he said.
But lawmakers and Pentagon officials also offered defense of the program, which U.S. military officials in Iraq described as "a function of buying advertising and opinion-editorial space, as is customary in Iraq."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he did not know if that was standard procedure in Iraq. But, he said on NBC's "Meet the Press," if the stories were accurate, "if that's the way to get stories, I'm not terribly offended by it."
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee visited the Pentagon on Friday to discuss the information campaign. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said the practice of planting favorable stories without disclosing the source was wrong, but "the disinformation that's going on in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving, and we have no recourse but to try and do some rebuttal information."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177635,00.html
Bush 'Troubled' by Story Placements
Sunday, December 04, 2005
WASHINGTON — President Bush is disturbed by the U.S. military's practice of paying Iraqi papers to run articles emphasizing positive developments in the country and will end the program if it violates the principles of a free media, a senior aide said Sunday.
"He's very troubled by it" and has asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to look into the pay-to-print program, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.
"If it is inconsistent with the policy guidance it will be shut down," Hadley said on ABC's "This Week."
Hadley acknowledged there is a need to counter the disinformation campaigns of U.S. enemies in Iraq. "But the message we need to get out has to be truth and facts," Hadley told "FOX News Sunday."
Even if the stories are factual, "it's got to be done in a way that reinforces a free media, not undermines it," Hadley said.
Military officials on Friday detailed and generally defended the program under which a Washington-based contractor was authorized to pay Iraqi papers to run articles, compiled by coalition forces. The stories often praise the activities of U.S. and Iraqi forces, denounce terrorism and promote reconstruction efforts.
The Lincoln Group has a contract for $6 million to perform public relations and advertising work in Iraq.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the legality and policy ramifications of the program were unclear. "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do," he said.
But lawmakers and Pentagon officials also offered defense of the program, which U.S. military officials in Iraq described as "a function of buying advertising and opinion-editorial space, as is customary in Iraq."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he did not know if that was standard procedure in Iraq. But, he said on NBC's "Meet the Press," if the stories were accurate, "if that's the way to get stories, I'm not terribly offended by it."
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee visited the Pentagon on Friday to discuss the information campaign. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said the practice of planting favorable stories without disclosing the source was wrong, but "the disinformation that's going on in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving, and we have no recourse but to try and do some rebuttal information."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177635,00.html
Surely you jest.operafan wrote:Check the Dishonety thread for sources.pizza wrote:And you, CM, can pick and choose little bits of information which without context are meaningless. Like the bit about Michael Ware about who was leading the Iraqi troops in a particular operation -- was he everywhere? That sort of nonsense is obviously written from a partisan perspective. And you can continue to talk about me personally -- my blinders, straw-men and so forth, because as a typical leftie, that sort of personal garbage is a requirement for you in any debate about ideas. I find it amusing.
For anyone who really wants to understand the dynamics behind the partisan attacks on Bush and the administration, the following should be required reading:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... 12005029_1
I have yet to see a point-by-point refutation from any reliable source -- or from any source for that matter.
-
Alban Berg
Maybe instead of constantly whining about the MSM on an Internet forum with a readership of 10, you or Corlyss or Barry should actually submit a well-substantiated letter or column to the NY Times or other paper of your choice, detailing how it is failing to present a balanced or accurate point of view.pizza wrote:And you, CM, can pick and choose little bits of information which without context are meaningless. Like the bit about Michael Ware about who was leading the Iraqi troops in a particular operation -- was he everywhere? That sort of nonsense is obviously written from a partisan perspective. And you can continue to talk about me personally -- my blinders, straw-men and so forth, because as a typical leftie, that sort of personal garbage is a requirement for you in any debate about ideas. I find it amusing.
For anyone who really wants to understand the dynamics behind the partisan attacks on Bush and the administration, the following should be required reading:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... 12005029_1
I have yet to see a point-by-point refutation from any reliable source -- or from any source for that matter.
-
Classicus Maximus
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:28 pm
pizza wrote:
Is it possible that Hannity didn't mention this?
Oh - did you miss the pearls below:
"The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction."
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
"I don't pay attention to polls."
"Heckuva job Brownie."
Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the Plame's name.
"We don't torture."
The Penatgon admitted that almost all the detainees in Abu Ghraib should not have been there.Terrorist suspects are usually captured in the act of terrorism and are subject to detention.
Is it possible that Hannity didn't mention this?
Oh - did you miss the pearls below:
"The Iraqi regime has acquired and tested the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction."
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
"I don't pay attention to polls."
"Heckuva job Brownie."
Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the Plame's name.
"We don't torture."
Obviously you haven't seen the tremendous volume of material written on the subject and the Times' weak responses. Take a moment and google it instead of whining about our forum and three of its members.Alban Berg wrote:Maybe instead of constantly whining about the MSM on an Internet forum with a readership of 10, you or Corlyss or Barry should actually submit a well-substantiated letter or column to the NY Times or other paper of your choice, detailing how it is failing to present a balanced or accurate point of view.pizza wrote:And you, CM, can pick and choose little bits of information which without context are meaningless. Like the bit about Michael Ware about who was leading the Iraqi troops in a particular operation -- was he everywhere? That sort of nonsense is obviously written from a partisan perspective. And you can continue to talk about me personally -- my blinders, straw-men and so forth, because as a typical leftie, that sort of personal garbage is a requirement for you in any debate about ideas. I find it amusing.
For anyone who really wants to understand the dynamics behind the partisan attacks on Bush and the administration, the following should be required reading:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... 12005029_1
I have yet to see a point-by-point refutation from any reliable source -- or from any source for that matter.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests