Originally Posted by teethandclaws

I have to agree with tyreay that we should be able to be honest with ourselves about the absence of usable WMD at the time we invaded Iraq. That was what our justification was for war at the start of all this. Since then, we have found more reasons to justify our presence there, which is fine, but I cannot say absolutely that Iraq was a threat to us.
I am all for human rights. I was appalled by the facilities found in Iraq for the purpose of torture, then I hear on the news we may be torturing people, (but we're not really sure because we can't seem to define what torture is anymore). Is that justifiable? Now I hear the Sunni's are using torture and death squads now that they're the majority power. Is this so different from Saddam's reign? The victims of the atrocities may have changed, but people are still suffering the same abuses.
What about the rights of women and children? How much has their lot in life changed by our presence there? The democracy we are promoting has not taken root as much as we claim.
Women were allowed out to vote for a choice of candidates that will continue to control and shape the lives of them and their children. They were not given a choice about taking the reins for themselves.
The only thing that seems to have changed is the way that Iraq's assets are being managed. Who is managing them?
I think that is the full point of this war. This is the result of all the lives our military has lost and taken. Economic control.
That is not what we have been told that this war was about, but the results speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by tyreay

Srg, the following article is out of todays Providence Journal and it was written by a staff writer with the N Y TIMES. This is proof of the mis-information network I spoke of in one of my past posts. This is the reason so many Americans don't believe in this administration and the main reason I doubt the stories you have referred to. Any one, or all, of them could have originated at the 4th psychological operations group. Truely the mis-information elite.
No link is yet available for this news story, check back in a week or so at Projo.com

The Providence Sunday Journal, December 11, 2005

The Bush administration's secret information war

The New York Times

The media center in Fayetteville, NC, would be the envy of any communications company.
In state-of-the-art studios, producers prepare the daily mix of music and news for the group's radio stations, or spots for friendly television outlets. Writers for newspapers and magazines in Baghdad and Kabul converse via teleconferences. Mobile trailers with high-tech gear await the next crisis.
The center is not part of a news organization, but a military operation, and those writers and producers are soldiers.
The 1,200-strong psychological operations unit, based at Fort Bragg, turns out what its commander acknowledges that those stories are one-sided and their sponsorship is hidden.
"We call our stuff 'information' and the enemy's 'propoganda,' " Col. Jack N. Summe, then the commander of the 4th Psychological Operations Group, said in June. But even in the Pentagon, "some public-affairs professionals see us unfavorably"--and inaccurately, he said--as "lying, dirty tricksters."
The recent disclosures that a Pentagon contractor in Iraq had paid newspapers to print "good news" articles by U.S. soldiers prompted an outcry in Washington. Members of Congress said the practice undermined the U.S. credibility; top military and White House officials disavowed any knowledge; the Pentagon vowed to investigate.
Yet the work of that contractor--the Lincoln Group--works virtually side by side with soldiers at Camp Victory, closely supervised by Army officers.
"Almost nothing we did did not have the command's approval," said a former employee, speaking on condition of anonymity.
During the Cold War, the U.S. information warriors benefitted from the perception that the United States was backing victims of tyrannical rule. Today, however, many Muslims view Washington as too close to authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere.
Since shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been conducting an information war that is extensive, costly and often hidden, according to documents and interviews with contractors, government officials and military personnel. The campaign was begun by the White House, which set up a secret panel to coordinate such operations by the Pentagon, other agencies and private contractors.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the military operates radio stations and newspapers, but does not disclose their U.S. ties. Their reports sometimes credit the "International Information Center."
The Lincoln Group says it has planted more than 1,000 articles in the Iraqi and Arab press, and placed editorials on an Iraqi Web site, Pentagon documents show.
For an effort in neighboring countries, its proposals included an antiterrorist comedy based on The Three Stooges.
Army psychological-operations units sometimes offer TV stations money to run unattributed segments, or contract with writers of opinion pieces, military officials said.
"We don't want somebody to look at the product and see the U.S. government and tune out," said Col. James Treadwell, who ran psychological-operations support at the Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla.
The U.S. Agency for International Development also masks its role. AID finances about 30 radio stations in Afghanistan. There and in Iraq, it has distributed tens of thousands of iPod-like devices that play civic messages-- though a contractor that pledges "no U.S. footprint."
Message-makers who are wary of identifying their role can cite findings by the Pentagon, pollsters and others underscoring fundamental problems of U.S. credibility abroad.
Defenders of influence campaigns argue that they are appropriate and can have impact. "Psychological operations are an essential part of warfare-- more so in the electronic age than ever," said Lt. Col. Charles A. Krohn, a retired Army spokesman and journalism professor. "... If you're going to invade a country and eject its government and occupy its territory, you ought to tell people who live there why."
But covert information battles may backfire, others warn. An Iraqi daily newspaper, Azzaman, has complained that the paid information campaign is a U.S. effort "to humiliate the independent national press." Many Iraqis say that no amount of money spent on trying to mold public opinion is likely to have much impact, given the harsh conditions under the American military occupation.
"The American system of openness works," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote in a July article in The Wall Street Journal, titled "War of the Words."
The United States must find "new and better ways to communicate America's mission abroad," he said, including "a healthy culture of communication and transparency between government and public."
The White House turned to John Rendon, who runs a Washington communications company, to help influence foreign audiences. Before the war in Afghanistan, he helped set up centers in Washington, London and Pakistan so the American government could respond rapidly in the foreign media to Taliban claims.
"We were clueless," said Mary Matalin, then communications aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Rendon's business, the Rendon Group, had a history of government work in trouble spots. In the 1990s, the CIA hired him to secretly help the nascent Iraqi National Congress wage a public relations campaign against Saddam Hussein.
While advising the White House, Rendon also signed on with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, under a $27.6-million contract, to conduct focus groups around the world and media analysis of outlets such as Al-Jazeera, the satellite network based in Qatar.
About the same time, the White House recruited Jeffrey B. Jones, a former Army colonel who ran the Fort Bragg psychological operations group, to coordinate the new information war. He led a secret committee whose existence was not previously reported-- that dealt with everything from public diplomacy, which includes education, aid and exchange programs, to covert information operations.
The group even examined the president's language. Concerned about alienating Muslims overseas, panel members said, they tried unsuccessfully to stop Mr. Bush from ending speeches with the refrain "God Bless America."

