Seriously, what the FUCK? These are our intelligence gatherers, the eyes and ears of our military and government… And they thought this would be a good idea? Like the Iraqis needed MORE flags to burn? You’d be able to see the flames from space! Thank goodness the military brass saw this idea as the huge mistake that it was and nixed it.
And this is the new, improved post 9/11 CIA we’re talking about. Unbelievable.
Most Iraqi’s were (and still are) happy to have Saddam be ousted by the Americans and allies. Remember the statue being taken down? It seems to me that those people would have been happy to wave American Flags if they were available.
They’re happy to be rid of Saddam, but much less happy that the Americans didn’t get the water and power for months, nor that the Americans didn’t maintain law and order. Iraqis, by and large, want us out of their country.
Wouldn’t it look just a bit suspicious to see a crowd of just-post-Saddam Iraqis waving US flags? Where would any neutral observer suspect that those flags came from? Surely, they weren’t all hiding them in their basements during the Saddam regime, waiting for US troops to arrive.
Yes, and I’ll be happy to be rid of George Bush the Lesses come January (as well as relieved that I don’t need to go to the trouble of pulling down any statues).
That doesn’t mean I want an international bully to come in and remove him “for” me.
I see that TYM has laready provided an article debunking this particular PR ploy.
What amazes me is that there are still many people like Debaser who’ve apparently swallowed the agitprop whole. True Believers who march on unperturbed by those pesky facts.
Finally someone mentions that story. There have been times when I’ve wondered whether I’m the only person on the planet who knows the truth about the statue stunt. Of course it’s incorrect to say that the press was fooled. They participated in a campaign to misinform the American public.
Color me ignorant, but I’m having a hard time figuring out why the Army would want to go out of their way to deliberately create the false impression that the occupation of Iraq was more popular with the locals than it was or is. Was this propaganda intended to be aimed at Iraqis, or Western nations, or the troops themselves? Because it seems to me that creating a misleadingly rosy picture of conditions in Iraq could only turn around and harm the troops in the long run. It isn’t as though no one thought there would be American forces on the ground after the invasion. Why would they want to fool people into thinking that things were better than they actually were? I could perhaps see other government agencies doing this sort of thing, but what advantage would the Army itself get out of such a deception? “No, there are no enemies here, they all love us, send no additional forces, please,” …seriously, what the hell?
If nothing else, such a stunt would help to sell the war to (a) the American public (remember all those anti-war protesters marching in early 2003?) and (b) the non-coalition UN members. Troop morale building and happy Iraqis are nice things, but given all the resistance the administration got before the war, tearing down Saddam’s statue would be a great “We told ya so!” to them.
You’re working on the mistaken assumption that this Administration thinks that far ahead.
I can’t see from an article published on a website if this is reliable information.
Yet I would not be surprized one second if it was reflecting the truth.
You know, there is a popular joke that circulates already as long as I remember. Whenever something gets blown up with a lot of innocent victims while the obvious “target” is miles away, people say “this must be the CIA”.
(Of course you then see a formerly completely unknown so called “Islamic terrorist gourp” claiming they did it. )
On the other hand, when something gets blown up whit eventually a lot of innocent victims but also the obvious “target” ending up dead, you know the CIA was far away and you can safely assume that it was the Mossad.
(Occasionally the blame goes to a really existing group, but that has a deeper reason)
The difference between both State Supported Terrorist Organisations is that the CIA acts from a background of what I call Western Post- colonial disease. Feelings of overall superiority feeded by overall arrogance which is the reason of the overall ignorance.
You don’t see that mindset in the Mossad. They know extremely well what they are doing and who they deal with.
To say it simple: The Mossad is the Rolex while the CIA is the worthless fake attempt to have a look-a-like.
The mere fact alone that the US took what dissidents and enemies of the Iraqi regime said for reliable truth just like it came out of their mouths, gives already enough proof of what idiots they are.
That nobody even wanted to give it a serious thought that Chalabi and the likes had everything to gain to have the US invading Iraq and hence where hardly trustworthy in their stories and “information” , would be good stuff for Comedy Capers, if the results weren’t so utterly tragic.
Salaam. A
Sorry that was a bit harsh. But frankly a bit of reading about the history of almost any conflict you’d care to mention (I find the modern stuff easier to relate to personally) will show you that this is all SOP.
I’ve never heard of the “Editor and Publisher”. Is that a reputable news source? Checking Google, I see lots of hits for left wing sites and blogs talking about this PSYOP statue story, but nothing mainstream. I’m genuinly curious to see if this is true.
If it is true, then it actually helps to prove my point. If the US military is capable of pulling off such a successful ruse, then my hat’s off to them. It proves the OP and others wrong who are suggesting that such a feat would not be possible.
Got a laugh out of me this morning.