Pentagon and Bogus News

[Donutboy 0]

Pentagon and Bogus News: All Is Denied

By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: December 5, 2003

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 — Early last year Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disbanded the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence after it became known that the office was considering plans to provide false news items to unwitting foreign journalists to influence policymakers and public sentiment abroad.

But a couple of months ago, the Pentagon quietly awarded a $300,000 contract to SAIC, a major defense consultant, to study how the Defense Department could design an "effective strategic influence" campaign to combat global terror, according to an internal Pentagon document.

Sound familiar?

Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday that they were caught unawares by the contract and insisted its language was a "poor choice of words" by a low-level staffer. They said the work did not reflect any backdoor effort to resurrect the discredited office and was merely a study to understand Al Qaeda better and find ways to combat it.

Yeah, and Walker, Housel and Co. were in Louisville evaluating the direction of our football program!!

Pentagon and Bogus News: All Is Denied

[Tiger in Spain 0]

It shouldn't matter to you anyway because we in the military are nothing more than a lying bunch of baby killers to you liberals.

[Donutboy 0]

It shouldn't matter to you anyway because we in the military are nothing more than a lying bunch of baby killers to you liberals.

I don't have a problem with the military. It's when the military leaders start acting like Napolean and trying to feed us a pack of lies to try and influence opinion that I have a problem. From the Jessica Lynch non-story that was used during the War to the recent firefight against insurgents and the British made contact with Air Force One on Thanksgiving lies, this administration does their best Fox News, but repeatedly having to backtrack on stories does nothing but ruin this administrations credibilty when there IS good news out of Iraq.

[Tiger Al 0]

It shouldn't matter to you anyway because we in the military are nothing more than a lying bunch of baby killers to you liberals.

I guess me being a liberal and prior military puts me in a strange position of self-loathing, huh? Grow up.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

It shouldn't matter to you anyway because we in the military are nothing more than a lying bunch of baby killers to you liberals.

I guess me being a liberal and prior military puts me in a strange position of self-loathing, huh? Grow up.

Allow me to apologize for generalizing all liberals as anti-military socialists. What I should have said was, ".....we in the military are nothing more than a lying bunch of baby killers to you liberal extremists". Please forgive me.

[Donutboy 0]

It shouldn't matter to you anyway because we in the military are nothing more than a lying bunch of baby killers to you liberals.

I guess me being a liberal and prior military puts me in a strange position of self-loathing, huh? Grow up.

Allow me to apologize for generalizing all liberals as anti-military socialists. What I should have said was, ".....we in the military are nothing more than a lying bunch of baby killers to you liberal extremists". Please forgive me.

That's OK. From reading your posts, I have come to expect as much from you. You show no ability to debate without the attack mentality but I'm sure that can be explained by your daily dosage of Rush Limbaugh/Fox news Pablum being spoon-fed to you regularly. Whether yo want to believe it or not, you right-wing radicals are losing favor. It shows up in polls daily. Did you bother to read the poll I posted that showed 70% of Americans no longer believe the war in Iraq has had a positive influence on stopping terrorism? A majority of Americans believe our nation is headed in the wrong direction. As many people as there are that say they will definitely vote for Bush in 2004, there is an equal number who say they won't. You and I won't decide the next election. The moderates and liberals who supported Ralph Nader in 2000 will. Do you think the Nader voters will make the same mistake in 2004 as they did in 2000 after the way Bush has raped our environment? If they needed a dose of reality and what their protest vote meant, they got it in spades!!

[Donutboy 0]

Here's just another example of Washington trying to "Hollywood script" the war!!

US under pressure to back claims over Iraq firefight

By Phil Reeves in Baghdad

04 December 2003

Pressure is mounting on the United States military to support its claim to have killed 54 Iraqi guerrillas in the biggest battle since George Bush declared an end to major combat seven months ago.

Scepticism about the US's version of the death toll has been expressed within upper echelons of the occupation authorities. A US combat leader who was involved in the battle has also denounced the military's account of the battle.

US under pressure to back claims over Iraq firefight

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Speaking of spoon-fed pablum, is is any surprise why so few of your initial posts even garner a reply at all, much less more than one from someone other than TigerAl? And it ain't because they are so intellectually, factually or morally unassailable either.

Ask someone in Texas to choose between a right-wing extremist and a left-wing extremist, and see what kind of answer you get as to the lesser of two evils. Ask that in Alabama, or Georgia or Nebraska or Oklahoma or Wyoming or nearly anywhere else except maybe New York and California and see what you hear. Right wing extremists may be opposed to any change, but if given no other choice, I would bet that moderates and Nader-ians would choose no change over radical, special interest driven, left wing policies that come with huge price tags and few benefits for someone who does not fall into "certain special categories".