O'Hanlon and Pollack Exposed!
Glenn Greenwald interviewed The Brookings Institutes' very own war hawk and master propagandist Michael O'Hanlon and he admitted that the military planned his whole trip and he did not reveal pertinent information in their big op-ed in the NY Times. He should have his bobble head card stripped for life. What say you, Joe Klein? Is this ethical? "Contact info is here..."
But the far greater deceit involves the trip itself and the way it was represented -- both by Pollack/O'Hanlon as well as the excited media figures who touted its significance and meaning. From beginning to end, this trip was planned, shaped and controlled by the U.S. military -- a fact inexcusably concealed in both the Op-Ed itself and virtually every interview the two of them gave. With very few exceptions, what they saw was choreographed by the U.S. military and carefully selected for them.
The entire trip -- including where they went, what they saw, and with whom they spoke -- consisted almost entirely of them faithfully following what O'Hanlon described as "the itinerary the D.O.D. developed."
But to establish their credibility as first-hand witnesses, O'Hanlon and Pollack began their Op-Ed by claiming, in the very first sentence: "VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel. . . . " Yet the overwhelming majority of these "Iraqi military and civilian personnel" were ones hand-picked for them by the U.S. military
Please read the full post. It's excellent. Bill Kristol went to Iraq at the same time for eight days also. Smell something? We're talking about war and death here. Lives are at stake and they go on an Iraq war junket to spread propaganda to the American people (sponsored by the military) and helped by articles like this one that the AP put out for the sole purpose of getting the approval ratings higher on this war in the polls (something Bush says he doesn't look at) and try to force Congress to keep funding this Middle East Neocon disaster...There is no justification for this lack of integrity. Greenwald also documents that these two fellows are no “war critics” like they’ve been portrayed in our media circus.
Historically the Pentagon has been able to control the war messaging with the help of our media so this is nothing new. Pollack/O'Hanlon are the latest willing pawns in that machine. Check out the movie "War Made Easy," to get a better handle on this immense problem.
Greg Sargent: "Iraq Travel Companion Of O'Hanlon, Pollack Reveals: I'm Much More Pessimistic About Iraq"
Correction: I removed a Gen. Odierno reference so that the focus would remain on O'Hanlon/Pollack and I already posted about him earlier.
Maybe the administration should have let the media cover the war instead of trying to manage the message.
What and do the real work of a reporter when I can just take a field trip with the guys? This is why it is so importent for the blogs to keep up the preassure on the powers that be.
Odierno comes out as an out of controll cowboy that during the 2004-2005 occupation of Iraq. According to Riggs "Fiasco"
This guy should have been court marshalled.
Lets face it.
There isn't a molecule of information out of Iraq that won't be washed
through the DoD sieve.
You shouldn't believe a goddam thing.
No Comment.
Sincerely,
The MSM
"Last week Gen. Odierno shamelessly used his son’s Iraq war injury to promote the surge on CNN."
I don't agree with that statement any more than I agree with people who say that Cindy Sheehan is using her son's death to shamlessly push her anti-war views.
These people's children are being wounded and killed over there, and whether I agree with them or not, it is not for us to say if they are using their children's injuries and deaths shamelessly or not - in my opinion anyway.
I think that this war is total shit - I have thought that since it started. I think that Mrs. Sheehan is doing what she feels is right. This guy appears to be doing what he thinks is right.
It could be because he is completely brainwashed, or maybe he's just being a good soldier, but I would doubt that he thought, "Oh, good. My son lost his arm... I should be able to use this."
Again, just my opinion... we've all got them, I guess.
Cat Paw @ 6:
He's a General. I think that should be enough if he's to be credible...
If the troop surge doesn’t work, try the bullshit surge.
John Amato @ 7:
However, I'm thinking of pulling the Odierno part of this post. I already wrote about him and I don't want to lose the focus on O'Hanlon...I'm going to make the change....
When is Travelocity going to try to convince us the surge is working?
Breaking a few minutes ago: "Three suicide bombings in a northern Iraqi town left at least 100 people dead and 150 wounded, police officials said."
