http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...-home-headlines

WASHINGTON — As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.

It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled "The Role of Press in a Democratic Society." Standards vary widely at Iraqi newspapers, many of which are shoestring operations.

Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.

The military's information operations campaign has 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.

"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," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.

The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs — the dissemination of factual information to the media — and psychological and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.

The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has labeled "covert propaganda."

Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it.

A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined to comment.

One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.

The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks.

U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, 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 U.S. news outlets.

"There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media. Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who does information operations work for the Pentagon.

Daniel Kuehl, an information operations expert at National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington, said that he did not believe that planting stories in Iraqi media was wrong. But he questioned whether the practice would help turn the Iraqi public against the insurgency.

"I don't think that there's anything evil or morally wrong with it," he said. "I just question whether it's effective."

I don't see anything wrong in terms of having a public relations and information office and providing your own spin on things (as long as the truth is respected). But this is sneaky corruption of the Iraqi media. It's another thing that shows the shallow understanding of democracy that the Bushies have.

How much longer will the American Public be so tolerant to let the Bush Regime keep lying to America? He must think ALL Americans are vulnerable and so dumb!
Now one can also wonder if the Iraqi Regime appointed and helped by the Bush Regime is as equally manipulative. Oh ya, revert Iraqi Rule to those who are no better than Saddam, eh - under the label of false Democracy?

Lincoln Group supposedly made millions on the contract, too......I don't know for sure if I heard correctly, but I think it was $100 million.

Seems like they might be earning some of it.

I guess there are no laws there about it yet in Iraq so, what do Republcant's do? They take advantage of a situation ... Machiavelian Opportunists --- Right out of Rove's playbook (also Hitlers) !!!

:tree:

Yet another example of the Bush administrations sheer contempt for real democracy.

I'm so tired of them being the face of America.

I remember awhile back one of the Iraqi TV stations (supported by America) had a show where they forced prisoners to confess on TV. It was modeled off of our "reality" TV shows. It was absolutely sickening.

When these guys are finally out of office we will need a major fumigation operation conducted to get rid of the smell.

Chris Matthews just asked Murtha about this story. Murtha told him that he was really tired of the "dishonesty" of the people who speak for the administraton. I second that thought.

Doesn't it make Americans sick when Bush is wasting American $$$ for the War and slice off America's wealth to bribe corrupt people to keep lying to the American public? Enough is enough! And I sure would hate to see our Democrat Senators playing footsie with these corrupt and lying scoundrels!

Well the administration has an obligation to teach them the democratic ways of life, right? Bush says so.


lenal

And it's gonna bite us in the butt. Whether it's years from now or months from now........... this is the type of thing that is going to have BAAAAAD repercussion for us in the future.


Does this adminstration think that the people of the middle east are stupid?????

Olberman to have a story on this tonight. (11/30/05)

It says the stories are factual. What's the gripe?

On NPR tonight, it was also reported that the newspapers printing these stories are being paid to print them.

Iraqis were accustomed to Saddam propagandizing in the newspapers, but were led to believe that this practice would stop in a free Iraq. As this gets out, it will become less and less likely that they will believe the veracity of what is being printed in their newspapers, which will mean that this whole scheme will turn around and bite the US military in the butt.

Huge repercussions especially in the realm of TORTURE !!! Wait till a country gets ahold of our guys ... Hanoi Hilton will be a fricking resort to what a country does to our troops one day.

This is the bed the Bush Administration has laid for us.

One day we may pay a SEVERE PRICE !!!

:tree:

Oh, we don't need to wait until that happens, what they did to American POWs in Gulf War 1 is much worst than taking some jerkoff's picture naked in a dogpile.

Typical liberal, It's only wrong if the USA does it, eh #1?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA



Plaintiffs,



v.



THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ

c/o Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Baghdad, Republic of Iraq,



THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

c/o Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Baghdad, Republic of Iraq,



and



SADDAM HUSSEIN in his official capacity as

PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ

c/o Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Baghdad, Republic of Iraq



Defendants.



COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiffs, Americans held as prisoners of war (POWs) by the Republic of Iraq during the Gulf War and their principally affected family members, bring this action against the Republic of Iraq, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and Saddam Hussein, in his official capacity as President of Iraq, for personal injury caused to the POWs by their torture while held by Iraq in Kuwait and Iraq and personal injury to their family members in the United States and elsewhere caused by these acts of torture against their loved ones. Plaintiffs seek redress for bodily harm, emotional distress, economic damages, pain and suffering, solatium and punitive damages to prevent future mistreatment of American prisoners of war and their families. Plaintiffs, as and for their Complaint, allege as follows:



JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction over all matters in this action with respect to 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (1994) as a claim for relief with respect to a foreign state not entitled to immunity under §§ 1605-1607 of that title, including particularly 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (1994 & Supp. V 1999), as amended, which provides a general exception from immunity of a foreign state for any case in which money damages are sought for personal injury caused by an act of torture or the provision of material support or resources for such torture by a state designated as a state sponsor of terrorism at the time the torture occurred. Relevant to this provision, the Republic of Iraq was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism on September 13, 1990, prior to its torture and mistreatment of American POWs and their families during the Gulf War as specified in this Complaint. Further, the claimants in this action are nationals of the United States and the Defendants in this action have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claims herein for acts occurring in the Republic of Iraq in accordance with accepted international rules of arbitration. A copy of correspondence affording Defendants this opportunity is attached hereto at Tab A. A further offer to enter into such arbitration concerning the claims herein for acts occurring in the Republic of Iraq in lieu of such claims in this action has been filed with this Complaint and is attached hereto at Tab B.

