• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

How To Spot Disinformation (Courtesy of US Govt.)

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,232
How to Identify Misinformation

How can a journalist or a news consumer tell if a story is true or false? There are no exact rules, but the following clues can help indicate if a story or allegation is true.

Does the story fit the pattern of a conspiracy theory?
Does the story fit the pattern of an “urban legend?”
Does the story contain a shocking revelation about a highly controversial issue?
Is the source trustworthy?
What does further research tell you?
Does the story fit the pattern of a conspiracy theory?

Does the story claim that vast, powerful, evil forces are secretly manipulating events? If so, this fits the profile of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are rarely true, even though they have great appeal and are often widely believed. In reality, events usually have much less exciting explanations.

The U.S. military or intelligence community is a favorite villain in many conspiracy theories.

For example, the Soviet disinformation apparatus regularly blamed the U.S. military or intelligence community for a variety of natural disasters as well as political events. In March 1992, then-Russian foreign intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov admitted that the disinformation service of the Soviet KGB intelligence service had concocted the false story that the AIDS virus had been created in a US military laboratory as a biological weapon. When AIDS was first discovered, no one knew how this horrifying new disease had arisen, although scientists have now used DNA analysis to determine that “all HIV-1 strains known to infect man” are closely related to a simian immunodeficiency virus found in a western equatorial African chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes troglodytes. But the Soviets used widespread suspicions about the U.S. military to blame it for AIDS. (More details on this.)

In his book 9/11: The Big Lie, French author Thierry Meyssan falsely claimed that no plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Instead, he claimed that the building had been struck by a cruise missile fired by elements within the U.S. government. No such vast conspiracy existed and many eyewitness accounts and evidence gathered on the scene confirmed that the hijacked airliner had struck the building. But, nevertheless, the book was a best-seller in France and has been translated into 19 languages, demonstrating the power that even the most groundless conspiracy theories can have. (More details on 9/11: The Big Lie.)

Does the story fit the pattern of an “urban legend?”

Is the story startlingly good, bad, amazing, horrifying, or otherwise seemingly “too good” or “too terrible” to be true? If so, it may be an “urban legend.” Urban legends, which often circulate by word of mouth, e-mail, or the Internet, are false claims that are widely believed because they put a common fear, hope, suspicion, or other powerful emotion into story form.

For example, after the September 11 attacks, a story arose that someone had survived the World Trade Center collapse by “surfing” a piece of building debris from the 82nd floor to the ground. Of course, no one could survive such a fall, but many initially believed this story, out of desperate hope that some people trapped in the towers miraculously survived their collapse. (More details on this.)

Another September 11 urban legend is that an undamaged Bible was found in the midst of the crash site at the Pentagon. In reality, it was a dictionary. But, if a Bible had survived unscathed, that would have seemed much more significant, and been seen by many as a sign of divine intervention. (More details on this.)

Since 1987, the false story that Americans or others are kidnapping or adopting children in order to use them in organ transplants has been widely believed. There is absolutely no evidence that any such event has ever occurred, but such allegations have won the most prestigious journalism prizes in France in 1995 and Spain in 1996. (More details on this.)

This urban legend is based on fears about both organ transplantation and international adoptions, both of which were relatively new practices in the 1980s. As advances in medical science made organ transplantation more widespread, unfounded fears began to spread that people would be murdered for their organs. At the same time, there were also unfounded fears about the fate of infants adopted by foreigners and taken far from their home countries. The so-called “baby parts” rumor combined both these fears in story form, which gave it great credibility even though there was absolutely no evidence for the allegation.

In late 2004, a reporter for Saudi Arabia’s Al Watan newspaper repeated a version of the organ trafficking urban legend, falsely claiming that U.S. forces in Iraq were harvesting organs from dead or wounded Iraqis for sale in the United States. This shows how the details of urban legends can change, to fit different circumstances. (More details in English and Arabic.)

