Marketing the attack on Iran through the media

kuzadd · September 5, 2007

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/geor...ere-were-a.html

Test Marketing

"If there were a threat level on the possibility of war with Iran, it might have just gone up to orange. Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, has written an account of a conversation with a friend who has connections to someone at a neoconservative institution in Washington. Rubin can’t confirm his friend’s story; neither can I. But it’s worth a heads-up:"

(Oh, but confirmation does come, see postscript.)

"They [the source’s institution] have “instructions” (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”"

"True? I don’t know. Plausible? Absolutely. It follows the pattern of the P.R. campaign that started around this time in 2002 and led to the Iraq war. The President’s rhetoric on Iran has been nothing short of bellicose lately, warning of “the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” And the Iranian government’s behavior—detaining British servicemen and arresting American passport holders, pushing ahead with uranium enrichment, and, by many reliable accounts, increasing its funding and training for anti-American militias in Iraq—seems intentionally provocative. Perhaps President Ahmedinejad and the mullahs feel that they win either way: they humiliate the superpower if it doesn’t take the bait, and they shore up their deeply unpopular regime at home if it does. Preëmptive war requires calculations (and, often, miscalculations) on two sides, not just one, as Saddam learned in 2003. When tensions are this high between two countries and powerful factions in both act as if hostilities are in their interest, war is likely to follow.

It’s one thing for the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, et al to champion a war they support. It’s another to jump like circus animals at the crack of the White House whip."

(yes it is quite another thing to jump like a circus animal at the crack of the White House whip, but then, the media did it before, and the easily influenced were, well, easily influenced!)

If this really is a return to the early fall of 2002 all over again, then I’m fairly sure that no one at the top of the Administration is worrying about the answers.

Postscript: Barnett Rubin just called me. His source spoke with a neocon think-tanker who corroborated the story of the propaganda campaign and had this to say about it: “I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I’m not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.”

Edited September 5, 2007 by kuzadd

kuzadd · September 5, 2007

This is an older news story, but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us/polit...and&emc=rss

As Talk Radio Wavers, Bush Moves to Firm Up Support

nice pic of Bush sitting with the appropriate talking heads.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — On an overcast Friday morning last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president.

For an hour and a half, Mr. Bush discussed his case for the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals and even the personality of his Scottish terrier Barney, who scratched on the door during the session until the president relented and let him into the office, according to several hosts who attended.

The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past.

gotta get'em back on track!

“When conservatives are agitated at the president, radio hosts feel pressured to stand with the conservatives against the president to prove their independence,” said Tim Graham, an analyst at the Media Research Center, a conservative news monitoring group. But, Mr. Graham said, “realizing what life would be like if we lost the House is concentrating people’s minds.”

The White House and the Republican National Committee are hammering home that point in interviews, talking-point bulletins and a healthy dollop of pomp that only a White House can provide.

The effort will peak on Oct. 24, when the administration will hold something of a talk-radio summit meeting, inviting dozens of hosts to set up booths on the White House grounds, where top cabinet officials are expected to sit for interviews.

So much for the independance of the media!

It seems the White House can indeed set the agenda, and lo and behold, MSM, talking heads, etc., all follow in boot-step!

No Spin indeed! :lol:

buffycat · September 5, 2007

Hey, it worked the first time!!

It's working this time too!! I recently looked at some of the comments at the Globe and Mail wrt Iran bringing her centrifuge online. Half the posters seemed to think that Iran actually had a nookular weapon!

The public is easy to fool into war... just tell they're being attacked then denounce those who speak out against it as traitors...

Pardon for the paraphrase - I was a little too lazy to look up the exact quote - but I know you know what I mean - you know?

kuzadd · September 5, 2007

Hey, it worked the first time!!
It's working this time too!!

The public is easy to fool into war... just tell they're being attacked then denounce those who speak out against it as traitors...

Pardon for the paraphrase - I was a little too lazy to look up the exact quote - but I know you know what I mean - you know?

Oh I know exactly what you mean!

"Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist distatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." HERMANN GOERING,

And it worked previously, often, here, there, then and NOW.

wrt iran.

and MSM has their "instructions" in warmaking PR.

Edited September 5, 2007 by kuzadd

AngusThermopyle · September 5, 2007

I think Bush will attack before he leaves office. This will be his last kick at the can so to speak and I don't think he'll be able to pass up the opportunity.

The scary part is that this maniac wants to use Nukes. It's almost like they're some big toy he just can't resist playing with.