I wanna laugh on these clowns but I'm too busy crying.
Hope there's a Hell to them eternally burn.
FC @ 11:
Mmm...smells like bacon (drool).
FC @ 11:
Yup outside of MOSUL. And where is the surge again? Oh yeah BAGHDAD!
FC @ 11:
More proof that "the surge is working" (Tm).
~William the Bloody Kristol
this is all part of the new "surge of information" as tony snowjob called it. bush co.'s fall p.r. rollout of their new ad campaign. reselling the same old bullshit in time for the big show by the general in september.
Pollack : "The most obvious change we saw was in the security sector, where in Northern, Central and Western Iraq, there was improvement."
Three suicide bombings today in Northern Iraq left at least 100 dead and 150 wounded.
This sounds like an improved secure Iraq to you?
Meanwhile, in breaking news coverage of the wonderful progress in Iraq:
Three suicide bombings in a northern Iraqi town left at least 100 people dead and 150 wounded, police officials said.
http://www.cnn.com/
sorry, didn't mean to be redundant..
Holy Moly Gen. Casey is saying the Army is out of balance. Gee ya think? He just got back from Iraq, too.
Their trip and report were the beginning of a surge of "we're doing better in Iraq" bs. It started there, the msm picked it up and ran with it. No one bothered to check to see if what they reported was actually true. It was to pave the way for the Sept. report.
The first day their oped was out, someone on tv, it might have been Wolf, pinned them down on the fact that the military arranged the trip. But whomever it was didn't go any farther and ask just how much of the activity was military controlled.
Pat, comment 3, I read that book and got the same impression of Odierno. He was a real asshole and seemed to me he caused more trouble than he was worth. Tough macho bastard. I was really surprised when he was put in some charge of the surge. Gen P on the other hand came off as a great guy back then and a guy with the right attitude when it came to working with the Iraqi people.
Can someone remind me the frequency of suicide bombings in Iraq prior to our invasion?
"think tank"
what an ironic name.
brookings institute has been moved into the heritage foundation/AEI/AIPAC school of propaganda spewing blow hards. congrats!!!
MSNBC is reporting 4 suicide bombings --> here
Faux isn't reporting anything....go figure.
I'm guessing troop moral is also at an all-time high:
"The announcement of the offensive came on the same day the military reported the deaths of nine more U.S. troops, five of them in a helicopter crash."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/14/iraq.main/index.html
Dr. Matt @ 21:
how frequent is 'none'?
A helicopter went down in Iraq today and five soldiers were killed. The news didn't say if it was shot down, but they never do until about two or three days after something like this happens.
For a month or so before the surge began I was keeping a list of on average how many soldiers we were losing a day. At that time the adverage was three a day. I doubt it has changed much since.
If the military were to invite someone to Iraq for an unguided tour, someone with an acute sensitivity to bullshit, someone like John Stewart, I might be prepared to listen to what he has to say. Sad isn't it , that one has to look to a fake newsman for real news cause one can't trust the DoD's handpicked meat puppets.
Dr. Matt @ 23:
Oops, broken link --> HERE.
Ken and Michael should be ashamed of themselves. They'll do anything to get a pat on the back from the Pinochetists
But my question is...."What type/kind of correction will be made and reported by the
MSM?" Will only those of us who use the Internet be aware of the distortion/lies/
deceit used in the report by O'Hanlon and Pollack? Where oh where is the media
when reports are given on national TV, and then such reports are proven erroreous
and/or misleading?
pissed off patricia @ 26:
Here is the definitive link for casualty counts:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
From top to bottom, the Bush Administration is one HUGE propaganda machine. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
The people now know that everything they hear and read on the MSM is total bullshit and no longer listen to a word of it as having any shred of credibility.
The sycophantic media whores and corporately owned white house has brought this on themselves. No one gives a flying crapola what they have to say - any of them. They're all liars, spinmeisters, sycophants, and fascists.
O'Hanlon - Pollack - Chris Matthews, yes, and even Wolf Blitzer....all of them, Bush enablers. It was their BULLSHIT sloppy reporting from Day One that led us to war and gave Bush the balls to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.
