It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON -- The White House said today it has demanded information from the Pentagon about a secret U.S. military offensive to plant stories in the Iraqi media, and senators are planning to meet privately Friday to hear details about the information operations campaign underway in Iraq.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House was "very concerned" about reports that a defense contractor in Iraq, working with U.S. troops, was paying newspapers in Baghdad to run positive stories written by U.S. soldiers.
"We are seeking more information from the Pentagon," McClellan told reporters.
Pentagon officials said they were scrambling to get information from commanders in Baghdad about the arrangement between the U.S. military and Lincoln Group, a Washington-based contractor that specializes in "strategic communications" in combat zones.
***
Since early this year, the Information Operations Task Force in Baghdad has used Lincoln Group to plant stories in the Iraqi media that trumpet the successes of U.S. and Iraqi troops against insurgents, U.S.-led efforts to rebuild Iraq, and rising anti-insurgent sentiment among the Iraqi people, according to senior military officials and documents obtained by The Times.
Information operations troops write news stories, called "storyboards," and deliver them to the Iraqi staff of Lincoln Group. After that, Lincoln Group staffers translate the storyboards into Arabic and pay newspaper editors in Baghdad to run the stories.
****
Originally posted by worldwatcher
btw here is the website for the Lincoln Group, I believe they will take all the heat for this.
The Lincoln Group, which received a $5 million contract in 2004 and a contract worth up $100 million in 2005.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Is there anything wrong with providing positie news that will help stabalize Iraq instead of negative news that may provoke more carnage?
This man is a Christian (Baptist)
During his presidency, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history.
...
He could point to:
- the lowest unemployment rate in modern times
- the lowest inflation in 30 years
- the highest home ownership in the country's history
- dropping crime rates in many places
- reduced welfare roles
He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. He called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.
…
He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, and to strengthen environmental rules.
…
He excelled as a student. As a delegate to Boys Nation while in high school, he met President John Kennedy in the White House Rose Garden. The encounter led him to enter a life of public service.
…
He graduated from Georgetown University and in 1968 won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University. He received a law degree from Yale University in 1973, and entered politics in Arkansas.
…
He drew huge crowds when he traveled through South America, Europe, Russia, Africa, and China, advocating U.S. style freedom.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Well with respect whats wrong with writing half the story?
The present media do it quite well....
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, they do it well. But is it the right thing to do?
Do you sanction it or criticize it?
Is it right for the government, any government, to pay the media to write only the favorable part of the story and leave out the negative, especially with the intent to deceive?
(with respect... )
Originally posted by devilwasp
Well yes and no, if they people care about themselves they will look up what is being said and know the full story.
Those who dont well....are mindless sheep.
[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now, all of that is true and it paints a certain picture of Bill Clinton. Is it the truth? Every bit. Is there anything wrong with this story? I guess it's a personal judgment, but I say yes, there's something very wrong as it's only half of the story. And I'm sure you know the details of the other half quite well.
You might say that there's a good reason for lying to Iraq, though, so that makes it ok. Well, I don't agree. I was taught that lying is wrong. I believe that lying, regardless of the reason, is simply morally wrong. Presenting only part of the picture (especially with the intent of deceiving) is something I judge as morally wrong.
Unfaithful women could withhold the truth from their husband to keep peace and not cause 'carnage'. Is that ok? Our government could only tell us part of the story about aliens because they think we can't handle the truth. We might riot in the streets. Is that ok? Where do you draw the line that it's ok to tell only part of the truth and present a picture that is a lie?
Originally posted by American Mad Man
But it sems to me that most of the time, the "news" only reports the bad things in Iraq. We get real time updates of any deaths, but do we get real time updates of new hospitols, schools, and buisnesses opening? Or real time news on victories of our armed forces? No, we do not.
What I would like to see is a balance.
How can anyone have a realistic view of whats going on over there if all we are told is the negatives?
No wonder some people mitakenly think we are losing.
Originally posted by worldwatcher
What about people who don't have internet access or alternative forms of information. What if the local newspapers are their only source of news?
While some in Iraq may have internet and satellite tv...the majority doesn't...and not only that, power outages in Iraq are common and frequent in the country.
What is the lie?
Lies I tell you, all of it just lies, we're all living a lie!!!! ahhhh!!!
(I feel better now that I have screamed)
[edit on 12-2-2005 by worldwatcher]
WASHINGTON -- 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 clear that none of the stories should be traced to the United States, according to several current and former employees of Lincoln Group, the Washington-based contractor.
In contrast with assertions by military officials in Baghdad and Washington, interviews and Lincoln Group documents show that the information campaign waged over the past year was designed to cloak any connection to the U.S. military.
"In clandestine parlance, Lincoln Group was a `cut-out'--a third party--that would provide the military with plausible deniability," said a former Lincoln Group employee who worked on the operation. "To attribute products to [the military] would defeat the entire purpose."
According to Lincoln Group documents, the company reported to the Army that more than $16 million was spent on advertisements on Iraqi television over two months.
Originally posted by worldwatcherI can of at least 100 ways in which that money could have been used in Iraq to positively change the iraqi opinion of us and the war without creating or pushing stories.