The Most Trusted Name in Propaganda

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Via Atrios, I see that CNN has given Laura Ingraham a week to get America clapping louder.

I guess we can expect the kind of hard-hitting war coverage we've already heard from Ingraham on her radio show:

INGRAHAM: Secretary Rumsfeld, I've got to tell you, when I read some of the very small stories about the Afghan elections I thought to myself, here we have about a 50 percent turnout rate in a country where we were promised unending violence, unending chaos, and yet women and young people brave the threats and they made it to the polls and you don't get any coverage of it.

[...]

INGRAHAM: One of the things that I think of course is responsible for this, the reason for this refusal to pay attention to the story, is because they'd rather focus on whatever they think is perceived problems in Katrina response, or they'll focus on the difficulty we're facing in Iraq, and on that note, I have to ask you, given everything that you know about the region, what's happening in Iraq, what do you do at the Pentagon to affect public opinion? Because these polls, one after the other, are showing ebbing support for the war. I support the war, I'm think it's worth it, and I'm frustrated that more Americans don't think it's worth it at this juncture.

[...]

INGRAHAM: Do we think, Mr. Secretary, that having a military spokesperson on the ground day in and day out, ticking off three positive pieces of news out of Iraq every day, someone that every American knows, comes to know whether it's General Casey or someone else, do you think that's something that would affect the public opinion at this point? Because I'm concerned if these numbers keep going the way they are, it's going to do damage to the President's war on terror overall and obviously his standing on other issues at home.

[...]

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: ... Obviously you're quite right, all of that effort has not overcome the negative press that is --

INGRAHAM: Something's got to change.

[...]

INGRAHAM: North Korea, I've got to say everyone thinking it was such a positive development, North Korea's commitment in the six-party talks to refrain from further pursuit of nuclear materials and nuclear processing and now they say well, we want a white water reactor, otherwise we're not going to move forward on our commitment.

What are the American people supposed to think about this?

[...]

INGRAHAM: The mistake made in 1994 not to look back, but to use it as a way of learning, a mistake of hoping for the best from North Korea just ended up kicking the can down the road, to use the line from one of your former colleagues.

[...]

INGRAHAM: Back on Iraq for a second, Mr. Secretary, the major problem outside of Iraq that would affect the future, our future success in Iraq, would it be Iran for you? I know that you talk about the people streaming across the border still, and the foreign fighters we found in Telafar a few weeks ago. But would it be Iran, and what Iran's role in all this is and would be?

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: In what sense? Would it be what?

INGRAHAM: A further danger to the situation in Iraq as it is today. What outside forces other than what we're seeing developing on the ground inside of Iraq would you point to as a problem?

[...]

INGRAHAM: And your commanders in the field now in Iraq, there are reports back to you about the progress being made. Of course Americans are greeted by headlines every day, 1900 dead, thousands more wounded, roadside bombs. But the commanders were working with the security forces. I've had a chance to talk to some of them. I hear a very different account of what is happening, very positive stories, again, and yet I don't see the stuff reported. It's frustrating to me. I can't imagine how frustrating to you it must be.

[...]

INGRAHAM: Two more questions, Mr. Secretary, I know you're on a tight schedule. Are you confident that a year from now or six months from now public opinion will move toward embracing progress in Iraq and the fact that Iraq was worth it?

[...]

INGRAHAM: You've got a press corps against you and you've got an international media who's oftentimes against you so it's very difficult.

Before I let you go, the AmericaSupportsYou.Mil charity. We continue to link it and promote it on our web site, Mr. Secretary, at a time when everyone's opening their wallets to Katrina I need to remember and remind everyone to support that web site which helps our troops, their families, and continues to just be a huge outpouring to the benefit of our men and women in uniform.

That's the entirety of her exclusive interview with the Secretary of Defense in the middle of two wars. Other than a dig at Clinton's North Korea policy, the only question was essentially "How bad is Iran?"