Young Mr. O'Hanlon looks about the right age to enlist. How about it, Michael, get out of your ivory tower, put on a uniform, get your ass to Iraq and get shot at for oh, say, 18 months or more. Then you'll see the real ugly truth close up.
I refuse to listen to any of them, I will not watch Mainstream Media news, it's all a load of crap. Vietnam changed me from a supporter to a skeptic
goatsage @ 31:
And the moment that this disastrous Democratic congress caved into funding this debacle for even a few months more with the caveat that it will be continued based on "progress", we knew it meant zippo.
If BushCo is determining (via his propaganda machine as was exposed with these two fools - O'Hanlon et al) the definition of "progress" when statistics are working against him, the only thing left for him to do is to attempt to change reality. And this he has done (or attempted to do) using these two whoremongering morons.
Mike @ 33:
Aren't there laws in this country about truth in reporting?? A journalist's code of ethics at the very least but probably even laws regarding the public airing of intentionally false information??
I think it's time for the people to call for the resignations of these liars - O'Hanlon et al, Matthews, and all of the Fox News parasites who are corrupting the consciousness of america with their delusions and lies.
Beautiful post from DanJoaquinOz....
Very insightful....
Thank so much for that link, Goatsage. I bookmarked it. Looks to me like the average has stayed about the same.
What are those laws which have to with journalists lying and presenting lies to the people as truth? It's time for the people to demand that these journalists be investigated.
Bill Moyers had a wonderful piece recently on how the Bush media "hyped" the lies and spin which altered people's minds regarding the walk up to the war....isn't that enough for people to realize that they need to be held accountable for what the say?
Dr. Matt @ 28:
But the corner we turn tomorrow will prove the insurgency is in it's last throes!
IM-FUCKING-PEACH ALREADY!!!
veritas, Fox news was recently in a law suit here in Florida regarding whether or not all their news must be factual. The court ruled for them under freedom of the press. So according to that outcome, the press is free to print whatever it wants, facts aren't required. I may not have the wording exactly correct, but the outcome was as I have stated.
Faux latest breaking news:
"Inmate Sues Vick for
$63,000,000,000 Billion'Bizarre lawsuit alleges embattled NFL star stole, sold pit bulls to get 'money to buy missiles from Iran'"
Obviously there's no out-of-control blod starlet available at the moment...
Hope they'll burn twice...
It's pretty clear to me what happened, although no one will ever admit to it. The White House and/or the Pentagon decided they needed a PR boost for the Surge, so they contacted the deep-pockets pro-Israeli hawk mentioned in Greenwald's piece -- the guy who funds the Brookings 'scholar' position held by O'Hanlon. They told him what they needed -- an ostensibly neutral observer to write something that would tip the debate in their favor. So this guy called O'Hanlon and told him what was required: a strongly pro-Surge piece that's pitched like it's coming from someone who just had to admit, god-darn-it, that facts is facts, and this thing looks like it's finally working!
Did the WH/Pentagon also manipulate the editors at all those news outlets into aiding and abetting in this fraud by agreeing to present these two as former critics of the war and also not to ask about about who organized their trip to Iraq and who they actually spoke to? Who knows. But I wouldn't put it past them to try, nor past the news organizations to play along. It's a filthy, filthy industry.
FC @ 41:
Faux really goes out of their way to report "real news".
O'H and P got a carefully staged 8-day Iraq junket from the Pentagon? What a coincidence that 8 days is how long Kristol said on The Daily Show that *his* Iraq visit was. They got pretty much identically patterned junkets, right? I thought so.
BTW, I don't recall Kristol mentioning who took care of all the details on his 8-day Iraq trip. Hmmm.
I think GG did a fabulous job on this from the start. I read his interview and it was a masterpiece of cross examination.
I have emailed the public editor of the Times and copied GG on it to follow up on this issue.