Highly controversial issues

AIDS, organ transplantation, international adoption, and the September 11 attacks are all new, frightening or, in some ways, discomforting topics. Such highly controversial issues are natural candidates for the rise of false rumors, unwarranted fears and suspicions. Another example of a highly controversial issue is depleted uranium, a relatively new armor-piercing substance that was used by the U.S. military for the first time during the 1991 Gulf War.

There are many exaggerated fears about depleted uranium because people associate it with weapons-grade uranium or fuel-grade uranium, which are much more dangerous substances. When most people hear the word uranium, a number of strongly held associations spring to mind, including the atomic bomb, Hiroshima, nuclear reactors, radiation illness, cancer, and birth defects.

Depleted uranium is what is left over when natural uranium is enriched to make weapons-grade or fuel-grade uranium. In the process, the uranium loses, or is depleted, of almost half its radioactivity, which is how depleted uranium gets its name. But facts like this are less important in peoples’ minds than the deeply ingrained associations they have with the world “uranium.” For this reason, most people believe that depleted uranium is much more dangerous than it actually is. (More details on depleted uranium in English and Arabic.)

Another highly controversial issue is that of forbidden weapons, such as chemical or biological weapons. The United States is regularly, and falsely, accused of using these weapons. (More details on this in English and Arabic.)

In the same way, many other highly controversial issues are naturally prone to misunderstanding and false rumors. Any highly controversial issue or taboo behavior is ripe material for false rumors and urban legends.

Consider the source

Certain websites, publications, and individuals are known for spreading false stories, including:

Aljazeera.com, a deceptive, look-alike website that has sought to fool people into thinking it is run by the Qatari satellite television station Al Jazeera
Jihad Unspun, a website run by a Canadian woman who converted to Islam after the September 11 attacks when she became convinced that Osama bin Laden was right
Islam Memo (Mafkarat-al-Islam), which spreads a great deal of disinformation about Iraq.
(More details on Islam Memo and Jihad Unspun in English and Arabic.)

There are many conspiracy theory websites, which contain a great deal of unreliable information. Examples include:

Rense.com
Australian “private investigator” Joe Vialls, who died in 2005
Conspiracy Planet
Extremist groups, such as splinter communist parties, often publish disinformation. This can be especially difficult to identify if the false allegations are published by front groups. Front groups purport to be independent, non-partisan organizations but actually controlled by political parties or groups. Some examples of front groups are:

The International Action Center, which is a front group for a splinter communist party called the Workers World Party
The Free Arab Voice, a website that serves as a front for Arab communist Muhammad Abu Nasr and his colleagues.
(More details on Muhammad Abu Nasr in English or Arabic.)

Research the allegations

The only way to determine whether an allegation is true or false is to research it as thoroughly as possible. Of course, this may not always be possible given publication deadlines and time pressures, but there is no substitute for thorough research, going back to the original sources. Using the Internet, many allegations can be fairly thoroughly researched in a matter of hours.

For example, in July 2005, the counter-misinformation team researched the allegation that U.S. soldiers in Iraq had killed innocent Iraqi boys playing football and then “planted” rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) next to them, to make it appear that they were insurgents.

Using a variety of search terms in “Google,” a researcher was able to find the article and photographs upon which the allegations were based. Because weapons did not appear in the initial photographs, but did appear in later photographs, some observers believed this was evidence that the weapons had been planted and that the boys who had been killed were not armed insurgents.

The researcher was also able to find weblog entries (numbered 100 and 333, on June 26 and July 15, 2005) from the commanding officer of the platoon that was involved in the incident and another member of his platoon. The weblog entries made it clear that:

the teenaged Iraqi boys were armed insurgents;
after the firefight between U.S. troops and the insurgents was over, the dead, wounded and captured insurgents were initially photographed separated from their weapons because the first priority was to make sure that it was impossible for any of the surviving insurgents to fire them again;
following medical treatment for the wounded insurgents, they were photographed with the captured weapons displayed, in line with Iraqi government requirements;
the insurgents were hiding in a dense palm grove, where visibility was limited to 20 meters, not a likely place for a football game, and they were seen carrying the RPGs on their shoulders.
Thus, an hour or two of research on the Internet was sufficient to establish that the suspicions of the bloggers that the weapons had been planted on innocent Iraqi boys playing football were unfounded.