Everything else out of her mouth was an attack on the media for ignoring how fantastic the war is. CNN has reacted to her by giving her a prime slot... A woman who asked Rumsfeld "What are the American people supposed to think about this?"

Well done, CNN. In case her willingness to catapult the propaganda isn't obvious enough, here's how the interview ended:

INGRAHAM: Fantastic. If you need someone to be that military spokesperson over in Iraq, I'm happy to give up my microphone any time, Mr. Secretary. Any time you call I'll be happy to jump over there.


SECRETARY RUMSFELD: You're terrific, Laura. Thanks so much.

Yes, terrific is the word I'd choose, too:

Main Entry: ter·rif·ic
Pronunciation: t&-'ri-fik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin terrificus, from terrEre to frighten
1 a : very bad : FRIGHTFUL

You're terrific, too, CNN.

Try to remember a day in September...

DB wrote on Friday that the Republicans know this war is over, that they want General Petraeus to allow them to exit gracefully, that they will use his report in September to do so and that in the meantime, they will follow Nixon's lead in labelling the Democrats as the "party of defeat" or "surrender," even though they themselves are certain that "victory" could not be achieved.

Since Friday, DB has been too busy to post anything here, not even a poem or two to appease the insatiable Dover Bitch readership.

But let's take a quick look at what has happened in the past five days:

On Tuesday, the Washington Post, in a piece called "September Could Be Key Deadline in War," featured these quotes:

"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."

[...]

The fixation with September is all the more striking because funding bills that cleared the House and Senate this spring were looking well into 2008 to mandate significant changes. The Senate-passed bill set March 2008 as a goal for withdrawing U.S. combat troops, while the House envisioned combat troops being withdrawn by the end of August 2008. In the ensuing weeks, however, news from Iraq has shown little improvement, while public opinion has continued to harden against the war.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken a hard line in Bush's favor, said Sunday, "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

This is the same Boehner who said this a week ago:

“House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender."

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), who captivated DB with his party-of-surrender poetry on the floor of Congress last week, followed that performance by quoting a KKK Grand Wizard. Bravo!

And today, we have the coup de grace, via Tim Russert:

In a sign of the growing fissure between the White House and its congressional allies over the war, NBC News reports tonight that 11 Republican members of Congress pleaded yesterday with President Bush and his senior aides to change course in Iraq.

The group of Republicans was led by Reps. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Charlie Dent (R-PA), and the meeting included Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, and Tony Snow. One member of Congress called the discussion the “most unvarnished conversation they’ve ever had with the president,” and NBC’s Tim Russert said it “may have been a defining pivotal moment” in the Iraq debate.

Russert described the conversation:

[O]ne said “My district is prepared for defeat. We need candor, we need honesty, Mr. President.” The president responded, “I don’t want to pass this off to another president. I don’t want to pass this off, particularly, to a Democratic president,” underscoring he understood how serious the situation was.

Brian, the Republican congressman then went on to say, “The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There is no longer any credibility. It has to come from Gen. Petraeus.” The meeting lasted an hour and 15 minutes and was, in the words of one, “remarkable for the bluntness and no-holds-barred honesty in the message delivered by all these Republican congressmen.”

So there you have it.

Surrender Watch: Poet Alert

In DB's search for GOP attempts to label the Democrats as the "party of surrender," this Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) soliloquy came up:

Mr. Speaker, the Iraq defeat bill that this House has passed sets the day certain that American troops will leave Iraq. By doing so, Congress is trying to legislate ``defeat day'' no matter the consequences.

In other words, retreat, retreat, at any price, retreat. Quit, quit, at any price, quit. Withdraw, withdraw, at any price, withdraw. Flee, flee, at any price, flee. Surrender , surrender , at any price surrender .

Congress has changed the phrase, ``when the going gets tough, send in the U.S. Cavalry, send in the U.S. Marines,'' to, ``when the going gets tough, leave,'' leave in the darkness of the night and let the Iraqis go it alone.