This action (brought pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, as amended, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330 & 1602-11 (1994 & Supp. V 1999)) is filed within the limitation period for actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), as set out in § 1605(f). The Government of the Republic of Iraq, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and Saddam Hussein, in his official capacity as President of the Republic of Iraq, were immune from suit in this action prior to the 1996 Amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1241 (1996) ("FSIA"), which added § 1605(a)(7) to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. As such, the limitation period is tolled until effective enactment of these amendments on April 24, 1996, and the ten-year limitation period begins in that month and year and runs until April 2006. Further, the 1996 Amendments adding § 1605(a)(7) were intentionally and specifically made applicable by Congress to "any cause of action arising before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act." See FSIA § 221©, 104-132, 110 Stat. (April 24, 1996), reprinted at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note "Effective and Applicability Provisions." Similarly, the September 30, 1996 "Flatow Amendment," enacted shortly thereafter to clarify the scope of causes of action and damages available to plaintiffs under the amended § 1605(a)(7), is to be read with the earlier amendment passed just five months before. The Flatow Amendment is Public Law 104-208, Div. A, Title I, § 101© [Title V, § 589] (Sept. 30, 1996), 110 Stat. 3009-172, reprinted at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note (West Supp. 2001). See Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1, 12-15 (D.D.C. 1998). Specifically, this Court said in the Flatow case: "28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 note apply retroactively for the purposes of establishing subject matter and personal jurisdiction." 999 F. Supp. at 13 (emphasis omitted).

Venue is properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f)(4). Defendants are "foreign states" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a) & (. Defendant, the Republic of Iraq, is a foreign state and, as such, is a "foreign state" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a). Defendants, the Iraqi Intelligence Service and Saddam Hussein, in his official capacity as President of the Republic of Iraq, are "agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1603( and, as such, are also "foreign states" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a).



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 2, 1990, the Republic of Iraq invaded and occupied the State of Kuwait in an act of aggression in violation of the United Nations Charter. Subsequently, following United Nations Security Council authorization, an international coalition of thirty-three nations joined active hostilities against Iraq on January 16, 1991, to enforce the international rule of law and compel Iraq to leave Kuwait. Plaintiffs in this case are a group of American national POWs tortured by the Defendants in Kuwait and Iraq while in the custody and physical control of the Government of Iraq during the course of the international response against Iraq’s aggression, as well as principally affected members of the POWs’ families. Plaintiff POWs are truly American heroes who voluntarily placed themselves in harm’s way so that others could live in peace and freedom. They, and their family members, have responded with great courage, dignity and fortitude to the Iraqi government’s brutality and its profound and long lasting effects on their lives.

The American POW Plaintiffs fell into Iraqi hands on varying dates during the conflict but beginning as early as January 17, 1991. All such Plaintiffs were brutally tortured by officials of the Republic of Iraq during their captivity. Treatment while in the hands of Iraqi intelligence personnel was barbarous. As will subsequently be specified in this Complaint, the torture varied for each of the POW Plaintiffs, but the overall torture of American POWs by officials of the Republic of Iraq included severe beatings with pistols and rifles, weighted rubber hoses, truncheons, blackjacks, fists, belts, metal pipes, batons, and sticks, including an axe handle. It further included mock executions; threatened castration; threatened amputation of fingers and other dismemberment; threatened death; threats to send their body parts to their families in the United States; systematic starvation; systematic exposure to freezing cold; deprivation of medical care; purposeful aggravation of existing injuries; electrical shock with a device wrapped around a POW’s head; injection of a mind altering substance; kicking, including with steel-toed boots; cupped hand blows to the ears; beating with a mallet on the knees; handcuffs and restraints so tight as to cut off circulation, damage nerves, and cause the hands to swell and turn purple; use of cattle prods and stun guns; being knocked unconscious, sometimes repeatedly; blows to the legs and neck with a heavy pendulum-like object; whipping with a cat-o’-nine-tails; confinement in darkness; confinement in filthy conditions exposing them to contagion and infection; burning with cigarettes and heated spoons; being led blindfolded into walls and stairwells; being urinated and spat upon; mental suffering about the agony that their families must be enduring when the POWs were not permitted by the Iraqi authorities to inform their families that they were alive; living in constant fear of death and torture, a climate intended to create humiliation and degradation; and other atrocities causing great suffering and serious injury in clear violation of the internationally accepted obligations of the Government of Iraq.

Injuries and illnesses sustained during this torture by American POWs generally included a fractured skull, broken bones, including a broken leg and broken vertebrae, broken tibia, broken facial structure, burns, torn muscles, chipped teeth, broken noses, a dislocated jaw, a dislocated shoulder, a torn rotator cuff, perforated eardrums, injuries to knees so severe as to cause lameness, painful joints, injury to kidneys, numbness and nerve damage, hearing impairment, impairment of the sense of smell, infections including eye infection, dysentery, nausea, severe weight loss, massive bruises (in one case so severe and extensive that the bruising was described "as if the body had been dipped in indigo ink"), and other injuries. In at least one case, a POW Plaintiff was so severely starved he ate the scabs off his own body. Pain and suffering of the POWs during this torture and their mental suffering and anguish resulting during their period of confinement by Iraq were intense and extreme. The effects of this brutal treatment by Defendants have continued in years since.

The POWs suffered not only unspeakable and prolonged physical pain but also intense and prolonged mental anguish and harm, both during the actual infliction of torture and throughout their captivity. They lived constantly in terror of further torture of the type their captors had already inflicted upon them, new and unknown tortures, and the fear of death and dismemberment repeatedly threatened by their captors. They heard fellow prisoners’ anguished cries during beatings, sometimes even recognizing the victims’ voices. Hearing the terrorizing beatings gave the POWs a vivid preview of what they and their fellow POWs could expect and greatly contributed to their anguish. Even the sound of the jailers’ keys filled them with fear. Iraq’s forcing of video "confessions" for propaganda purposes not only generated fear and anguish during the torture compelling these propaganda "confessions," but it also generated tremendous guilt about any acquiescence to their captors’ demands. The POWs also suffered intense and prolonged mental anguish because of the suffering of their family members and the effects upon their family relationships resulting from their torture by Iraq. Among other things, POWs and their family members suffered prolonged mental anguish and harm from Iraq’s intentional and total failure to comply with its obligations designed to provide rapid notification to family members of a detained POW. Some POW Plaintiffs have also suffered professional set-backs and economic damages as a result of Iraq’s tortious actions.

