Documents, Interviews Suggest Pentagon Lying Iraqi Propaganda

U.S. military officials in Iraq were fully aware that a Pentagon contractor regularly paid Iraqi newspapers to publish positive stories about the war, and made it clear that none of the stories should be traced to the United States, according to documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The newspaper also conducted interviews with former employees of Lincoln Group, the Washington-based contractor hired to place the stories.

The documents and interviews (surprise, surprise) conflict with assertions by military officials in Baghdad and Washington.

When the propaganda effort was first revealed, the Pentagon distanced itself from the Lincoln Group's activities, suggesting the company violated its contract when it masked the origin of stories placed in the Iraqi press. On Dec. 2, Pentagon officials told Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-VA) that all of the published materials were supposed to be identified as originating with the U.S. military but that identification was occasionally omitted by accident.

Remember, when caught doing something wrong, it's always a good idea to blame someone else. When questions arose, for example, that the Bush White House had conducted "covert propaganda" by distributing undocument video news releases to local television stations in swing states, one of President Bush's three responses was to suggest that it was the television stations' responsiblity -- not the government's -- to identify the material as provided by the government.

Last week, Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, changed the military's official talking point on the Iraqi propaganda, saying that a preliminary assessment found that the Army was "operating within our authorities and the appropriate legal procedures."

We'll soon find out whether military spin trumps what the <em>Times</em> discovered. A Pentagon investigation, led by Navy Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, could be completed by yearend. Van Buskirk is also investigating charges that the U.S. military paid Iraqi reporters to produce positive newspaper and television reports.

***

What did the Times discover? The documents and interviews paint a very clear and consistent picture -- suggesting the military had to know that it was engaging in propaganda efforts, a violation of military ethics.

According to the documents and interviews, Lincoln Group employees worked closely with soldiers from the Information Operations Task Force in Baghdad to turn "storyboards" written by soldiers into Arabic news stories and advertisements. A high-ranking Army officer closely monitored the operation, and Lincoln Group documents show that military officials gave the company clear guidelines about which stories to place in Iraqi newspapers.

Iraqi runners employed by Lincoln were used to transport the stories to newspapers and to pay editors amounts ranging from $50 to $2,000 for publication.

Lincoln Group employees kept detailed records of how much they paid to get the stories published. Current and former employees said they were told by military officers that the stories were not to be identified as U.S. government products.

On one occasion, a storyboard was accidentally published in English in a Baghdad newspaper. Military officials in Baghdad dressed down Lincoln Group employees because the error suggested that the material was American in origin. The employees promised it would not happen again.

Lincoln Group records also show that its Iraqi employees often warned their American bosses that the manner in which the news stories were distributed to the Iraqi press was leading some Iraqi editors to suspect U.S. government involvement.

***

The propaganda effort -- one of several the Pentagon is trying in the Middle East, and one of several involving Lincoln Group -- has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon.

They rightly argue that violating one of the basic tenets of our democracy -- a free press -- could destroy the U.S. military's credibilty in Iraq.

***

This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.

I mean, please let me know when it's all right. I know there are a lot of people on this board who would rather me wait until they've killed six million of our own people and put most of us in camps.

I was making the comparison since 2002. When he started pulling his christian crap on us. Mixing politics and religion was my first tipoff that he was nuts.

Here's a good source in case you need to refresh your memory as to how similar they really are.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm

It is spooky.

The Nazis wiped out 12 million (6 million Jews, 6 million others) and declared war on an entire continent. They had a doctrine based on hatred, treating groups of people as sub-human and deserving of extinction.

Nothing the Bush Administration is doing comes close to that, and frankly the comparison is demeaning to the Jews and others whose ancestors were killed by the Nazis.

I'm not suggesting I'm proud of the Bush Administration. I think it's been a failed presidency on many fronts. But let's not make over-the-top comparisons. Such language won't help the Democrats recapture the presidency or the Congress, and they won't win over people to our cause.

In other words, we'll have to wait until the chimp kills 12 million and 1 persons before making comparisons.

The article points out the similarities in the circumstances and political methods of the chimp and hitler. They are striking and too numerous to be coincidence. They should be presented.

No comparison is made to the destruction and suffering caused by these two maniacs, just to their tactics, which is a valid point for discussion. IMO

Wouldn't want to offend your delicate sensibilities.

Please don't patronize me. How does that help matters?

Simply put, I and a lot of other people lost family at the hands of the Nazis during WWII. Now, you can make (as the article does) some general comparisons between Hitler and Bush, just like you could make comparisons between Hitler and a lot of people.

But Bush isn't running concentration camps in the United States, in which large ovens have been built to systematically annihilate a group of people (Jews, gays, gypsies, liberals ...) He hasn't set up slave labor camps within the United States to systematically annhiliate a people. He doesn't have official government doctors performing experiments on a group of people, as if that people's lives were meaningless.

He has started a very unfortunate war against a single country, Iraq. He did not start war against every one of his neighbors, and I doubt seriously he will.

He hasn't shut down opposition press within the U.S. He hasn't had his military round up writers, artists, politicians and others who disagree with him -- or who are not of a particular ancestry -- and have them shot on site, or sent off to the aforementioned death camps.

Should I go on?

Again, if you want to win the presidency and win back the congress, the way to do is not by making hyperbolic -- nnd IMHO assinine -- comparisons between Bush and Hitler. All you do is fuel the conservative noise machine, so that they can direct people in the farm belt and the Bible Belt to vote against their best interests. You are only making a culture war possible with what amounts to something that can easily be characterized as hate.

Best not to say anything. Best to remain silent on any obvious similarities between yesterday's Nazis and today's neocons. It is, after all, the "Democrat" way. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't make any noise! Don't make them mad at us!!

Forget what Reverend Niemuller(sp?) and other victims of the Nazis said. It's just far, far better for all of us to see where this country is heading to swallow a big steaming cup of shut-the-f----up.

That's the fighting spirit, JABBS! Way to go! That's the same winning attitude that's gotten us...well, where we are today!

(FYI, the Nazis didn't start putting people into camps until YEARS after they came into power. But I'm sure you probably know that.)

You don't really want a serious discussion.

Have you been to my site? I'm fighting the good fight, posting 10-15 items a week, trying to expose spin and propaganda. My stuff gets picked up by Buzzflash, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Crooks & Liars, etc.

So don't patronize me just because I don't want to make an unnecessary and insulting (to the memory of those who died) comparison.

You really think that Bush (or a GOP successor) is going to build death camps in the U.S. to try to annihilate a race of people? You think that Bush (or a GOP successor) is going to declare martial law, close down newspapers, television, radio and internet, shoot or jail anyone who doesn't agree with his policies, and set up slave labor camps and gas chambers? You think that he's going to declare war on a slew of countries simultaenously?

I'm well aware of Nazi history. There is no comparison to recent U.S. history. The U.S. didn't lose a World War and get sanctioned to the point where the currency was worthless and the people were ready to follow a nationalistic, xenophobic leader. The American people -- even the most conservative among us -- are not so stupid as to repeat 1930s German history.

Shhh. You're hyperbole is insulting to the millions who died.

And I'll label them what I want.

They're Nazis.