The Cellar - Office of Strategic Influence

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Office of Strategic Influence (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=1108)

Office of Strategic Influence

http://asia.cnn.com/2002/US/01/04/re...od.leaflet.jpg
The back of the Department of Defense leaflets
shows Osama bin Laden in Western-style dress.

[UT could do better Photoshop.]

Quote:

Some analysts say the altered photograph will not play well in some parts of the Muslim world, where there is already suspicion of the United States.

Asked whether the leaflet could be used by some to say the United States is willing to doctor or make up things -- as has been alleged about the videotape found in Afghanistan by the United States -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had not thought about the possibility.

Rumsfeld, speaking at Thursday's Pentagon media briefing, said there was "nothing much" the United States could do about what others might claim about the leaflets.

"The whole premise of bin Laden's activities in the world are premised on lies and the fact that people will say things, like you just said they might say, is true," he said.

Was Rumsfeld fibbing when he said he hadn't thought about the possibility?

Would the OSI lie to the American public?

Quote:

A new Defense Department office created to try to influence public opinion abroad will not lie to the public or plant disinformation in the foreign or U.S. media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday.

"The Department of Defense, this secretary and the people that work with me tell the American people and the people of the world the truth," Rumsfeld told reporters in Salt Lake City, where he was attending the Winter Olympics.

Both Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney drew distinctions yesterday between lying to the public and engaging in tactical deception on the battlefield, which Cheney called a practice that has "historically been important" in past wars.

Would it be lying or tactical deception for the purpose of maintaining support and funding for the war on terrorism to put out information that bin Laden were still alive and a risk to national security, after the CIA and the DoD knew he was dead?

Quote:

"Clearly there is nothing more important than our credibility when discussing military matters with the public, media, allies or anyone else," a defense official told United Press International.

The Defense Department's own "Principles of Information" the guiding document for public affairs officers, prohibits censorship or propaganda.

"It is Department of Defense policy to make available timely and accurate information so that the public, the Congress, and the news media may assess and understand the facts about national security and defense strategy," states the document. "Propaganda has no place in DOD public affairs programs."

We'll see. Or maybe, we won't.

*international boxing ring*
and the Hogtied, myopic moron on the left, weiging in at 300lb - America!
In the right we have......His shadow! Light as a feather and bound by no rules
Assisted by The result of 20 odd years of godawful foreign policy.

*sighs*

Bin Laden in Iraq?

Quote:

As the Boston Globe noted this week, US authorities conceded that they have killed only one senior Al Qaeda figure and seven minors ones, and that the members of Al Qaeda have proved far more elusive that they had expected. So just where is Osama bin Laden these days? An organization linked to Al Qaeda, that has provided reliable information in the past, says that bin Laden, Mullah Mohammed Omar and many of their top deputies are still alive and together. And a new Arabic language website has started carrying messages from bin Laden. The AsiaTimes says that he is in Iraq, having escaped there through Iran. The Financial Times of London says bin Laden's group is recruiting new members at a fast rate and is probably in the process of planning new attacks. US authorities believe that with their safe base in Afghanistan gone, Al Qaeda will devolve into smaller groups that will not be able to carry out larger operations like Sept. 11, but will still be dangerous and hard to find.

Would there be more support for an attack on Iraq if bin Laden were reported to be there?

Stay tuned for more news from the DoD a.k.a. Department of Disinformation

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Name
Stay tuned for more news from the DoD a.k.a. Department of Disinformation

You're an idiot.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Name
Would there be more support for an attack on Iraq if bin Laden were reported to be there?

Probably.

There'd probably be support for an attack on any place that was found to be harboring bin Laden. What's your point?

I said "reported to be there" and you said "found to be harboring" and my point is in the difference and the fact that some people don't see it.

Well... since you want to split hairs, I was assuming that your hypothetical report was the truth.

That's exactly the point of this whole thread ... whether hypothetical reports of the Office of Strategic Influence will be assumed to be true by the American public.

Can the OSI effectively manipulate public opinion in support of the war on terrorism by planting false statements in foreign press?

Oh. Gee... somehow, I missed that. I thought you were just making snotty little remarks about how the DoD can't be trusted to tell the truth.

And while it's been done by other governmental departments, Rumsfeld clarified that whilst they may engage in *military* disinformation, they won't be feeding the media a pack of intentional lies, and Rumsfeld has said and reiterated the other day that he won't lie to the media.

The paranoid left is making the paranoid right look like a bunch of sissies, these days. It's one sky-is-falling rumor every other day.

I'm sorry but i have ot side wiht Nic here.
There are large calls inside Bush's administration to have a second go at what daddy didn't finish off last time, waht better way to justify it?

No evidence has bene put forward - yet suddenly he's in Iraq. Considereing that Iraq is no friend of fundamentalist muslims is doesn't really make mush sense, even the kurdish rebels would be an unrelaible place to be caught.

Quote:

and Rumsfeld has said and reiterated the other day that he won't lie to the media.

Well gee, that makes it all better doesn't it.

The only "justification" needed to go into Iraq is whatever flimsy premise will maintain enough political will to get the job done.

I would far rather that the US not be the world's policeman, but removing the Iraqi regime would be a marvelous outcome by anyone's standards. It would sure be a great favor to the actual people of Iraq.

I don't think Rumsfeld would lie to the press. I watch his live press conferences all the time. I do think he describes situations in ways favorable to his desired outcome. It would make a hell of a lot more sense if they would use pool reporters the way they did in the Gulf war. It would satisfy a lot of the press' needs in telling us what is really going on.

Flimsy excuses to go to war don't generally work - body bag political. 1 or two deaths is great, big media splash, huge funerals, autobiographies, half a ton of post humus medals doe honerably dieing but when the start adding up, the political tide can turn very, very quickly.

You've got Bin Laden - THE number one enemy - aparantly in Iraq - now that is a damn good excuse, a far better one than "oh well, we were in the area why not". Which is fine, if it had a scrap of truth to it, which i honestly find hard to beleive.

Based on what evidence, Jag?

Do I think he's in Iraq? No. Because I don't think Saddamn Hussein would be <b>that fucking stupid</b> to let that happen, and I think if he even smelled bin Laden getting close, he would kick his ass out.

That having been said, I'm not aware of any evidence that rules out his movement to Iraq. I also don't think there's any good evidence that he's there. The Asia Times said it. Big deal.

Office of Strategic Influence is closed ... or so they say. :)

Quote:

Announcing the decision Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blamed "inaccurate speculation and assertions" about the office's mission for the decision, but said that its functions would be taken over by other offices within the Pentagon.

Sorry Don, for being among those making inaccurate speculation and assertions.