This torture of American POWs, while they were in the custody and physical control of the Republic of Iraq, producing severe pain and suffering, physical and mental, was intentionally inflicted by Defendants for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishing the POWs for their lawful actions in support of the United Nations coalition or for insisting on their rights as POWs while in Iraqi captivity, and in discrimination against them. Iraqi actions against American POWs as set out in this Complaint are a paradigm of the meaning of "torture" as that term is defined in section 3 of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, incorporated into 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) by § 1605(e)(1). Section 3 of the Torture Victim Protection Act clearly mandates that "torture" includes not only severe pain or suffering for the purpose of interrogation or in an effort to obtain a "confession," but also severe pain or suffering for the purpose of "punishing that individual for an act that individual or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed," or "intimidating or coercing that individual or a third person" or "for any reason based on discrimination of any kind," and further includes "suffering" [the Act uses the disjunctive "or" rather than the conjunctive "and" in the phrase "pain or suffering"] inflicted for any of the above purposes. The POW Plaintiffs’ custody and physical control by Iraq demonstrates a recurrent pattern implicating all of these meanings of torture under the Act, from beatings upon capture and during captivity as punishment and discrimination against them for carrying out their lawful military duties as members of the United Nations Coalition, beatings and other tortures during interrogation and efforts at forcing verbal and video "confessions," efforts to use them as human shields to coerce the United Nations Coalition, and severe suffering inflicted in barbarous conditions of captivity.

The POW Plaintiffs’ claims for money damages against Defendants for personal injury caused by torture and the provision of material support or resources for such acts of torture, including claims for economic damages, solatium, and pain and suffering fall squarely within 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), as amended.

The Plaintiffs who are close family members of the POW Plaintiffs have suffered prolonged mental anguish and harm as a result of Iraq’s brutal torture of their loved ones and, in the case of many family members, direct injury in the United States as a result of elements in that torture. Their anguish resulted from the Government of Iraq’s lack of notification as required by international law that their spouse or loved one had been taken prisoner by Iraq and was still alive, their knowledge of Defendants’ general disregard of humanitarian standards (including particularly their knowledge of Iraq’s past record of brutal torture of POWs), Defendants’ placing of certain injured POWs on public display, Defendants’ publicly announced policy of placing American POWs as hostages at strategic military targets, Defendants’ refusal to let the International Committee of the Red Cross (the "ICRC") check the prisoners’ conditions, and Defendants’ chilling public taunts and threats to coalition forces, such as "we will drink your blood!," "show no mercy toward them," and "we will send you back to your kinfolk as lifeless corpses." The tortious mistreatment of POW loved ones by Defendants, both when originally suspected and when it became fully known to close family members, caused further prolonged mental anguish about the well-being of their loved ones. The omission by the Government of Iraq of its internationally accepted obligations to comply with provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War designed for the prompt notification of family members that a loved one has been taken prisoner and is not simply missing in action, was part of the Republic of Iraq’s intentional effort at physical and mental torture of American POWs. It produced not only personal injury to the POWs as part of their torture, but also personal injury to their close family members in the United States and elsewhere. Indeed, the spouses of POW Plaintiffs who did not know the fate of their loved ones quite literally did not know whether they were wives or widows. Iraq’s January 21, 1991 announcement through Baghdad Radio that allied POWs would be placed in strategic sites was not only an announced violation of the POW Convention but it further added to the concern for the POWs’ safety. Every day brought more anguish and disappointment for family members as they waited for the ICRC to be allowed access and to hear the fate of their loved ones. Subsequently, the residual effects of Iraq’s torture of their loved ones, and their own mental anguish resulting from Iraq’s mistreatment, have had lasting effects on family relations. This has, in some cases, included effects on the marriages and parent/children relations of tortured POWs. Similarly, for some family members, Defendants’ brutal torture of the POWs has had harmful effects on health and well-being, has impacted their professional choices, and has even created a continuing condition of fear, particularly with respect to terrorism, foreign travel and personal safety.

Plaintiff family members’ claims for money damages against Defendants are not only covered as solatium under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7), as amended, but they also fall squarely within the personal injury contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). Their personal injuries were caused by acts of torture to their loved ones, and they are American national claimants within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7).


PLAINTIFFS FURTHER RESPECTFULLY REQUEST the following additional relief to be entered against Defendants, the Iraqi Intelligence Service and President Saddam Hussein in his official capacity as President of the Republic of Iraq, jointly and severally:

Punitive damages in excess of Three Hundred Million Dollars ($300,000,000.00), to be shared equally between all POW Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have expressed an intention that, if feasible, a substantial amount of any such punitive damages should go to a Foundation for the general assistance of American and allied POW/MIAs and their families; and

Such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Land of Lincoln
Last summer I took a long, speculative look at a company called the Lincoln Group, which appeared to have parlayed its Republican Party connections into a whopping big contract with the Pentagon's special ops propaganda machine -- the JPOSE (Joint Psychological Operations Support Element) to use the proper Orwellian acronym.

Now the Los Angeles Times has obtained a little more information on what the Lincoln Group has been giving the taxpayers for their money -- which appears to be a bunch of bribes paid to Iraqi newspapers to regurgitate official Cheney Administration talking points. (Sorry you had to sit this one out, Armstrong)

As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a . . . small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group . . . The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.