All that said, the one thing I think GG is overreacting on is the idea that we should be shocked to learn that the military ran the trip in Iraq and arranged the interviews. I mean, come on. Did anyone read the op-ed and seriously think these guys just flew in civilian and hit the streets? It was obvious from the op-ed itself or from watching any other "visit to Iraq" footage that that is the standard oprating procedure.
pissed off patricia- make sure and click the time period '6' in the top left-hand chart, it provides a day by day casualty count since the "surge" began.
http://icasualties.org/oif/SumDetails.aspx?hndRef=6
Blah, blah blah.
Now, on to the important news of the day. Here's the latest on Paris and Britney and Lindsay.
Ooh, doesn't Katie Couric have a perky little smile when shes reading the teleprompter.
And look over there....it's Brangelina!
Xerxes @ 44:
The equally sad part is that NO ONE from the MSM asked either Kristol or O'Hanlon as to
who funded their visits, who sent them,exactly where they were in Iraq, etc,ect. so just
another example of what a piss poor job the media is doing...and even sounds as if they
(MSM) are in cohoots with this admin. is "selling" bad info. that surge is working. Slime
How much and by whom were O'Hanlon/Pollack paid to shill their piece of propaganda bullshit?
Guess bush got tired of catapulting the propaganda so they so much as hired these guys to do it.
I suppose a certain amount of that goes on during any war but this one has had more than it's share. If it weren't for our ability to read news sites all over the world, we wouldn't have a clue about what the hell is really going on.
pissed off patricia @ 50:
That's for damn sure, for "our" wonderful MSM is NOT the source to go to in order to
obtain the truth and factual info.
CruzBustamove @ 49:
Probably unknown at to "how much and by whom"...probably is classified for "national
security" reason...You know, the Pentagon was involved, so it was a secret mission.
jr @ 29:
Did anyone hear about the radio interview O'Hanlon gave today? He trashes Glenn in it. Atrios has all the details.
How does O'Hanlon sleep knowing his propaganda keeps soliders dying in Iraq. There is blood on your hands -- and on the fingertips you used to type up your Bill Kristol-dictated piece, O'Shamlon!
I honestly had to keep checking the graphics on the bottom of that video to confirm that it wasn't Fox News. That was blatant propaganda-- CNN used to be a little more slick with that sort of thing. They've become a blunt instrument like Fox.
I'd love to know who made the calls that initiated the process of getting this specific piece on the air. It just reeks of the Bush Administration.
Looks to me like they have sacrificed the most important thing a reporter owns--his credibility. Beyond a sincere, detailed [ie. who encouraged and financed them] apology, I hope that the NY Times will take a hard line on this, or it will continue to lose it's own credibility.
[Deleted. Off topic]
For those interested in a psychological analysis of the warmongering that has brought us to this point, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.
Conviction is the road to reality and repentance. It is never late for O'Hanlon to correct his path for the good of the society. LOL
Kristol is an international elitist!
Kristol sat there on The Daily Show and outright lied to Jon about how "great" things are in Iraq. I love Jon Stewart, but don't understand why he gives these neo-cons the time of day. IMO, he did nothing to refute what Kristol was saying.
I heard the NPR interview with O'Hanlon, Cordesman and a Stanford Professor. O'Hanlon was about to wet his pants over Glenn Greewald and "that kind of journalism." I just sent O'Hanlon an e-mail and told him to go Cheney himself.
How is the Dept. of Defense convincing a German newspaper to write about successes in Iraq?
Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq
By Ullrich Fichtner in Iraq
Spiegel Online
When describing Iraq, the word "peace" is seldom used. Truth be told, the Americans have restored order to many parts of the county.
"The US military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe."
Reporter Ullrich Fichtner, 42, and photographer Tina Hager, 43, spent three weeks in Iraq researching the current SPIEGEL cover story. For Fichtner, it was his fourth trip to Iraq since the war broke out in March 2003
Please, please don't tell Laura Ingrahm about this. She ain't goin to like it.
It's Cheney on Meet The Press all over again.
Here's Cheney on Larry King a few nights ago:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/31/lkl.01.html
He's citing a story planted in the NY Times. This is exactly what Cheney did with Tim Russet when he was selling the war and pushing Aluminum tubes. And like Russert, King did not ask about the source at all.