Finally, if the counter-misinformation team can be of help, ask us. We can’t respond to all requests for information, but if a request is reasonable and we have the time, we will do our best to provide accurate, authoritative information.

Source

With thanks to The Virgin Queen for spotting this gem ;)
 
eeeehhhh!

bloody bugger!

Depleted uranium is what is left over when natural uranium is enriched to make weapons-grade or fuel-grade uranium. In the process, the uranium loses, or is depleted, of almost half its radioactivity, which is how depleted uranium gets its name. But facts like this are less important in peoples’ minds than the deeply ingrained associations they have with the world “uranium.” For this reason, most people believe that depleted uranium is much more dangerous than it actually is

So, that's ok then - it loses almost half its radioactivity. The other bit of the radioactivity must be almost harmless then :roll:

They didn't mention that it's a toxic, mutagenic HEAVY METAL. Uranium butty anyone...? :evil:

Another highly controversial issue is that of forbidden weapons, such as chemical or biological weapons. The United States is regularly, and falsely, accused of using these weapons.

Funny - the UN inspectorate (of chem weapons), despite numerous requests, has never been allowed to check on US stocks. They're probably almost harmless, so that's ok.

Where's me box - I need to RANT! :x
 
Here's a quick look at what we've found so far:

Two dozen artillery shells loaded with Sarin and mustard gas.

500 tons of yellow cake uranium. It was found at Saddam's nuclear weapons facility.

1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium found at the same place.

Also a stash of centrifuge parts and blueprints.

Not the stash people may have expected, but the Sarin and mustard gas is enough to kill at least half a million people. 1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium would make a hell of a dirty bomb. Could kills millions with that. Sure looks like weapons of mass destruction to me.
 
:?

If someone could pass these alarming weapons revelations on to the Central Intelligence Agency, that would be a good thing, because

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

the CIA seems to be laboring under the wrong-headed belief that no WMDs were found in Iraq.

... Or maybe those rascals at MSNBC just invented that story, to make the CIA look bad. Better double-check with the CIA's own website

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd ... ddenda.pdf
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd ... ndings.pdf
 
Well, let's see...the International Atomic Energy Agency was monitoring the 500 tons of yellow cake uranium. BUt then, these are the same people who were monitoring North Korea's nuclear program and were caught by surprise when North Korea announced that it was ready to produce nuclear weapons.

In June 2004, the US Energy department removed the partly enriched uranium here to the US.

Various sources indicate that Charles Duelfer reported all of this to Congress in June, 2004.

Remember, when you're trusting the CIA for information, it was the Cia Director who told Bush that Iraq would be a "slam dunk."
 
"Not the stash people may have expected, but the Sarin and mustard gas is enough to kill at least half a million people."

Mustard gas is technically described as nonlethal, though in practice it kills about 1%. Look at Iraqs previous records of Sarin use against the Iranians and, when fresh, it wasn't all that dangerous - and when it's about 10 years past its sell by date it's even less so. In any case, this was old stock and it's questionable whether Saddam even knew these still existed.

" 1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium would make a hell of a dirty bomb. Could kills millions with that. Sure looks like weapons of mass destruction to me."

I assume this is a joke or a wind up. How many did Chernobyl kill, with a much larger amount of enriched uranium? And are you going to count ever country with nuclear ebergy as possessing WMD now?
 
First off, at Chernobyl, the uranium is still there, under however many tons of concrete.