Now the thrust of the story -- and of the outrage expressed by the anonymous Pentagon sources who passed out the paperwork on Lincoln's little payola scheme -- is the utter hypocrisy of preaching democracy and transparency while secretly bribing journalists to print government propaganda.

But knowing what we already know about how the Cheney administration and the semi-official media (Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Judy Woodward, etc.) operate here at home, it's not exactly a surprise to learn the same techniques are being used to shape the information "battle space" in Iraq. After all, why should the Iraqis get more democracy than we do? (I suppose one could argue that since it's taken the USA almost 230 years to devolve into the corrupt and decadent republic we've become, the Iraqis should be required to wait in line just like everyone else.)

And indeed it turns out that the ethical standards of at least some of the Pentagon's journalistic hirelings in Iraq are higher than those of their U.S. counterparts. According to the Times, some of the planted articles have been run under special headings identifiying them as "advertising" or "media services." Which is a hell of a lot more than the New York Times ever did for any of Judy Miller's WMD propaganda.

But even by the efficiency and integrity standards of the Cheney administration (i.e. the Jack Cunningham test) you really have to wonder what's going on. According to the Times, the Lincoln Group has actually been paying Ahmed Chalabi's newspaper to reprint pro-American propaganda. You'd think that after the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies lavished on Chalebi and his surrogates, they'd be willing to comp the Pentagon on the articles -- the same way the casinos comp the high rollers on their hotel rooms. (Calm down, Bill, the craps tables aren't open yet.)

And indeed, the editor of Chalebi's rag sounds perfectly willing to do so:

We publish anything," he said. "The paper's policy is to publish everything, especially if it praises causes we believe in. We are pro-American. Everything that supports America we will publish."
And he does mean everything. The Times article includes a few choice quotes from some of the government-issue dreck the Lincoln Group has been pushing:

"As the people and the Iraqi security forces work together, Iraq will finally drive terrorism out of Iraq for good."
"Both cities are stopping points for foreign fighters entering Iraq to wage their unjust war."
Almost as bad as one of Bush's speeches -- or the transcript of a Rumsfeld press conference.

Still, while the prose may be dreadful, the price tag for placing it is pretty damned cheap, even by Iraqi standards -- as low as $50 for Chalabi's paper, according to the LA Times. (By contrast, during my brief interlude as a PR whore in Washington, my firm charged its corporate clients up to $15,000 for writing and placing a single ghosted op-ed in the New York Times or the Washington Post.)

Which raises an important question: What has the Lincoln Group done with the other $5,499,950 in its Pentagon contract for PR work in Iraq? (not to mention the company's even bigger $100 million global disinformation deal with JPOSE.)
We're talking enough money to buy the entire Iraqi media industry -- but the Pentagon is doing that itself already:

One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public.
Or, as the saying goes: Why rent when you can own?

To be sure, Lincoln Group appears to have a few other projects going, like producing "public service" TV ads to remind Iraqi viewers that road bombs directed at U.S. soldiers often kill innocent civilians. (I'm guessing the ads don't make the same point about errant 500-pound bombs dropped from U.S. war planes.) But this would still seem to leave an awful lot of Uncle Sam's money unaccounted for.

If you go back and read my original post, you'll see my interest in Lincoln Group was less because of its propaganda and disinformation work in Iraq, and more because of a few intriguing hints of possible involvement in similar work here in the domestic battle space -- where it's generally conducted under the brand name Grand Old Party. Granted, there's nothing specific in the LA Times article to feed such suspicions (the company's Republican Party ties aren't even mentioned) but given the amount of money involved, and what we've learned about the Cunningham-MZM ring, the Abramoff-Scanlon rackets, etc., I would strongly urge the Times to dig deeper -- even though I can't afford to pay them for it.

Posted by billmon at 12:51 PM

Great post Gabrielle, Bilmon's whiskey bar is a great plact to get a shot of what the media won't touch but should.

The problem Marine is that paid for government propaganda printed in newspapers should not be concidered news. It should be labeled as paid advertising and the sourse given. Otherwise the reading public is deceived.

Marine ---- USMC ----

Aren't we the country that's supposed to set the Moral Standard for the rest of the world to follow ... Don't answer foolishly now ... take your time and think about it ... we are holding other countries to a higher Moral Ground and led by Some sort of Superior Moral Compass led by this great President of ours Eh?

Take your time now ... think this through ... An Eye for an Eye ?!?


:tree:



:xmas:

You know, I am really becoming convinced that the Bush Adminstration just plain doesn't like American values. They don't like a free press, they think torture is ok, they don't believe in separation of church and state, they don't believe in separation of powers, don't believe in civil liberties, etc. I'm sure glad that these guys were not in power when our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. I shudder to think what they would have written.

I was glad to see that General Pace, once again, did the right thing. Based on what I have seen so far of him, If I were a marine I'd be proud to serve under him.

December 1, 2005
The Media
U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE

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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics...agewanted=print

Theory of the Cheney/Rumsfeld secret intelligence service:

Lincoln pays some hack to write stuff, then pays to have it published in Iraq.

C/R's intelligence 'analysts' translate it and feed it back to them.

C/R feed it to Bush.

Bush's speechwriters put it all in a speech. C & R go on the attack with it.


Same thing they probably did in 2001 & 2002. Chalabi is a good example.

Here's my gripe, they should be doing it openly, not secretly. The way they're doing it builds mistrust and lays the groundwork for a corrupt press in Iraq. If they openly stated the sourcing, mention the fact that these are paid pieces (literally supporting a free press) and ran them even in papers they don't like it would be both upright and effective PR.

no retreat no surrender said:

You know, I am really becoming convinced that the Bush Adminstration just plain doesn't like American values. They don't like a free press, they think torture is ok, they don't believe in separation of church and state, they don't believe in separation of powers, don't believe in civil liberties, etc. I'm sure glad that these guys were not in power when our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. I shudder to think what they would have written.

