Need proof of the diet of shit you are being fed, Amurka?!
Take a look-see. The Pentagon admits it shovel shit.
"U.S. Ponders War Message, and How Best to Deliver It" by THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — When Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, visited Iraq in late summer for a firsthand view of the war, she was greeted by American soldiers and Iraqi officials who seemed to know a lot about her.
What they knew, though, came from a biography compiled by military strategic communications officers and distributed before her meetings.
The selection of information in the handout highlighted her critical remarks about the administration’s war strategy, which she had called a failure, but did not mention her sponsorship of legislation requiring more time at home for combat troops or her support of financing for armored vehicles and upgraded flak jackets.
An angry Ms. Tauscher characterized the document as “an attempt to frame my stance as someone opposed to the war, hence opposed to the troops,” which, she said, left her “feeling slimed.”
The episode is part of a complex debate now under way within the State Department and Pentagon about how to shape and transmit their messages — internally, to their own personnel, to the nation at large and overseas during a time of war.
And the topic will be on the agenda on Thursday when the House Armed Services subcommittee on terrorism and unconventional threats convenes to examine what are termed “strategic communications” and how to counter ideological support for terrorism.
Ms. Tauscher’s complaints about the episode have been answered. The Pentagon wrote to her on Nov. 7 with a pledge from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top Iraq commander, that future biographies of visiting legislators would be taken only from the members’ official Web sites or from Congressional Quarterly, a private publication, and that quotations would not be picked and chosen.
But the issue of the potential mischaracterization of a legislator’s views, possibly for politicized reasons, is only one part of the debate over the government’s information and public affairs programs. Some of those involved in the debate say there are broader international implications. “Our credibility is at stake,” said Representative Adam Smith, the Washington Democrat who serves as the subcommittee chairman. “If people think they are being manipulated, or if we are delivering a dishonest message, it can undermine the ability of the State Department or the military to carry out the mission.”
“If you go back to the cold war, we had a military buildup, but strategic communications was also a central part of our battle against Communism,” Mr. Smith said. “We have to get that same sense of importance in the current conflict.”
The questions have lingered since the Pentagon five years ago shut down its Office of Strategic Influence over concerns that its behind-the-scenes efforts to shape public sentiment in wartime might undermine the military’s credibility.
There is no disagreement that extremist and terrorist ideology is spread over the Internet and by videos with far more agility than either the administration or the military has mustered. The debate is over what to do.
A study addressing that question is being prepared for release by the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel at the Defense Department. The study, titled “Strategic Communication,” calls for restructuring how the government organizes and disseminates the nation’s messages.
A set of briefing slides that accompanies the study includes a recommendation to consolidate the government’s various efforts by appointing a deputy national security adviser who would serve as assistant to the president for strategic communication. It also urges creating a permanent deputy under secretary of defense for policy in charge of strategic communication.
That issue has divided the Defense Department, roughly between civilian and military officials involved in traditional public affairs functions on one side and officials in the Pentagon’s policy organization on the other.
Within the office of the undersecretary of defense for policy, some officials argue that they should be given the responsibility to define objectives of strategic communications and coordinate themes.
The goal is creating what those officials call “a single core message” to be transmitted using “the full use of traditional and new media to counter ideological support for terrorism.”
Supporters of that view say responsibility for those efforts should be placed under what they envision as a Pentagon office of “Support for Public Diplomacy.”
This whole article is garbage! The OSI obviously never went away.
It's RIGHT FUCKING HERE!
TIRED of the SHIT FUCKING LIES, you stinkhole mass-murdering military and government!
Also see:
Lincoln Group
OSI and "Al-CIA-Duh"
Operation Mockingbird
That's it for today.
There is a lot more I could do out of the Zionist-controlled War Dailies, but I'm sick of the fucking lies!
Why should I go on with the shit MSM when all they print is NaZionist fed shit lies, huh?
FUCK THEM!!!!!!!!!
REALLY SICK of the GOD-DAMNED STINK FUCKING LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