Absolute total insanity.

bush_cheney2004 · September 5, 2007

I think Bush will attack before he leaves office. This will be his last kick at the can so to speak and I don't think he'll be able to pass up the opportunity.
The scary part is that this maniac wants to use Nukes. It's almost like they're some big toy he just can't resist playing with.

Absolute total insanity.

I think you are wrong on all counts. Bush has successfully navigated to concessions from the DPRK without "using Nukes", and there are several additional levels of escalation available for Iran, including Israel. He bagged Libya's program soon after invading Iraq. Sit back in the peanut gallery and watch how the game is played...."maniacs" need not apply.

AngusThermopyle · September 5, 2007

Well slap me on the ass and call me Sally!

More specious insults, what a surprise.

True the Korean situation appears to have been diffused. This situation is shaping up in a more aggressive manner however. So far Bush has been bringing up Nukes quite a bit in relation to this situation. He gives the impression of one who is eager to use them

I honestly hope you're right though. Using nukes would be absolute shear madness and would change the Earth as we know it. You can bet the other sympathetic Nuclear countries in the Middle East wouldn't hesitate to retaliate.

Worst damn weapon we ever came up with.

M.Dancer · September 5, 2007

Well slap me on the ass and call me Sally!
More specious insults, what a surprise.

True the Korean situation appears to have been diffused. This situation is shaping up in a more aggressive manner however. So far Bush has been bringing up Nukes quite a bit in relation to this situation. He gives the impression of one who is eager to use them

I honestly hope you're right though. Using nukes would be absolute shear madness and would change the Earth as we know it. You can bet the other sympathetic Nuclear countries in the Middle East wouldn't hesitate to retaliate.

Worst damn weapon we ever came up with.

3 points

1)Nukes aren't necessary to neitralize Iran

2)Any suggestion of the US using nukes is not only pure speculation, it sophomoronic phantasy.

3)The nuclear deterent kept the peace. If the litmus test of a perfect weapons system could be whether they prevented all out war or not, then thank God for the bomb.

Higgly · September 5, 2007

It's hard not to notice that Katie Couric - currently last in the news anchors ratings, and desperate as hell - is suddenly popping up in Iraq and getting a personal interview with Junior hisself. It is always refreshing of course to see Junior travel outside of the US, because you keep hoping he will actually learn something. But then, it's hard not to notice that he never seems to get off the bus and buy any trinkets. Same can be said for Katie. No wait, I think she went to Cancun once.

bush_cheney2004 · September 5, 2007

Well slap me on the ass and call me Sally!
More specious insults, what a surprise.

Always a pleasure to meet your insults, and raise by two.

True the Korean situation appears to have been diffused.

Duh!! ....the "maniac" has bagged Iraq, Libya, and now the DPRK nuke programs. Iran is next. But y'all keep that uranium on comin from Canadar, ya hear?

Higgly · September 6, 2007

Bagged Iraq?

Canadar?

I can hardly wait for him to invade Iran and take on all 70 million Iranians. Of course this should be a piece of cake after taking on all 35 million Iraqis.

You go junior.

geoffrey · September 6, 2007

Bush won't invade Iran, not a chance in hell. Iran has the world's largest military manpower, they have technology, they may have nukes. Not worth it. Blowing up some nuclear sites, on the other hand, would be completely acceptable.

buffycat · September 6, 2007

Bush won't invade Iran, not a chance in hell. Iran has the world's largest military manpower, they have technology, they may have nukes. Not worth it. Blowing up some nuclear sites, on the other hand, would be completely acceptable.

So, you think it's just fine to invade a soveriegn nation which has NOT done a bloody thing to compromise your own state's security??? So, then I take it that you would think it's fine to perhaps blow up some of the US' nuclear sites? How about one of the hundreds of bases they have worldwide?

Sickening.

kuzadd · September 6, 2007

Weekly standard, William Kristol opined on Iran.

purveyor of propaganda wrt iraq!

seller of the surge, associate of the 'think tank" AEI

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=154990

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol walked into the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) yesterday with a big grin on his face, as if to say "they're listening to me again!"

Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, Bolton and other architects of the war in Iraq may be gone, but the neoconservatives' stature inside the Bush Administration has hardly diminished. The same people that sold us the war, often under false pretenses, are now leading proponents of escalating the conflict by sending tens of thousands of additional troops.

An event at AEI yesteday brought together the intellectual progenitors of escalation: military historian Fred Kagan, retired General Jack Keane and Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. The focus was not on how to clean up the neocons mess, but on how to deepen it.