So much for the "rule of law" party platform they campaigned on in 2000.

Let's resurrect their platform and tick off how many items they have broken.

Smaller government? No way
Lower debt? No way
Better morals in congress? No way
Get the government out of your personal life? No way

Exactly!

When my 5-year old daughter does something wrong, I don't want to hear from her how some other kid (like her friend or 2-year old brother) is doing something worse, EVEN IF IT'S TRUE. She is responsible for her own actions, and someone else doing something worse does not justify what she does in the least.

Of course my daughter and this Administration are two different things. I have much more respect for my daughter.

Anyway, I am sooo tired of hearing, "our enemy does worse," as a justification for the despicable actions this Administration has been doing in our name. I believe that we are much better than that.

So our enemy is evil enough to do the worst to our soidiers, but very scrupulous about not claiming that something bad done by Americans is equivalent to something much worse that they do, when they fashion their propaganda to deflect any heat on them? Or do you have faith that the general public in the rest of the world is certainly not so suspicious of the U.S. already that they could ever buy such propaganda and its bias?

No, I think that the world works differently. The fact is, when Americans do bad things, besides the fact that is wrong in itself, it will be used against us to convince more people of the evil nature of the U.S. And that is likely to have consequences.

Marine, thanks for sharing the info on this case. Do you know what the status is on this lawsuit? Was it just filed? Has the Court heard oral arguments? Has the Court decided the case?

By the way, I'm a liberal and I care about torture whenever it occurs, as do most liberals. It is barbarous behavior no matter who is doing it. It was interesting that a lot of the methods listed in this lawsuit are the same ones used by us according to some of the government documents and comments by people on our side. As a matter of fact, Frontline just recently ran a program where one of our interrogators talked about how we used some of these methods. My heart goes out to these soldiers who were tortured. No one should be treated like this.

So Who is Behind Planting Stories in Iraqi Press?

By E&P Staff

Published: December 01, 2005 12:15 PM ET

NEW YORK So what, exactly, is this Lincoln Group that helped plant pro-American propaganda in the Iraqi press, a phenomenon that has made front-page news this week and has now been denounced by everyone from top military leaders to journalism ethicists? And what about its sub-contractor, BKSH & Associates?

The story starts with the Washington D.C.-based Lincoln Alliance Corporation, a "business intelligence company” that also handles services related to commercial real estate in Iraq. It set up an offshoot called Iraqex last year, but its name was later changed to Lincoln Group.

It now has four offices, including ones in Baghdad and Basra, and it develops video, podcasts, and print publications, purchases TV and radio time, and has a three-year contract to oversee public affairs and advertising for the Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I), all aimed at backing the U.S. effort there.

The Lincoln Group's Web site says it "brings a unique combination of expertise in collecting and exploiting information; structuring transactions; and mitigating risks through due diligence and legal strategies."

A June 11, 2005, Washington Post article reported that the Pentagon had just awarded three contracts, potentially worth up to $300 million over five years (if the effort panned out), to three companies to handle "psychological operations" to improve foreign public opinion about the United States, particularly the military. The contract winners: Lincoln Group, Science Applications International Corporation, and SYColeman, Inc., a subsidiary of L-3 Communications.

O'Dwyer's, a leading trade publication in the public relations field, reported in July that BKSH & Associates, one part of the giant communications company, Burson-Marsteller's, had been hired by The Lincoln Group, "one of three firms selected last month by the U.S. Special Operations Command to wage psychological warfare on behalf of the Pentagon in Iraq and other hot spots. BKSH has experience on the Iraqi front earned from work for Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. Col. James Treadwell, director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, said TLG was selected to develop 'cutting-edge types of media,' including radio/TV ads, documentaries, text messages, Internet spots and podcasts for the U.S. military."

BKSH & Associates is a Washington-based firm that provides government relations services for domestic and international clients. It's headed by Charles R. Black Jr., a leading Republican political strategists and former advisor to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

The New Yorker magazine reported as long ago as February 2004 that Black was considering setting up an office in Baghdad. "One week you go to Baghdad, and they say the decisions are being made at the Pentagon," he said. "Then you go to the Pentagon, and they say the decisions are being made in Baghdad. Only Halliburton is making money now!" He added: "Is there too much cronyism? I just wish I could find the cronies."

In September 2005, O'Dwyer's reported that the Lincoln Group was looking to hire "senior media and PR professionals to guide an advertising and PR campaign to inform the Iraqi people of "the Coalition's goals and to gain their support."

There it stood, until earlier this week when the Los Angeles Times was first to report that the Lincoln Group was helping the Pentagon covertly place pro-United States stories in Iraqi news outlets. Dozens of articles written by U.S. military "information operations" troops were placed during 2005, according to the paper. "The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military," the Times reported. The Lincoln Group "helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes poses as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets."

The New York Times reported today: "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….

"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….

"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….

"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.

"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."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

Paid-For Iraq Stories Concern White House

The Associated Press
Thursday, December 1, 2005; 11:56 AM



WASHINGTON -- President Bush's spokesman said Thursday "we're very concerned" about reports that the U.S. military is paying Iraqi newspapers and journalists to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.

"We are seeking more information from the Pentagon," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

At the Pentagon, spokesman Bryan Whitman said, as he did a day earlier in response to reporters' inquiries about the reports, that he was seeking details from U.S. military officials in Baghdad. "I have very few facts," Whitman said, adding that he would not confirm the essence of the story until he learned more from Baghdad.

"It's certainly an issue that's easy to get emotional about, and we need to understand the facts, and when we do I'll provide you as much information as I can," Whitman said.

The spokesman said that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was "aware of the issue," but he would not say whether Rumsfeld had expressed concern about it or whether the secretary had asked for additional information about it.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the reports were troubling.