Second, whatever the theorectical lethality of Sarin or mustard gases, they are considered weapons of mass destruction.

Why is it so hard to accept these facts? Do you so want to paint Saddam Hussein as a wronged innocent and George Bush as a nasty bully that you just don't want to believe the truth?

BTW, these items were reported by Charles Duefler, chief of the Iraq Survey Group.
 
The White House has now officially acknowledged what the Washington Post first reported and what many probably assumed was the case anyway - the US search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is over, at least in any meaningful sense.

The search ended quietly just before Christmas when the chief inspector, Charles Duelfer, returned to the United States with no plans to head back to Iraq.

The weapons hunters - officially the Iraq Survey Group - have stopped physical searches.

Some are still sifting through a mountain of documents, and they'll pursue any leads. But nobody is really expecting the hunt to be revived.

Political fallout continues

There has been plenty of political fallout already from the non-appearance of weapons, for both Washington and London.

In essence, both had accepted that weapons weren't going to be found, and that the pre-war intelligence was wrong.

IRAQ SURVEY GROUP
Set up in May 2003
First leader, David Kay, quit in Jan 2004 stating WMD would not be found in Iraq
New head, Charles Duelfer, appointed by CIA
1,200 experts from the US, Britain and Australia
HQ in Washington, offices in Baghdad and Qatar
But there are likely to be more ripples now from the fact that the hunt is now over, and particularly the way that fact emerged in a press report.

One senior long-time Democratic critic of the administration, Nancy Pelosi, has already said the president needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong.

And the former United Nations chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, much criticised in the US by supporters of the war, has said the Bush administration needs to report back to the UN on this.

Focus shifts to insurgency

Mr Duelfer reported last October that he could find no evidence of weapons stockpiles or active programmes - although he said he believed Iraq's former leader, Saddam Hussein, still had the intention of reviving those programmes.

That was officially an interim report, although Mr Duelfer himself said he didn't think much would change, and many believed then that book was essentially closed.

Now, Mr Duelfer will make a few adjustments, which will be published in a few weeks.

They won't change his basic conclusions, but will now essentially be his final words on an issue which started out as the main reason for going to war with Iraq, but which turned into a huge embarrassment for the US and British governments.

The Iraq Survey Group now actually has more members than it's ever had - some 1,700 personnel.

But it's now focusing on trying to help with intelligence-gathering to counter the Iraqi insurgency - a much more immediate problem for the US military.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169941.stm

Mr Duelfer states above that there was [/b]no evidence of weapons stockpiles or active programmes.

 
"First off, at Chernobyl, the uranium is still there, under however many tons of concrete. "

So what was it that contaminated the surrounding area? But be serious, uranium is no what you would make a dirt bomb from. A dirty atomic bomb maybe - but that's another matter, and nobody is suggesting that Iraq had that sort of capability.

"Second, whatever the theorectical lethality of Sarin or mustard gases, they are considered weapons of mass destruction. "

You appear to be shifting your ground rather. Your suggestion was that they could have killed large numbers of people, you are now moving to a theoretical, legalistic argument. The 'threat' has vanished.

"Why is it so hard to accept these facts?"

It's not the facts I'm arguing with, just your interpretation. And the reason is because a war was launched on false grounds, killing thousands.

The point here is that there were no WMD stockpiles and no threat, certainly nothing that was going to threaten Britain within 45 minutes. Look at the suggestions about Iraq's long-range missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and it simply did not pan out - for whatever reason, there was a massive intelligence failure which some people are still in denial over.
 
"The researcher was also able to find weblog entries (numbered 100 and 333, on June 26 and July 15, 2005) from the commanding officer of the platoon that was involved in the incident and another member of his platoon. The weblog entries made it clear that: "

I just loved this. It's exactly like saying "Lt Calley was accused of slaughtering innocent Vietnamese. But we checked his diary and letters home and found that nothing of the sort took place". Why does the article only talk about anti-US military proprganda? :D
 
Haven't studies concluded that the dirty bomb is a myth, that it actually wouldn't have much of an effect?
 
hedgewizard1 said:
Not the stash people may have expected, but the Sarin and mustard gas is enough to kill at least half a million people.