Greenwald deserves a medal for his doggedness.
dennis @ 62:
I am certainly not in a position to question the accuracy or truthfulness of the article
written by the two German jounalist's report concerning their recent visit to Ramadi
nor do I know where Fichtner was "assigned" during his previous three trips to Iraq,
however, two points: I truly hope that such report is true, for Ramadi was, not that
long ago, one of the worst "killing fields" in entire Iraq...and tho this report indicates
great progress in that particular city, I am very suspect and apprehensive that the
same "peacefullness" is not evident and occurring in other large cities throughout that
country. I can point you to many, many other journalist who have visited various
regions of Iraq within the last 7 months, and unfortunately their reports seem to
indicate that the surge is not having much of an affect on the lives and living conditions
of the natives...in fact, much of the interfracture has been destroyed and conditions
are much, much worse than even when Sadahm H. was in power. So, "some good news"
is great, but for anyone who believes that the situtation in Iraq is improving, is just
not facing reality..and I suspect that they may even get worse.
This unethical trip sounds like something Faux Noise paid for.
Pollack & O’Hanlon need to quit blowing each other!!!!
The tragedy of this is that Pollack and O'Handjob are willing shills for this administration and they give President Fucktard and his crew cover...just like Louserman...to say "see! there are 'liberals' who agree with us!"
Kristol was on the Daily Show trying to do a little soft-shoe tap dance by playing up O'Hanlon's article to Jon Stewart. I think that was the strategy all along -- send Kristol to guide a couple of lap dog reporters whom they could portray as critical of the war.
The corporate whore media is a disgrace and should apologize.
I noticed they have not had any reports on Iraq lately until today.
Hey, the food must have been great in the Green Zone!! All the free Burger King you want, and if you want to try some of that crazy local cuisine, they got free hummus flown in from Trader Joe's!!!!!
Face it, O'Hanlon was gangbanged by Administration.
This is nothing short of those ridiculous florida condo ploys where they give you free airfare, lots of food vouchers, and fantastic tours of the facilities, only to sell you a piece of crap fourth floor walkup with a swamp view after you made your final payment.
Buyers beware.... I think I smell the stench of shit stained panic coming from their shorts.
Maybe US weekly is hiring.
Doggiebobo @ 48:
That's why I listen to C-Span. Some guy from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (a zionist neocon "non-partisan think tank") was giving his rosy picture of the surge and the war overall and C-Span kept reminding us of his name and that he was speaking about his "GOV'T sponsored trip to Iraq".
Arroyo @ 73:
You make it sound like he was a victim, like he was duped. Not true. The two of them were for this war all along, I heard they even wrote a book supporting it. The slide of hand trick is they have been critical of "the administration's handling of the war". This is how the hawks are trying to muddy the waters. Bill Kristol, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman all have been critics of how the war was handled. That doesn't make them war critics. This is code talk for "give them another shot, they screwed up before but they told us they'd get it right this time", all while innocent Iraqi's and soldiers are being slained.
They tried to make these guys look like advocates for ending the war who have been converted to the dark side. Lying is the cash crop of the Washington beltway.
This keeps happening because we allow them to get away with the wrong criteria. What is necessary is for the Iraqis to find ways of compromising and living together but there is not the slightest sign that they are trying. Why don't we emphasize this, again and again? For further discussion see my blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
These guys are a "set-up" for guys like Limbaugh and Kristol, to go on the talk-show circuit and say, "EVEN O’Hanlon and Pollack are on Bush's side with the Iraq War". It was all the usual infomercial setup. These 2 guys agreed with Bush BEFORE the Iraq War! The CMSM, Limbaugh, Kristol, etc...continually say they "changed their minds and now agree with Bush."
FALSE! But well-played!!!!!!!!!
These guys were on "On Point With Tom Ashbrooke" yesterday to defend themselves. They also had a few choice things to say about Mr Greenwald. You can listen at www.onpointradio.org. If you don't listen to the show, I highly recommend it.
O’Hanlon and Pollack Exposed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85krLPrWWTY
EZ @ 57:
Is your last name Wider?
BWAHAHAHAAH! The liberal media takes another one in the ass!