"I think that the United States of America paying for stories in Iraqi papers undermines America's credibility," Kerry said in the White House driveway after attending a bill-signing ceremony. "What we need are Iraqis who really believe what they're saying and say it for themselves. ... You need to deal with the truth, not with things that you make up or put out there as propaganda."

McClellan noted that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said on Wednesday that he was not aware of the matter until he read a newspaper account of it that morning. Asked on ABC News' "Nightline" whether he thought the practice was appropriate, Pace replied, "Anything that would be detrimental to the proper functioning of a democracy in Iraq would worry me. I just don't know what the facts are."

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said, "I am not aware of any formal review of the program, although it is constantly being assessed for effectiveness."

In Baghdad on Thursday, a senior military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, was asked whether he thought the program undercuts the credibility of either the American military or the new Iraqi news media. Lynch did not answer directly but quoted a senior al-Qaida leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as having told Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the main terrorist leader in Iraq, "Remember, half the battle is the battlefield of the media."

Lynch said Zarqawi lies to the Iraqi people and he said the American military does not.

"We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact not based on fiction," Lynch said.

Details about the program were first reported by the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday. It marked the second time this year that Pentagon programs have come under scrutiny for reported payments made to journalists for favorable press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0100616_pf.html

On Hardball the idiot that used to work for Nixon was saying that we should be doing this. The problem is all the fuss people like us are making. Shame on you for making a fuss and causing blacklash. It isn't the problem of doing it but people actually catching them in the act of doing it. Why that is so outrages that the Us should be able to do this. Shame on all of you .

That would be Pat Buchanan. He was really showing his "true colors" today.

U.S. military paying Iraqi editors to publish propaganda

By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington and Borzou Daragahi from Baghdad
Published November 30, 2005


WASHINGTON -- As part of an information offensive inside Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspaper editors to publish stories written by U.S. troops in an effort to burnish the image of the American mission within Iraq.

Working with a private defense contractor, military officials in Iraq are having articles written by "information operations" troops translated into Arabic and then placed in newspapers around Baghdad, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented as legitimate news accounts in the Iraqi press. The newspapers are paid for publishing the stories, which trumpet the successes of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The military has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which is involved in the translation and placement of the stories. The Iraqi staff of the defense contractor or its subcontractors sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives.

The campaign has sparked a backlash among senior military officers both in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility.

"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," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes elements of the campaign.

According to military officials familiar with the effort, much of it is directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are critical of the effort and are not authorized to speak publicly about it.

A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined to comment, saying that it is company policy not to comment on details of its military contracts.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...nationworld-hed

I remember looking at the Lincoln Group too. There's a lot more to it than just propaganda. They have some high level connections. If you want to do business in Iraq, they're the boys who can grease the skids if you are willing to pay their fees.

Democrat Calls on Committee to Investigate Military Paying Iraqi Papers
Submitted by editor4 on December 1, 2005 - 1:40pm.
Source: Raw Story

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, called on the Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) to investigate a report today in the Los Angeles Times that the U.S. military has been paying Iraqi papers to print stories written by U.S. troops, RAW STORY has learned.

His letter to Davis, provided to RAW STORY, follows.

The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing regarding a report in today's Los Angeles Times that the military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to run stories that present a positive image of the military and the U.S. mission in Iraq.[1] According to the Times, the "U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles ... since the effort began this year." The operation has been run entirely in secret and is "designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military."

In addition, the Times learned from a military official that the Pentagon has "purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece."

If these reports are true, they have significant implications that should be investigated by the Committee. As one senior Pentagon official told the Times: "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."

As you know, I requested in February that the Committee investigate growing reports of the use of "covert propaganda" by the federal government.[2] After some back and forth, we agreed to send a joint document request to several federal agencies seeking information about their contracts with public relations firms. At your request, however, we did not include the Department of Defense in the document request.

The new disclosures in the Los Angeles Times should cause us to revisit the decision to exempt the Department of Defense. According to the Times, the news articles are written by military "information operations" troops. These stories are then translated into Arabic and placed into Iraqi newspapers under a contract with the Lincoln Group. Lincoln Group staff and subcontractors do not identify the articles as originating with the military when they place the articles, sometimes posing as "freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets." The Times found that the stories produced under this program "read more like press releases than news stories," and "often contain anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials." One senior military official told the Times that, "[a]bsolute truth was not an essential element of these stories."

Military efforts to influence Iraqi news coverage covertly should not be tolerated. I hope that you will join me in requesting information from the Pentagon regarding this and any other military efforts to influence Iraqi coverage of the U.S. mission. To begin an investigation, we should request:

* All documents related to the creation and role of the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad;

* All contracts - including the statement of work, task orders, and any modifications - issued by the Pentagon for public relations and media outreach in Iraq, including, but not limited to, the contract with the Lincoln Group to place articles in Iraqi newspapers;

* All deliverables produced under these contracts, including, but not limited to, any materials produced by the Lincoln Group and its subcontractors;

* Copies of all articles placed by the U.S. military or the Lincoln Group in the Iraqi media;

* Any documents related to the U.S. military purchase or control of any Iraqi media outlets, including television stations, radio stations, and newspapers.

I look forward to working with you on this effort.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/2133

The first causualty of war....

And who and or what will be the last causualty?

There was an excellent discussion of the subject on MSNBC, Hardball I think, this night. Pat Buchannon and Ron Reagan, both made excellent points; Pat in favor of the propaganda and Ron opposed.

Pat's major point was I believe the comparison of the situation to the propoganda used by Dwight Eisenhower during World War II. While Ron objected mainly because of the contradiction between propaganda and the drive for democracy in Iraq.

If you are able, watch it on the rerun later. It is early in the program!

Hi Mac. Jason & I commented about that discussion earlier in the thread.