Where on earth do you get the idea that that amount of those types of chemical weapon could kill 'at least half a million people' with only 2 dozen shells? If such weapons were that effective, Saddam Hussein would've won the Iran-Iraq War. In fact, he probably wouldn't have needed tactical nuclear weapons.

Unless you can think of a situation whereby that many people are holed up somewhere and are exposed to those agents (and perhaps already suffer from respiratory disorders), I'd argue that such 'facts' are erroneous.
 
More to the point, I don't think anyone has suggested uranium as the warhead for such a weapon.* That would be much, much too close to the idea that using uranium in weapons constituted a WMD or might harm people afterwards....

(* A dirty atomic bomb is of course another matter)
 
Wasn't there a rumour that the Allies in the first Gulf War were putting radioactive material on the tips of their missiles? And that it caused disease in Iraqis for years afterwards?
 
I think you may be thinking of the use of depleted uranium - it's used as a penetrator in various anti-armour munitions.
 
Yup. Depleted Uranium is a good penetrator. But as a number of our astute colleagues have said, Saddam couldn't have forced projected any threat. After '91, his status as a bad guy was zilch. American PR once again...
 
There are unproven allegations that in addition to known tank and anti-tank weapons, certain 'bunker buster'-type bombs contain significant amounts of DU (tens of kilos or more). This has so far proven impossible to confirm or disprove.

http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u231.htm

The US military maintains that DU is not a health hazard, but is quietly working on non-DU alternatives.
 
Why deadly depleted uranium is the tank buster's weapon

greets

article on DU by david hambling (who also writes for Fortean times)

Why deadly depleted uranium is the tank buster's weapon of choice

David Hambling
Thursday May 18, 2000

The use of depleted uranium weapons is again causing concern. The people of Kosovo have been alarmed to discover that the conflict there has left radioactive contamination, just as it did in Kuwait nine years ago.

Why do the United States and Britain continue to use a waste product of the nuclear industry in their weapons? Some commentators allege that it is a conspiracy between the military and the nuclear industry to dispose of dangerous waste in hostile countries. The real reasons are more complex.

Metallic uranium occurs naturally in tiny quantities. In its native state it is a mixture of highly radioactive uranium-235 and less active U-238. U-235 is used in reactors and atomic weapons; once it is extracted, the rest is depleted uranium (DU). It is a poisonous heavy metal like lead or mercury, but only slightly radioactive.

To understand why DU makes a good anti-tank weapon you have to enter the Alice In Wonderland world of high-energy collisions. When metal meets metal at five times the speed of sound, hardened steel shatters like glass. Metal flows like putty, or simply vaporises. A faster shell does not necessarily go through more armour, but, like a pebble thrown into a pond, it makes a bigger splash.

Armour penetration is increased by concentrating the force of a shell into as small an area as possible, so the projectiles tend to look like giant darts. The denser the projectile, the harder the impact for a given size. DU is almost twice as dense as lead, making it highly suitable. The other metal used for anti-tank rounds is tungsten, which is also very hard and dense. When a tungsten rod strikes armour, it deforms and mushrooms, making it progressively blunter. Uranium is "pyrophoric": at the point of impact it burns away into vapour, so the projectile stays sharp. When it breaks through, the burning DU turns the inside of a vehicle into an inferno of white-hot gas and sparks.

Normal uranium is not as hard as tungsten. But a classified technique allows it to be hardened. This is believed to involve alloying it with titanium and cooling it so that it forms a single large metallic crystal rather than a chaotic mass of tiny crystals. This structure is very strong and produces an improvement similar to the difference between a brittle pencil lead and a carbon-fibre tennis racquet. The final advantage of uranium is cost. Machined tungsten is expensive, but governments supply DU more or less free.

