...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
i'm telling you, i'm perplexed by the media. Why is this a story?
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.So they paid the Iraqi editors to run the stories. So f-ing what. Why is this controversial? Why is this a bad thing? There's a war going on. i guess its only controversial if you don't care who wins. Or if you want the good guys to lose.
The MSM prints all the Pro-terrorist propaganda they can get for free. If you want Anti-terrorist propaganda printed, you have to pay for it.
Go figure.
Posted by: Jake on Dec. 1, 2005Sheesh, you obviously don't get it. In the US media there is only the dogged pursuit of truth, and they're never swayed by tawdry influences like money and power. Yes the media whores are SHOCKED! Yes, SHOCKED!! That other media whores are taking money.
Sixty minutes MUST do a story on this. All I can think of is Joe Kennedy paying Luce $75k to put JFK's pic on the cover of Time.
Posted by: Casca on Dec. 1, 2005I'm encouraged by this. We need to spend MORE MONEY planting stories!! Every dollar we spend likely reduces necessary military and saves military lives in the near future; and saves homeland American lives in the long term.
Posted by: gcotharn on Dec. 1, 2005None of you guys get it.
All of the money paid to advance America's image in Iraq should have been sent to places like New Orleans so the Mayor could use it to build bridges to the gambling boats and degrade the levees.
Or, it could have gone to other useful projects like the independent counsel investigating who exposed Valerie Plame, besides her husband. Come to think of it, why isn't he indicted?
Posted by: shelly on Dec. 1, 2005OK, start putting a little water in the scotch now, and only take a half a prozac at a time.
Posted by: Casca on Dec. 1, 2005Annika, the MSM do want the good guys to win, but to them its the terrorists who are the good guys. Most of them are still living in the 1960's. Our military is always to blame, and the evil rethuglicans, and those damm fundies, and "Big" corporations, and anyone who dosent want killers to be set free, ect.
What you thought they had changed?
I find it unbelievably funny that the MSM carry water for the bad guys. What heads do they think will be sawn off should the bad guys win? I guess they don't think the terrorists will ever get here, or if they do, they'll skip the New York Times, because after all it's not like we're prejudiced or anything...
Yeah, I know, Bush lied, and besides Saddam never attacked America... Hitler never attacked America either, but maybe we should have waited until Britain fell. Look, we tried the Jimmy Carter way - turn the other cheek. All that did was embolden the fanatics. American interests were attacked, repeatedly, with no effective response until Afghanistan. Now, we are going to cry about somebody else getting paid to run stories?
If Bush found a cure for cancer tomorrow, the left would complain it cost tooo much and took too long.
Most of the MSM is on the side of the enemy.
Posted by: MarkD on Dec. 2, 2005Actually, in tha Arab world it's not uncommon to pay to get stories published in the newspaper. It's kind of a way of life.
Posted by: DR on Dec. 2, 2005Shit DR, what airy fairy paradise do you live in? It's common practice the world over, as they say, "money talks". If truth could be found in the MSM, there'd be no blogosphere. As Bork said of snarlin' arlin, "I know the man. There is no truth in him."
Posted by: Casca on Dec. 2, 2005