Now srg, You wouldn't be stationed at Fort Braqg, would you? Evil or Very Mad
This article is an embarrassment to The United States, and all it's people.
Disassociate yourself from this group of liars now

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

I spent time at Fort Bragg, and yes I know all about the 4th Psyops group. There contributions to the 82nd Airborne Division are unimaginable. During the 1st Gulf War, the 82nd Airborne Division was the only thing prevent the Iraqi Army from invading Saudi Arabia. They were posed and ready on the border. However thanks to the 4th PsyOps, no Iraqi military unit would do so.

Had they invaded, they would have ran over us. We could not deal with there armor units. We had no armor of our own. Why didn't they??? Because they feared what we would do. Our reputation had preceeded us. They feared that we would not take prisoners, we would kill every one them, even those trying to surrender, and then we would cut off their ears to make necklaces.

Psychological operations are a part of any war. However, this notion of feeding stories to the press I have no problem with. Why??? The press in our own country only seems to be able to report the negative of the war. They will believe any statement made by any Tom, Dick or Abdul as true without checking the facts.....(Newsweek ring a bell) They can report about all the deaths in Iraq, yet they rarely take the time to report the positive. If we cannot even get our own press to report the good along with the bad, why should we expect the foreign press to do any different. Al Qaeda and the insurgents have a direct pipeline to the people thanks to Al Jazeera and other news organizations.

The only misinformation that is going on in the media is the misinformation being conducted by the likes of NBC, ABC, CBS, NY TIMES, LA TIMES, and the BBC. All negative all the time.

It our soldiers that are on the ground, trying to make Iraq a better place, providing security, building schools, hospitals, and the infrastructure. They are the ones in harms way, and now thanks to the likes of our own media, even the Iraqis wonder why they are there. The only liars I have seen are the liberals and the Democrats.

First they want you to believe that President Bush is so stupid, that he can't lead the country. How many have called him a moron, or an idiot. And now we are to believe that he is so smart the he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of every liberal and democrat in Congress and the rest of the world while he was at it. Which is it??? Is he dumb or is he smart?? When the words about Saddam Hussien and his WMDs were announced by Democrats, they were facts, now because Republicans say them they are lies.

The information was wrong, but the reason for going into Iraq was right. The ultimate goal was regime change, well that goal has been obtained. Reread the speech that President Bush gave in Ohio outlining why Iraq was a threat, WMDs was only one reason. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases...007-8.html

dmk

Originally Posted by tyreay

I searched the web for 2 hours trying to find my reply to this and can't find it. I know it was long winded but I can't remember it all.
I think basicly I said Thanks to srg for saying the info the government used to go in to Iraq was wrong, and that this is pretty much all I was looking for from him. No WMD were found.
I know I also mentioned the fact that this mis-information group could be responsible for pretty much any news story concerning the War, that srg might use in his argument about this subject. Also the fact that I am now a little leary about any news story from Iraq. Who can tell whats true?
I know this is not as detail of a response as the original but I had to try.
That all being said, check out my post in the 'Bush Administration Forum'.

Originally Posted by hevusa

Originally Posted by Nebraskaboy

I dont get it...

Is this like a comedy about the Bush Administration?

Originally Posted by tyreay

I searched the web for 2 hours trying to find my reply to this and can't find it. I know it was long winded but I can't remember it all.
I think basicly I said Thanks to srg for saying the info the government used to go in to Iraq was wrong, and that this is pretty much all I was looking for from him. No WMD were found.
I know I also mentioned the fact that this mis-information group could be responsible for pretty much any news story concerning the War, that srg might use in his argument about this subject. Also the fact that I am now a little leary about any news story from Iraq. Who can tell whats true?
I know this is not as detail of a response as the original but I had to try.
That all being said, check out my post in the 'Bush Administration Forum'.

Originally Posted by Nebraskaboy

I dont get it...

Is this like a comedy about the Bush Administration?

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Not at all... It was actually more about the Clinton Administration. It's a great movie... You should see it if you want to see what really happens in Washington. The movie is scary because it's more accurate than the average person will ever know...