As with most weapons, depleted uranium is not as deadly as its proponents - or its critics - claim. One tank was hit four times with no casualties. Twenty US vehicles took penetrating hits from DU weapons during the Gulf war. Thirteen crew members were killed, but 113 others - almost 90% - survived. The long-term health effects are not known.

It is likely that DU will be phased out eventually, not for health reasons but for military ones. It was introduced to solve the problem of breaking through heavy armour. But tank armour is concentrated mainly at the front, facing the main threat; it is thinner on the sides, and thinner still on top. If the entire vehicle were clad in thick armour it would be too heavy to move. Instead of brute force, the clever approach would be to attack the weakest point.

After decades of development a new generation of anti-armour weapons is being fielded. These "brilliant" weapons find their own targets, unlike mere smart bombs, which have to be directed. One example is Sadarm (Seek And Destroy Armour). It is fired like a normal artillery shell into the target area, where it ejects two submunitions that descend by parachute. As they fall, Sadarm scans the ground with radar and infrared sensors. Targets are identified, and the most important are selected - a Scud launcher in preference to a tank, a tank rather than a truck.

Sadarm fires a slug of molten metal at the selected target. The slug takes on an aerodynamic shape as it travels through the air, ideal for piercing armour. Though less powerful than a DU shell, it can break through the top armour of any tank.

Engagements between tanks are fought face-to-face, at a maximum distance of about 4km. Sadarm can be lobbed at an enemy 20km away. Missiles carrying brilliant munitions can range out to 100km or more.

Sadarm and other brilliant weapons use tantalum, an exotic heavy metal for which little data is available. But it appears to be highly toxic, especially when vaporised. We will probably discover its full effects only after the next hi-tec war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,7369,419936,00.html

you might like also to visit this site:

DEPLETED URANIUM
A POST-WAR DISASTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH

http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html

mal[/quote]
 
GadaffiDuck said:
Yup. Depleted Uranium is a good penetrator. But as a number of our astute colleagues have said, Saddam couldn't have forced projected any threat. After '91, his status as a bad guy was zilch. American PR once again...

It is because he could no longer project force that he associated with terrorists. Probably not with Al Qaida but certainly with Palastinian groups. Which would explain who it was wanted the WoT to be extended to Iraq.
 
It is because he could no longer project force that he associated with terrorists. Probably not with Al Qaida but certainly with Palastinian groups. Which would explain who it was wanted the WoT to be extended to Iraq.

Really? Please elaborate...
 
This does take us right into the territory of propaganda and misinformation...how can one evaluate a source that says when someone is/is not involved in supporting terrorism? Obviously there have bene plenty of attempts to link Iraq with the 'war on terror', so I imagine the military and intelligence people have been stirring the pot.
 
Quake42 said:
It is because he could no longer project force that he associated with terrorists. Probably not with Al Qaida but certainly with Palastinian groups. Which would explain who it was wanted the WoT to be extended to Iraq.

Really? Please elaborate...

Report here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

You must judge for youself if this is really support for terrorism or support for the families of martyrs.
 
Quake42 wrote:
Quote:
It is because he could no longer project force that he associated with terrorists. Probably not with Al Qaida but certainly with Palastinian groups. Which would explain who it was wanted the WoT to be extended to Iraq.


Really? Please elaborate...


Report here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

You must judge for youself if this is really support for terrorism or support for the families of martyrs.

Or indeed a fairly transparent attempt to increase his popularity in the Arab world...
 
Heard this mentioned on BBC Radio4's Broadcasting House prog. on Sunday. From the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?hp

Message Machine.
Behind Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand


New York Times. Washington. By DAVID BARSTOW 20th April 2008

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.


The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.


Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said.

It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”

...
The start of rather a long article, but worth reading.
 
Back
Top