I see the PR campaign is definitely on, full force, same players , same game.

I see Fred Kagans wife is doing her part too!

moderateamericain · September 6, 2007

So, you think it's just fine to invade a soveriegn nation which has NOT done a bloody thing to compromise your own state's security??? So, then I take it that you would think it's fine to perhaps blow up some of the US' nuclear sites? How about one of the hundreds of bases they have worldwide?
Sickening.

go for it, ill be at your door within a week.

moderateamericain · September 6, 2007

Bagged Iraq?
Canadar?

I can hardly wait for him to invade Iran and take on all 70 million Iranians. Of course this should be a piece of cake after taking on all 35 million Iraqis.

You go junior.

China has the most man power. The only real advanced equipment they have are the new migs and surface to air missles. We would overrun Iran in a week. the problem is holding it.

GostHacked · September 6, 2007

China has the most man power. The only real advanced equipment they have are the new migs and surface to air missles. We would overrun Iran in a week. the problem is holding it.

Iraq is proof that the United States cannot even consider a war with Iran. Or any military action against Iran. You will need a few more surges of troops to bring it to a level where you can stage an assault on Iran. But public opinion does not matter. Even if you are an American citizen like our BushCheneysomethingorother.

Bushcheney

Duh!! ....the "maniac" has bagged Iraq, Libya, and now the DPRK nuke programs. Iran is next. But y'all keep that uranium on comin from Canadar, ya hear?

Unlike that uranium that came from Africa before the war in 2003. At least we know for a fact that the uranium. Not to mention North Korea has played the US before. This is what the third, maybe fourth time they have 'stopped' their nuclear programme?? They will get some concessions from the US, and then they will start up the project again. I thought after failing at the same thing a few times, you might change tactics. But the US just keeps going in with their idiodicy.

But over all it does seem like the same rhetoric we have seen before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Keep that industrial military complex machine greased up. The more military, the less of the real important things we need in life.

bush_cheney2004 · September 6, 2007

Bushcheney
Unlike that uranium that came from Africa before the war in 2003. At least we know for a fact that the uranium. Not to mention North Korea has played the US before. This is what the third, maybe fourth time they have 'stopped' their nuclear programme?? They will get some concessions from the US, and then they will start up the project again. I thought after failing at the same thing a few times, you might change tactics. But the US just keeps going in with their idiodicy.

Those who can do....those who can't just explain their impotence as someone else's "idiodicy" [sic].

But over all it does seem like the same rhetoric we have seen before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Keep that industrial military complex machine greased up. The more military, the less of the real important things we need in life.

True...keep that uranium coming....Australia is catching up to Canada quickly . Thanks for all the DU too! :lol:

Drea · September 7, 2007

go for it, ill be at your door within a week.

Why are you not in the Middle East then? Why are you still on this safe continent? You (tough as you are) could be over there taking out Iran all by yourself!

You go son! :lol:

Edited September 7, 2007 by Drea

geoffrey · September 7, 2007

So, you think it's just fine to invade a soveriegn nation which has NOT done a bloody thing to compromise your own state's security??? So, then I take it that you would think it's fine to perhaps blow up some of the US' nuclear sites? How about one of the hundreds of bases they have worldwide.

Iran has violated the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty of which they are a signatory. We have an obligation to the UN to force Iran to abide by it's international agreements. If that means destroying their capacity to violate the agreement, then by all means.

Iran with nukes does compromise international security.

The United States is not in violation of any nuclear arms treaty currently, so why would I object to their sites? They have actually reduced armaments over the years. Moreover, the US's possession of nuclear weapons is a major detterent threat to rogue states that would otherwise feel at ease about using weapons of mass destruction on other states or their own people.

Fortunata · September 7, 2007

Those who can do....those who can't just explain their impotence as someone else's "idiodicy" [sic].

And some who should use brains just use brawn.

bush_cheney2004 · September 7, 2007

And some who should use brains just use brawn.

Say those with only some of the former and none of the latter.

Fortunata · September 7, 2007

Say those with only some of the former and none of the latter.

Better that than none of the former and all of the latter.

bush_cheney2004 · September 7, 2007

Better that than none of the former and all of the latter.

But not better than having plenty of both.

Fortunata · September 7, 2007

But not better than having plenty of both.

It's debatable if you have both. By the look of Iraq someone had a big brain fart and the majority of the country quit thinking right along with them. That wasn't too smart. Hopefully someone's brains will kick in before bush does Iran.