I am sure there is joy in ``Desertville'' in the fanatical minds of the enemies of freedom. Mr. Speaker, war is hard. This war is hard. But we cannot neglect our duty because it is hard.

The stability of the region and our national security depend on our U.S. success in defeating the enemy. We need to make it hard on them. Give them a day to remember.

And that's just the way it is.

A poet! That's even his name! "Poe, T."

As my readers know, DB can certainly appreciate poetry, especially on the House floor.

For that spectacular effort, here's a poem for you, Congressman Poe, by the wonderful A.R. Ammons:

Shit List; Or, Omnium-gatherum Of Diversity Into Unity

You'll rejoice at how many kinds of shit there are:
gosling shit (which J. Williams said something
was as green as), fish shit (the generality), trout

shit, rainbow trout shit (for the nice), mullet shit,
sand dab shit, casual sloth shit, elephant shit
(awesome as process or payload), wildebeest shit,

horse shit (a favorite), caterpillar shit (so many dark
kinds, neatly pelleted as mint seed), baby rhinoceros
shit, splashy jaybird shit, mockingbird shit

(dive-bombed with the aim of song), robin shit that
oozes white down lawnchairs or down roots under roosts,
chicken shit and chicken mite shit, pelican shit, gannet

shit (wholesome guano), fly shit (periodic), cockatoo
shit, dog shit (past catalog or assimilation),
cricket shit, elk (high plains) shit, and

tiny scribbled little shrew shit, whale shit (what
a sight, deep assumption), mandril shit (blazing
blast off), weasel shit (wiles' waste), gazelle shit,

magpie shit (total protein), tiger shit (too acid
to contemplate), moral eel and manta ray shit, eerie
shark shit, earthworm shit (a soilure), crab shit,

wolf shit upon the germicidal ice, snake shit, giraffe
shit that accelerates, secretary bird shit, turtle
shit suspension invites, remora shit slightly in

advance of the shark shit, hornet shit (difficult to
assess), camel shit that slaps the ghastly dry
siliceous, frog shit, beetle shit, bat shit (the

marmoreal), contemptible cat shit, penguin shit,
hermit crab shit, prairie hen shit, cougar shit, eagle
shit (high totem stuff), buffalo shit (hardly less

lofty), otter shit, beaver shit (from the animal of
alluvial dreams)-a vast ordure is a broken down
cloaca-macaw shit, alligator shit (that floats the Nile

along), louse shit, macaque, koala, and coati shit,
antelope shit, chuck-will's-widow shit, alpaca shit
(very high stuff), gooney bird shit, chigger shit, bull

shit (the classic), caribou shit, rasbora, python, and
razorbill shit, scorpion shit, man shit, laswing
fly larva shit, chipmunk shit, other-worldly wallaby

shit, gopher shit (or broke), platypus shit, aardvark
shit, spider shit, kangaroo and peccary shit, guanaco
shit, dolphin shit, aphid shit, baboon shit (that leopards

induce), albatross shit, red-headed woodpecker (nine
inches long) shit, tern shit, hedgehog shit, panda shit,
seahorse shit, and the shit of the wasteful gallinule.

Embracing Orwell

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell dropped some interesting names while debating the emergency funding bill for Iraq last Thursday:

Bin Laden knows the stakes, too. In a letter last year, bin Laden had this to say: America's defeat in Iraq would mean defeat in all its wars.

Yesterday, the commander of a senior Afghan Islamist group said bin Laden is personally involved in attacks on Americans in Iraq. General Petraeus went even further. He said al-Qaida has declared war on all of Iraq.

I call on my friends on the other side to have an open mind and listen to the general. We must give this plan for winning the military component of our strategy in Iraq a real chance to succeed. Without it , there is no political solution. Just 4 months old and operating at half its ultimate strength, the Baghdad security plan is already having an effect. Military leaders say the increased violence around Baghdad is a sign that the terrorists are shaken. The latest attacks were meant to be dramatic and to be visible. They were meant to force our withdrawal and ultimately our humiliation.

