U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press

Propaganda - Yup, we used it, it's war...
Torture - Yup, it's war, war is won on gathering intelligence...
WMD - Don't know when U.S. employed WMD

"America: We're slightly less evil than the last guys." - I can actually agree to that. This isn't 1500s and wars aren't games between gentlemen. Even back then, propaganda and torture were tactics being used. War is evil. The war could have been avoided if Saddam simply complied with the treaty signed after the first Gulf War.

 

What I'm "able to see," Bernie is what the rest of the world, apart from George Bush's America, was able to see. That Iraq was not a threat. That Saddam, as evil a b*stard as he was, was a stabilizing force in the region. That the entire world was watching him and that if he stepped out of line at all, he knew we would blast him. Which is why he didn't step out of line. In fact, there was intelligence that told us all that before we went to war. Not even classified stuff. Stuff I read in the papers. Stuff that was cited by Scowcroft before we even went in. Saddam was not a threat to us and any reading of the intel, leaving out Chalabi at least, told us that. That's why the UN opposed the war and that's why most of the free world opposed the war. We went in not because of an expansionist threat. We went in because Bush and Cheney and the WHIG WANTED to go in. And because they willfully manipulated intel to scare Americans into supporting it. There was never a threat. The American people know that now and so now they oppose the war. Further, they support impeachment hearings if it can be proved Bush willfully manipulated intel to mislead us into war. Get up to date. It's been a long, long time since serious people argued Iraq was a threat to us, short term or long. Those talking points have mold on them. If you want to defend this war now you're supposed to talk about bringing democracy to an oppressed people. Which is where the whole propoganda thing gets sticky. See what I did? Back on topic.

 

I don't disagree that the government made attempts to manipulate the public to start the war. It is often necessary to drive public support for a war especially for a democracy. It may be underhanded and perhaps the people ought to be punished.

However, Hussein needed to be put down. If Iraq was not a threat, then they should've simply complied to the provisions. The embargo was not necessary, the oil-for-food program was not necessary, and the war was definitely not necessary. The Iraqi regime did it to itself.

Also, while Iraq probably wouldn't be able to dictate the middle east, but they have enough force to create quite a bit of upheaval and this would be detrimental to the world. That's a tough concept to sell to the American public, so maybe it's better off they did a little manipulating.

Just to get back on topic... I personally think that the "bringing democracy" is more a farce than whatever else our administration is preaching. Democracy or any other type of government means nothing unless it is stable. Stability is the key in Iraq, not democracy. It's just a word that makes the American public gush a little that's all.

 

Huh. Maybe I agree with you more than I disagree, Bernie. I agree that Saddam needed to be put down, I only disagree in that I believe he was basically contained at the time that we started an unnecessary, preemptive war against him. I also believe he was not then a threat to us or others in the ME. Certainly his country was not the hotbed for terrorists it is now. All reasonable people can agree about that.

I also agree that the "bringing democracy" angle is a farce, as you put it. And I agree that the admin manipulated the public to start the war and should be punished for it.

Our only disagreement seems to be wrt what we should have done about Saddam. Saddam was always a b*stard. Thing is, he used to be our b*stard. Even up to his ouster, he still was. He was an enemy of Al Qaeda as a secular ME nation and regarded them as a threat to his sovereignty. He was good for us, cynical as that may seem, in the WOT. And then we knocked him off and the terrorists came flooding in. Chances are really good they will never leave. And, before someone goes there, we can't make them leave with troops or bombs. I would have suggested (and I did) we could have contained Saddam fine without the (a) loss of American and Iraqi lives, and (b) step backwards wrt American security as evidenced by a whole new training ground and cause to rally around for Al Qaeda, by threatening force at the UN and agreeing not to use it. Bush had his mind made up to have this war though and nothing was going to stop him. So he manipulated the intel, lied to America and the world, and here we are. In far graver danger than Saddam had the capability to put us in. Good job, George! Let's stay the course!

 

U.S. Admits to Paying Iraqi Newspapers

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 2, 2005; 5:33 PM

The U.S. military in Iraq today acknowledged paying to place news articles in Iraqi publications, saying the practice was a necessary part of "information operations" to counter extensive "propaganda" by insurgents.

"The information battlespace in Iraq is contested at all times and is filled with misinformation and propaganda by an enemy intent on discrediting the Iraqi government and the Coalition, and who are taking every opportunity to instill fear and intimidate the Iraqi people," said a statement issued by the U.S. military's Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad.

The statement did not make clear whether the U.S. military has paid Iraqi journalists to put certain information in their stories, as has been reported.

In Washington, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters after receiving a Pentagon briefing on the subject that he remains "gravely concerned about this situation." He expressed support for placing paid material -- equivalent to advertising -- in Iraqi newspapers to counter enemy "disinformation," but he said it would be wrong to plant stories by paying off Iraqi journalists to include certain information in their articles. He said he did not know whether that is happening, adding that "more facts are needed until that conclusion can be reached."

The U.S. military statement said that "information operations" were essential "for commanders to ensure the Iraqi population has current, truthful and reliable information."

It said, "As part of our operations, we have offered articles for publication to Iraqi newspapers, and in some cases articles have been accepted and published as a function of buying advertising and opinion/editorial space, as is customary in Iraq. Third parties have been employed in an effort to mitigate the risk to publishers. The procedures for doing so undergo policy and legal review to ensure compliance with the law and regulations."

The statement said "serious allegations" suggest that "the process may be functioning in a manner different than is intended or appropriate." The allegations are being reviewed, and any improprieties will be investigated, the statement said.

"Information operations are powerful and essential to military success," the statement stressed. "As such, it requires commander involvement and discipline to ensure it is used properly."

Warner said he was concerned about "any actions that could undermine the credibility of our great nation and indeed the profession of journalism." But the military in Iraq faces "a serious problem . . . and that is disinformation," he said. "An enormous amount of information is being fed the Iraqi press, both written and television, that is just plain factually wrong."

As part of its efforts to counter this disinformation, Warner said, the military has contracted with the Lincoln Group, a private firm that deals with Iraqi publications.

He said the Pentagon briefers "told me that all material passed to the Iraqi media through the Lincoln Group is represented as originating with coalition forces." He said the Lincoln Group "is authorized to provide payment for placement of this material in Iraqi newspapers," similar to the way that "any advertiser, marketer or public relations firm would place advertisements."

Warner said he was told that part of the program was classified, but he declined to speculate on whether that part had to do with payments to Iraqi reporters.

"I'm not here to confirm that the payoffs were right or wrong or took place," Warner said. "We simply don't have all the facts."

He said in response to a subsequent question that he agreed it would be wrong if the military was "putting money into somebody's pocket to write a story."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201454.html

 

Yea, especially when the sole remaining objective behind the war that the administration can use is the spread of democracy. How ironic.