We have become all we decry. We are numb to the fact that we don't tell the truth anymore. We just shrug and make excuses for torture, treason, lies about War, gutting the Constitution to save it, stealing from the American taxpayer, stealing from their children and grandchildren, blocking Electoral Fairness, I can go on and on.

There is always an excuse offered by Pigs in lipstick or a suit and tie on TV. They just smirk and grin with a weary world wise smile as they blow off crime after crime, and immorality after immorality.

Meanwhile they call anyone who believes in equality immoral, and all who believe in actual principles and morals niave.

I'm sure Marine thinks this is ok too. You are paying for propaganda at home too.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/30/right-wing-rock

Like It or Not, You’re Funding Right-Wing Rock

These are boom times for right-wing rock, and not just because The Right Brothers’ hit single “Bush Was Right!” now has a music video.

Another “educational” conservative band, Junkyard Prophet, has been busy touring high schools across the country. But these rockers aren’t stickin’ it to the man — they’re being funded by him. The band apparently receives about $1500 per appearance — an amount that several schools have paid out of their drug-free schools funding from the Department of Education. (Junkyard Prophet says it helps students resist peer pressure and “understand the value and beauty of the moral absolutes on which their country was founded.”)

Our sister site, CampusProgress, has details:

The Des Moines Register reported that after one 2004 performance, Junkyard Prophet handed out CDs to a few random students that bore this message: “the death sentence [is] on you due to your sins! The very evidence of your sin will be your death! It is appointed to you to die and after that you will be judged according to your ways! His judgment is so thorough every thought will be brought to the light. When all your sin against God is exposed, how will you escape the damnation of hell?” […]

[Prophets frontman Bradlee] Dean has also told students that “there is nothing in our Constitution or founding documents about separation of church and state” and criticized the theory of evolution.

According to the band’s website, it has appeared at over 220 schools over the last few years. (Experience Junkyard Prophets for yourself — their music videos are here.) In some instances turned up by CampusProgress, students were told that attendance at the assembly was mandatory and that they would be suspended if they skipped out.

this story made it to the evening news,
lauged my but off!
it was so freaking funny!
you know its bad when you have to make up your own good news.
i mean how dumb are these guys!
how far up their but are their heads?

I just don't get this. Why do these people feel the need to force their religious views on others? It just makes me so angry that they feel so smug and superior to others who don't share their views.

Same reason we need to force our views onto the Iraqi press. I did like someone's comment there though.

#29 on the replies there

I’m going to start an Islamic praise-Allah band, and I demand to be funded by the US government exactly the same as these maroons.

There is no legal reason for them to deny funding except religious discrimination.

I’m a bass player. Anyone else? Let’s rock, Allah willing or something like that.

Comment by ElectricBassPlayer — November 30, 2005 @ 1:28 pm

Hey Jason, like this hasn't been being done by both parties for about the past 150 years.

Yeah,it's alright. The last time I looked the 1st amendment of the constitution had not been repealed yet.

From all the junior high school grade hate mail in their guest book these people must scare the hell out of liberals.

So then you have no problem with the government funding a Islamic praise-Allah band to tour schools as well or someone fundie a Wiccan band?

Apparently you don't know what the first amendment of the constitution saysso here's a reprint. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If you want to start a praise Allah band, go for it. Got an anti-drug message like these fellows do? I know faith and religion work because I'm a reformed drunk and the 12 step program works and without God it don't.

1. We admitted we were powerless over our addiction - that our lives had become unmanageable
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood God
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character
7. Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood God, praying only for knowledge of God's will for us and the power to carry that out
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs

You can belittle what they do and their methods all you want, I know of several million reformed drunks who will not agree with you.

What you don't understand is that this isn't about the first amendment it's about separation of church and state. I do not want government forcing any religion in public school period. I'm sure that is how the Iraqi's feel about our fake news stories as well.

Demands Grow for Details About Paid Stories

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 1, 2005; 9:07 PM



WASHINGTON -- Demands for details from the White House and Congress built on Thursday over a military program whose contracts include money for paying Iraqi newspapers and journalists to plant favorable stories about the war and rebuilding effort.

The Senate Armed Services Committee summoned Defense Department officials for a briefing on Friday.

"I am concerned about any actions that may undermine the credibility of the United States as we help the Iraqi people stand up a democracy," said the committee's chairman, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., adding that he has no information to confirm or deny the reports. "A free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media."

Defense Department officials in Baghdad said the program is necessary to provide factual information to Iraqis.

One of the companies involved _ the Washington-based Lincoln Group _ has at least two contracts with the military to provide media and public relations services. One contract, for $6 million, was for public relations and advertising work in Iraq and involved planting favorable stories in the Iraqi media, according to a document.

The other Lincoln contract, which is with the Special Operations Command, is worth up to $100 million over five years for media operations with video, print and Web-based products. That contract is not related to the controversy over propaganda and was not for services in Iraq, according to command spokesman Ken McGraw.

The Lincoln Group shares that contract with SYColeman, a division of L-3 Communications, and Science Applications International Corp., a San Diego-based defense contractor.

The program came to light just as President Bush released his strategy for victory in Iraq. It includes the need to support a "free, independent and responsible Iraqi media" and a pledge to help the Iraqi government communicate in a "professional, effective and open manner."

"We're very concerned," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are seeking more information from the Pentagon."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., slammed the program as a scheme that "speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap. If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, as he did a day earlier in response to reporters' inquiries, that he was trying to get details from U.S. military officials in Baghdad. "I have very few facts," Whitman said.

"It's certainly an issue that's easy to get emotional about, and we need to understand the facts, and when we do I'll provide you as much information as I can," Whitman said.

A senior military spokesman in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, was asked whether he thought the program undercuts the credibility of either the American military or the new Iraqi news media. Lynch did not answer directly.