George Orwell said:

The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.

This is a road we must not take. This legislation is tragic. If the Iraqis make progress, we leave; if they don't, we leave. This is not a choice, it is a mandate for a defeat that al-Qaida desperately wants.

DB always likes it when Republicans quote Bin Laden and Orwell to back up their arguments. Kind of revealing, isn't it?

But I have to take issue with the Orwell quote [Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) used it on Thursday, too]. If the GOP is claiming that the Democrats are offering "a mandate for a defeat," then it should be noted that this defeat has taken longer than the victory we earned in World War II. Conversely, I suppose the slowest way to end a war is to win it? Like the longest war we were in?

Bush's father might argue that the quickest way to end a war is to have an international mandate, global support and an actual war plan.

DB thinks the quickest way to end a war is to resolve the conflict before it comes to killing.

Surrender watch: Veto Day

DB is keeping an eye on the "surrender" talk. The Bush strategy is clearly the same as Nixon's after it was already clear to him that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable: Paint the Democrats as the "party of surrender."

Pat Buchanan told Chris Matthews today that the GOP strategy would be to label the Democrats, the party of "defeat." That's no surprise. They've been using childish terms like "Defeatocrats" for a while now.

It should be clear by now to everybody not in the authoritarian assembly of the Right that the defeat we are facing in Iraq is political -- not military -- and falls squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress that was ousted last November.

The troops did their jobs. Bush, Cheney, Condi, Hughes, Bremer, Wolfowitz, Perle, DeLay, Frist and Hastert failed at theirs.

But the latest word they've been shopping is "surrender." The question DB has is will the compliant media start using the term as well?

Here are the latest examples from the GOP:

“House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender,” said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) released the following statement this afternoon after the president issued the second veto of his tenure by rejecting the Democrats' plan for troop surrender...

"Today, with his veto, President Bush sent a clear message to our enemies - America will not surrender to al-Qaida in Iraq. My congressional colleagues should set aside partisan politics and give Gen. Petraeus and our men and women in battle the resources they need to win." -Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Signs of 'surrender' in the media

In an earlier post, DB highlighted a Vanity Fair article by historian Robert Dallek, in which he reveals a conversation between President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger:

"In Saigon the tendency is to fight the war to victory," Nixon told Kissinger, according to the transcript of a 1969 phone conversation. "But you and I know it won't happen—it is impossible." Even so, according to Haldeman's unpublished diaries, Nixon later urged that Democratic critics making this same point should be labeled "the party of surrender."

Ten thousand Americans died in Vietnam after Nixon told Kissinger that victory was impossible.

That would have been enough of a reason for me to link to Dallek's column, but I chose to link to it earlier to point out that the White House is trotting out the same "party of surrender" talk, characterizing the funding bill as requiring a "surrender date."

Today on "Hardball," Washington Post reporter Lois Romano had this to say of the upcoming Republican presidential debate:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Lois, do you think they'll all be trooping in line to show their party loyalty by showing their Bush loyalty? Or how do you think they going to nuance this thing?

LOIS ROMANO: Well, I think, obviously, they have to play a little bit to the base because they need to win the nomination first. But they're facing an extremely unpopular war so they have to thread a very narrow needle on how they want to deal with the war and still, you know, basically embrace Bush a little bit.

I think what you're going to hear them say is 'We don't think this is a good war but we don't think we should surrender.' "

To be fair, Romano said the Republicans would use the word "surrender." But she didn't make it clear that "surrender" is their word. It's just one of the two options (and obviously, the one the Republicans reject).

The word "surrender" is part of the GOP political strategy, so we can expect Republican officials and "strategists" to use it with abandon (and they already are).