Little is mentioned of Bagman Puloka CIA agent--try reading this excerpt--
*************************************************************
Pollack, a former CIA analyst now at the Brookings Institution, rose to prominence in 2002 for his acclaimed book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. The book was widely hailed as a balanced, reasoned and well-documented polemic against allowing a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein to remain in power in Iraq. It was also catastrophically wrong.
As everyone now knows, Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and certainly not the nuclear capabilities that would have warranted a pre-emptive invasion. Pollack has spent most of the past year apologizing for his part in this colossal miscalculation. "I made a mistake based on faulty intelligence," he recently confessed to The New York Times Magazine. "Of course, I feel guilty about it. I feel awful...I'm sorry; I'm sorry!" Pollack now admits that prewar intelligence was severely hampered by a lack of physical access to and direct knowledge of Iraq on the part of military analysts like himself. All the more dismaying, then, to find the same fatuous intelligence that made Iraq such a mess underlying his analysis of Iran.
Despite never having been to Iran, never reading the Iranian press, never consulting with any Iranian government officials or policy-makers, knowing no Persian and only "dribs and drabs" of Arabic, and viewing Iranian policy solely "through the eyes of America's intelligence and defense communities," Pollack has devised what he believes should be the blueprint for US-Iran relations. Of course, such limitations do not necessarily preclude an intelligent and capable analyst like Pollack from making certain astute observations about Iran. But, by his own admission, any viable analysis of Iran requires both a mastery of Iranian history and an intimate awareness of Iranian culture, neither of which is evinced by The Persian Puzzle.
In truth, Pollack's book is less analysis than psychoanalysis. He begins it by casting the United States and Iran as "former lovers who went through a messy divorce" and concludes with the assertion that until Iran comes to grips with its "emotional baggage" and its "unresolved pathologies," it is simply not "psychologically ready" to have a "meaningful relationship with the United States."
In Pollack's narrative, the two countries first met in the dark and heady days at the end of World War II. At the time, Iran was a wracked and weary nation reeling from a colonial ménage à trois it had stumbled into with the British and Russians, while the United States--rugged, buoyant and flushed with victory--was only just beginning to sow its oats as a virile superpower. Aghast at the "imperial ambitions" of its wartime allies and supposedly motivated solely by its desire to see an "independent, stable, and prosperous Iran," the United States grudgingly asserted itself in Iranian affairs to free the country from the iron grip of Stalinism and to temper the rapacious greed of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Yet, having come to Iran's rescue, the United States suddenly found itself shackled with a frail and emotionally needy country that viewed itself as "the center of the universe" and cleaved to its new benefactor as though America were a savior with the ability to control its destiny.
At first, the United States tried to live up to the responsibilities of its new affaire de guerre by funneling money and resources into Iran. But this only "whetted Iranian appetites for more, and when it was not forthcoming they felt betrayed." Unhinged at the thought of sharing America's attention with the younger, budding nations of Europe and East Asia, Iran grew enraged and, like a jilted lover, lashed out at the United States for failing to live up to Iran's unreasonable expectations.
This, then, is what Pollack believes is the recurrent theme that runs through the history of US-Iran relations. Time after time, the United States has sought to push "political, economic, and social reform" by interfering in Iranian affairs. And yet, despite "America's good intentions," it has received "little credit from the Iranian people" for its efforts, only anger and blame. Perhaps there were times when American interference was carried out "in very unpopular ways," but in Pollack's view the extent of that interference has been "wildly exaggerated by Iranians."
Take, for example, the 1953 CIA-engineered coup that reinstalled Muhammad Reza Shah after he had been ousted in a popular revolution led by the nationalist forces of Muhammad Mossadegh. In Pollack's version of events, the CIA did not so much orchestrate the putsch as intensify "trends already under way." Pollack argues that Mossadegh's "undemocratic actions" had "effectively made [him] dictator of Iran" (an appellation he never applies to the Shah, the actual dictator of Iran), thereby eroding his support among the masses and making his political demise inevitable.--....on and on.
*****************************************************************
I wonder why New York Times puts up with these creeps ? Just maybe NYTs is a CIA media network !
Comments are closed on this entry