Instead, he quoted a senior al-Qaida leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as having told Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the main terrorist leader in Iraq, "Remember, half the battle is the battlefield of the media."

Lynch said Zarqawi lies to Iraqis and that the U.S. military does not.

"We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction," Lynch said.

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said he was "not aware of any formal review of the program, although it is constantly being assessed for effectiveness."

Whitman said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was "aware of the issue." The spokesman he would not say whether Rumsfeld had expressed concern about it or whether the secretary had asked for additional information about it.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that he was not aware of the matter until he had read a newspaper account of it. Asked on ABC News' "Nightline" whether he thought the practice was appropriate, Pace replied, "Anything that would be detrimental to the proper functioning of a democracy in Iraq would worry me."

Details about the program were first reported Wednesday by The Los Angeles Times. It marked the second time this year that Pentagon programs have come under scrutiny for reported payments made to journalists for favorable press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0100616_pf.html

Shall we count, again, all the ways in which Bush's actions have hurt the credibility of the U.S. and, I might add, have embarrassed so many Americans? Let's not...too depressing..

It is bad. They have declared war on the values and principles that our country has always championed. With each passing day it becomes more and more noticeable to others throughout the world that America is not what she once was.

I keep thinking about that "Sorry" website that came out right after the election.

Yes, it is very bad and very depressing and is 2008 here yet? I hope this nation does better with the next one in the WH.

December 2, 2005
Senate Summons Pentagon to Explain Effort to Plant News Stories in Iraqi Media

By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID S. CLOUD
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee summoned top Pentagon officials to a closed-door session on Capitol Hill on Friday to explain a reported secret military campaign in Iraq to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media. The White House also expressed deep concerns about the program.

Senior Pentagon officials said on Thursday that they had not yet received any explanation of the program from top generals in Iraq, including Gen. John P. Abizaid, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, the three most senior commanders for Iraqi operations.

After reports about the program circulated this week, General Casey initially protested that it should not be discussed publicly because it was classified.

One senior Pentagon official said, however, that General Casey was told that response was inadequate. The official asked for anonymity to avoid possible reprisals for disclosing the general's reaction.

At a briefing with reporters, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, responded to a barrage of questions about the program, which military contractors and officials said also pays friendly Iraqi journalists with monthly stipends.

"We're very concerned about the reports," the White House spokesman said. "We have asked the Department of Defense for more information."

Under the program, the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm working in Iraq, was hired to translate articles written by American troops into Arabic and then, in many cases, give them to advertising agencies for placement in the Iraqi news media.

At a time when the State Department is paying contractors millions of dollars to promote professional and independent media, the military campaign appeared to defy the basic tenets of Western journalism.

Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, said he had directed Pentagon aides to describe and justify the program on Friday in a closed briefing for senators and staff aides.

"I am concerned about any actions that may undermine the credibility of the United States as we help the Iraqi people stand up as a democracy," Mr. Warner said in a statement.

"A free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media," the committee chairman's statement said.

Asked about the issue on Thursday, the top military spokesman in Baghdad appeared to defend the practice without referring specifically to the Lincoln Group's activities.

The spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, said that Iraq's most-wanted militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was also using the news media to advance his terrorist goals.

But General Lynch said the similarities ended there because the American military was disseminating truthful information.

"He is conducting these kidnappings, these beheadings, these explosions, so that he gets international coverage to look like he has more capability than he truly has," General Lynch said. "He is lying to the Iraqi people."

General Lynch continued: "We don't lie. We don't need to lie. We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction."

Another military spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, later confirmed in an e-mail message that the Lincoln Group's effort was aimed at promoting the allied efforts in Iraq. "We acknowledge that a program exists to get factual information into the Iraqi media," Colonel Johnson said. "Leadership is reviewing this program and how it is being executed, but there has been no decision yet on how to proceed."


One Pentagon official said it was possible that the program began as an effort to buy space in Iraqi publications for articles identified as coming from the United States government and then evolved into something where the government and contractor roles were hidden.

"If the whole intent of this is really an effort to provide false information to the people of Iraq, then that's more of a problem," said the official, who added that officials could decide to refer to the matter to Defense Department inspector general.

The Lincoln Group, which includes 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 senior commanders as an essential complement to combat operations in the field.

Lincoln's media work for the Pentagon in Iraq included a multimillion dollar campaign to influence Sunni Arab voters in Anbar Province before the national referendum on the new Iraqi Constitution in October, according to military contractors and officials.

The campaign, the officials said, included television and radio spots that did not disclose their American sponsorship and the disbursement of more than $1 million in cash.

"It wouldn't be obvious it came from Americans," said one official, referring to the media messages.

Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for Lincoln, confirmed the company worked for the military in western Iraq but refused to provide any details.

The company's most senior executive in Iraq is Paige Craig. His résumé, contained in Pentagon documents spelling out some of Lincoln's work, highlights his role in "designing and leading the development of numerous government and corporate intelligence projects."

It goes on to say "Paige Craig graduated first in class from the Navy and Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center in 1996."

The descriptions of the Lincoln Group's activities, first reported by The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, have spurred debate in Washington about how the United States should promote free and independent news media in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

"The State Department is working with journalists in Iraq to help them develop the skills that you all have in terms of reporting and journalistic ethics and practices," the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, told reporters on Thursday.

"That's important," the department spokesman said. "This is a country where free media didn't exist for decades, so they are learning. We think it's important to assist them in that."

But if the nascent Iraqi news media are perceived by ordinary Iraqis to be a tool of American interests, that effort will be ruined, some lawmakers said.

"How are people going to get information that's reliable?" said Senator Richard G. Lugar, an Indiana Republican who heads the Foreign Relations Committee. "Who can they trust? If you are a devout Shiite or Sunni, and you suspect that the press has been bought, why, then you wouldn't respect the press."

Jeff Gerth contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics...agewanted=print