But we've already seen the media faithfully adopt GOP talking points. For example, the way they immediately accepted the Bush administration label "Terrorist Surveillance Program" instead of "domestic wiretapping." Are we going to hear more and more journalists suggesting that the Democrats are on the verge of becoming "the party of surrender?"

UPDATE: Video here at Real Clear Politics.

Snowjob back in action

Tony Snow, today:

Wait a minute, Chris. The president has been saying exactly that all along. I don’t know what the headline is. As a matter of fact, I can remember right after September 11 sitting here when I was a journalist and some of your colleagues, I believe Charlie Gibson may have been there at the time as well. The fact is the president made it clear before the State of the Union in 2002 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11. So Im afraid what’s happened there is that George Tenet may have been referring to something that has been misreported or at least twisted by people with political motives, but there has been no attempt to try to link Saddam to September 11.

George W. Bush, March 18, 2003:

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

UPDATE: Let's never forget, either, that Condoleezza Rice, with whom Bush shares a frontal lobe, was saying things like this on the very day that Bush sent his final draft of the AUMF to Congress:

"There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here," Rice said.

[...]

"We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time," Rice said. "We know too that several of the (al Qaeda) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development."

[...]

"No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we're learning more," Rice said.

Right, no operational control. Saying Saddam had "operational control of what happened on Sept. 11" was pushing it "too far." But they were "clearly" in league with one another. And it was only a matter of time before the evidence proved Saddam was behind 9/11 because it was becoming "clearer" and that's the direction it was going as the story was "unfolding" in front of their careful eyes.

Context matters

Via Atrios, DB sees that CBS' Mark Knoller has a beef with Bill Moyers.

Now, I’m the first to concede there are plenty of good reasons to criticize the White House Press. We’re an irascible and unlikable bunch. I’m one of us and I don’t like us very much. But the point made by Bill Moyers at the start of his program last night is just off base.

The broadcast began by focusing on the performance of reporters at President Bush’s news conference on March 6, 2003. We didn’t know it at the time, but it turned out to be 13 days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Moyers charges in his opening sentences that the press “largely surrendered its independence and skepticism” and joined with the Bush Administration in marching to war.

Pointing to that news conference, Moyers claims that the White House press corps asked “no hard questions” about the president’s arguments for war.

He shows only a single, brief example of a question – deep in the news conference – in which a reporter asked Mr. Bush to reflect on how he was guided by his faith at that difficult time. Admittedly, it was a softball.

But Moyers did not cite any of the other much more pointed questions put to the President that evening in the East Room.

That would be a great point if a) "much more pointed" than a softball was a real standard; b) the entire thing wasn't scripted; and c) that scene represented the entirety of Moyers' broadcast.

Others have already written about their favorite parts. Jane Hamsher enjoyed seeing Tim Russert play the blue-collar card. Christy Harden Smith enjoyed Judy Miller's moments in the spotlight. Atrios enjoyed seeing Peter Beinart change the subject when he was called on his lack of expertise. Glenn Greenwald highlights the tragic reality that the most demonstrably clueless pundits have even more prominence today and didn't have the guts to talk to Moyers.

All of those segments reverberated with DB as I reflected on the program. But there was another I thought was telling. Moyers (and Eric Boehlert) pointed out that the real story -- THE TRUTH -- was out there for a real reporter to find. The proof was Knight-Ridder.

This news conference wasn't only pathetic because the questions weren't tough enough, it was horrible because by the time it happened, a Washington press corps filled with skeptical and aggressive reporters -- like Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel at Knight Ridder -- would have been armed with enough evidence to make that press conference something Mark Knoller wouldn't feel compelled to defend in 2007.

Tell the Lincoln Group to STICK IT

One debating tactic used in Washington is the isolation of one narrow aspect of a subject -- a point that can either be won or fought to an acceptable stalemate. DB calls that point a "stick," a term derived from the football scheme in which defenders line up at "the sticks" -- the line the offense must cross to get a first down. It's a low risk play of semi-concession for the defense, who are not going for a sack or anything; a nine-yard gain by the offense will still result in a turnover on downs.

