http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5755074.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. military offered a mixed message Wednesday about whether it embraced one of its own programs that reportedly paid a consulting firm and Iraqi newspapers to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the program is "an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents.'' A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, called a report detailing the program troubling if true and said he was looking into the matter.

"This is a military program initiated with the Multi-National Force to help get factual information about ongoing operations into Iraqi news,'' Johnson said in an e-mail. "I want to emphasize that all information used for marketing these stories is completely factual.''

Members of Congress immediately called for an investigation.

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.

Two other federal agencies have been investigated in the past year for similar activities, leading Congress' Government Accountability Office to condemn one, the Education Department, for engaging in illegal covert propaganda.

The Los Angeles Times quoted unidentified officials as saying that some of the stories in Iraqi newspapers were written by U.S. troops and while basically factual, they sometimes give readers a slanted view of what is happening in Iraq. Some of those officials expressed fear that use of such stories could hurt the U.S. military's credibility, the newspaper said.

Defense Department officials did not deny the story's allegations, and Rumsfeld spokesman Bryan Whitman said he was looking into the program.

Whitman said the department has clear principles for dealing with news organizations, "so this article raises some question as to whether or not some of the practices that are described in there are consistent with the principles of this department.''

He would not specify the questions he felt the article raised, but the issue

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said his panel will look into the issue. And Rep. Henry Waxman of California called for the House Government Reform Committee to launch an investigation; he is the panel's top Democrat.

"I'm concerned that our credibility abroad is very important,'' Warner said on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews, adding that he wants to know "if we're manufacturing things, or taking our wonderful troops and trying to translate their ideas into something that's more our ideas rather than the troops' idea.''

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also questioned the program Wednesday.

"I wouldn't fault somebody trying to get the American message out,'' Lugar said. "(It) may be about the only way that any sort of a message will ever get to anybody. But that's a very forlorn conclusion early on, and really sort of violates what we're attempting to do to begin with in our emphasis on democracy.''

The Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based firm that translates the stories into Arabic and places them in Baghdad newspapers, the newspaper reported. The organization's staff or subcontractors in Iraq occasionally pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they hand stories to Iraqi media outlets, it said.

Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said Wednesday she could not comment on the contract because it is with the U.S. government. The company, which does work in Iraq, is a public affairs firm that does advertising and other communications in "challenging locations,'' she said.

John Schulz, a former executive with Voice of America who is now dean of the Boston University College of Communication, called the military program scary. More...

It goes on for a bit more and is a good read.

What say you chaps of this development. I know for a fact this is nothing new and honestly I don't see it any different than embedding reporters. It is a simple plan to control information. Something that republican (as in the government not the political party) ideals reject but countering an insurgency necessitates.

They used stuff like that during and also rigth after WW II to help pacify the situation, especaily in post-war Germany, to fight the Nazi Werewolves. I don't see why they cant do it now to fight the insurgency.

Oh come on guys, I thought we knew by now that there is no thruth! The truth is what the majority believes.... What better way to turn people to the truth as to spread it via mass media?

Just a few funny ones:

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962)

The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Lenin (1870 - 1924)

The present administration is a prime example of a lie wrapped up in a d**n'd lie within a d**n'd conundrum.

When the question of whether to invade Iraq FIRST came up, justification was that Iraq and Saddam posed such an immediate threat that we just couldn't wait for the attack and had to take preemptive action.

ALL of this hoopla (as presented by Bush, his administration and supporters) has by-in-large been proven to be out and out lies or at least exaggerated. Not only was Iraq NOT an immediate threat, Saddam appears to have destroyed ALL of the weapons that were proscribed by the UN the last time he got his b**t kicked. It was proven conclusively that he had no hand in the attack of 9/11.

SOOO - when you discuss truth and lies, Bush and his administration (and their lies) have to be moved to the front of the class or the head of the line.

If truth were coinage of the realm, Bush couldn't even pay attention.

This is the fallout from the bomb of not telling the whole truth, or telling your 'sanitized' version of it. I saw this as an outcome of this 'bomb' in the following post: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...473&highlight=

Slightly off topic, but haven't we discussed the elaboratly and Chief, your point (which is and was mine too at the time) got hammered as being leftist propaganda talk. So, maybe somewhat late, welcome to this forum! Since I'm an european I misunderstood the complete and delicate picture, so welcome again....

I think there is a distinction that is being blurred here. I would argue that it is one thing to lie to the American public in an effort to convince them to support a war than it is to pay to have stories planted in an effort to quell an insurgency.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

I think there is a distinction that is being blurred here. I would argue that it is one thing to lie to the American public in an effort to convince them to support a war than it is to pay to have stories planted in an effort to quell an insurgency.

That's the way I see it too. Well placed propaganda is the same type of feint as wooden airplanes and inflatable tanks, to confuse the enemy. As for President Bush lying to the public, the jury is obviously still out on that claim since the information was coming from various other sources at the same time. I think that if anything could be proven about all this being orchestrated by Bush, there would be a special prosecuter breathing down his neck. I haven't found anywhere that Bush claimed "immenent danger" from Iraq, If someone can find that quote, I would appreciate it.

[Immediate Danger = Imminent Danger] Etc.

Bush almost from the start began to hint that the danger was immediate or imminent enough that we could no longer wait. I remember it as clearly as if it were this morning. The reason for this was that the information that was being touted to the nation and the world was of immediate significance and was being used to justify the invasion of a foreign country not at war with us. (It was imediate enough that even I was initially in favor of taking out Saddam.)

In hindsight, it was only after we had a few independent investigative committes return findings that questioned the original justification that I began to smell a fox in the henhouse and a snake in the grass. (I believe the fox/snake was Bush and the real reason was revenge). My opinion without a lot of proof.

"IMMEDIATE DANGER" may not have been bandied about in those terms very often but it was used at least once or twice by the President. I can not quote you the times but I have very clear recollections of his statements - I had friends, neighbors and shipmates that were being asked to go into harms way at the time and this is not something I will soon forget.

I have since changed my view of Bush junior - the word contempt comes to mind. I have addressed these feelings in other postings and really don't wish or want to be known as a "Bush Hater". Let's just say I do not like him instead, and say that his policies stink.

Would you agree though Chief that there is a difference between mis or malinformation at home, regardless of source (cheers Missileer), to sell the American public on going to war. As opposed to the use of disinformation in an effort to give your military an upperhand and to muster public support against the insurgency and for the coalition forces and new Iraqi government?