Where the analogy comes up short is that in football, passing the sticks may be the offense's goal. In a debate, the stick is a distraction from a more relevant point of debate. But it's DB's analogy and we're, well... sticking to it.

For example, torture. Is it effective? Or will people just lie and say anything to stop the pain? An interesting academic debate.

And completely irrelevant to DB.

Why? Because torture is immoral and un-American. Period. Any time spent debating the effectiveness of torture is a waste of time that could otherwise be used to remind people what it is that we stand for as Americans -- in this case, humane treatment of prisoners and respect for the law. Is torture effective? Is selling meth to teenagers profitable? Who cares? They're both wrong.

Simple right? So why bring this up today? Because it is the preferred tactic of those who would tell us that the spreading of propaganda in Iraq is justified.

DB has heard three arguments in favor of the Pentagon's actions:

• The stories that were planted are all "true"
  
• It is an effective strategy and our troops need every break they can get
  
• This is a time of war and overseas disinformation is ethical
  

All three points are sticks.

1. Are the stories really "true?" Who knows? It depends upon whether they're opinions or factual reports of progress. It depends upon how much information has been omitted and how much has been included. Are the included facts "cherrypicked?" DB hasn't read these stories and won't. It simply doesn't matter. One thing DB does know is that this administration doesn't have a whole lot of credibility when it comes to telling the truth.

2. Is propaganda effective? Some believe it is, others do not. While DB thinks there are certain examples of disinformation and propaganda that are helpful in a time of war, it is the opinion of this blogger in regards to the current situation in Iraq that the risks outweighed the rewards and that there exist far more effective, less cynical and less costly ways of aiding and protecting our troops while winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

3. Is it unethical to use propaganda overseas during a war? This is the classic stick -- a nice hypothetical/philosophical question when there is an actual event to evaluate. Bush destroyed Kerry with this kind of stick when the president got his opponent to clarify his views on the doctrine of preemption and his "global test" while Bush's actual elective war was being waged.

All three of these debates should be immediately dismissed and the focus should remain on the following:

This administration already poisoned these waters with its similar domestic tactics.

Paying Armstrong Williams and others, granting media access to fake journalists like Jeff Gannon and creating fake news to promote their domestic agenda at home has destroyed any chance the administration had to innocently claim that these tactics are acceptable because of the unique situation in Iraq and the war.

This administration has a record of using the media as an echo chamber for propaganda at home.

As Maureen Dowd pointed out on David Letterman this week and as Arianna Huffington praised Chris Matthews for repeating, the Bush Administration planted dubious and outright false information in the papers, not only to support their claims, but timed to exactly precede key television appearances by members of the administration. This way, people like Condi Rice and Dick Cheney could point to the stories the administration planted as confirmation of its own claims.

The U.S. borders do not protect its citizens from receiving administration propaganda.

In his excellent piece in Rolling Stone, James Bamford writes:

By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. A recent congressional report suggests that the Pentagon may be relying on "covert psychological operations affecting audiences within friendly nations." In a "secret amendment" to Pentagon policy, the report warns, "psyops funds might be used to publish stories favorable to American policies, or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of administration policies."

We hear over and over from administration allies that the MSM fails to report all the good news. But when they turn around and point to the "good news" reported in Iraq, they are (willingly or otherwise) fulfilling this psychological operation performed on Americans by our own government.

That the military reporters have an obligation to censor sensitive information is a given that any reasonable American must accept. That they will report "good news" and limit "bad news" is a reality that should also be accepted despite the fact that it is somewhat unpalatable.

But a strategy by the administration to plant stories in Iraq, or anywhere else outside our borders, in concert with an effort at home to point to the propaganda in an effort to push their agenda here is entirely unacceptable to DB.