They current administration has been lying since before they got in office, why should we believe them? Just because a little more than 1/2 the country believes gays, guns, and god are the only important things doesn't mean the rest of us can't think.

Maybe what is important are the questions not being asked:
Who is guarding the oil pipeline?
Who do they work for?
Who actually pays them, i.e. where does this money come from?
Why are these people better payed, better equipted, better just about every thing than our countries military?
Was it our military that allowed them to be put in place i.e. would they be able to be in Iraq without "Shock and Awe"?
If one can honestly answer these questions, if only to ones self, then you know why we're in Iraq.
Is this reason enough?
One last note- I realise much has been made of "short term" profits made by certain parties, but this is not a short term deal-I believe these parties are in Iraq for the long run.

Madmatt, do you have something to contribute besides slander?

Fatima, we're slow. You'll have to explain your conspiracy theories in more detail please. Vatican? Big Oil? The Queen of England? The Joos?

Robin -

What on earth do the queen of England, the Vatican,or what was know as "big oil" have to do what what I asked?
And just what are joo's?
Do you mean Jew's?
I am one, no don't think we or Israel has much to do with this.
Can you answer the questions?
With out resorting to silly conspirecy theories?
Apparently not.

What's being proposed is rather clearly prohibited by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948.

Fatima, I'm just trying to narrow down the list of those you are trying to accuse.

Frankly, I can't figure out what your argument is. Although references to "shock and awe" make me wonder what it is you think you know. The term "shock and awe" seems to get people excited for reasons that are quite baffling since the Pentagon used the term mostly as a psychological propaganda tool to frighten the Iraqi military into fearing a high intensity air campaign targeting them. The anti-war crowd spent a lot of time misrepresenting that with vague claims of civilian targeted carpet bombing. Most of them have abandoned the theme given that it is rather obvious that the air campaign in 2003 was more limited and focused than even the '91 Gulf War.

As for your comments about private security forces in Iraq, possibly Kos is interested.

The author, Donald Sensing writes, "I think the administration should begin immediately a vigorous domestic-information program...."

Mr. Sensing forgets that this is a violation of federal law, to produce propaganda outside the control of the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration already got caught doing this by the GAO in January of 2005 lobbying against Medicare.

Sorry Mr. Sensing, but George W. Bush will just have to continue to push his "mission creep" twisted logic on his own, to define why American soldiers are getting killed in Iraq.

Apparently you didn't read the rest of Rev. Sensing's post, Kathy, 'cause he goes on to say this:

Commercial ads are openly propagandistic, of course, and no government information agency should engage in propaganda. It's true that in World War II the US government engaged in domestic propaganda but today is a different era. Unlike then, the government today cannot manage information on a macro scale. There are too many observers, too many writers, too many information channels and too many cameras. If the government tries to mislead or cover up its success will be only temporary. The truth will always out and do so much faster than ever before.

Also, you said this:

Sorry Mr. Sensing, but George W. Bush will just have to continue to push his "mission creep" twisted logic on his own, to define why American soldiers are getting killed in Iraq.

Sounds like you're just twisting words to fit your own view.

"Bush, exactly like LBJ, is pushing too many priorities and will not sacrifice any. Hence the message muddle and "hit and run" efforts on each front."

We don't need an information policy. We need new leadership. Bush hasn't provided it because he is not a leader. He has no "public voice" because he has no "public vision", i.e., he has the same problem as his father - it's the vision thing.

Check out what David Frum and his readers say on this subject here:

http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/08232005.asp#073900

"... the biggest megaphone in the country belongs to President Bush - and much depends on whether he uses it well or badly.

He is using it very badly indeed.

Let me mention just one single but maybe decisive problem. Again and again during the Bush presidency - and yesterday most recently - the president will agree to give what is advertised in advance as a major speech. An important venue will be chosen. A crowd of thousands will be gathered. The networks will all be invited. And after these elaborate preparations, the president says ... nothing that he has not said a hundred times before.

If a president continues to do that, he is himself teaching the public and the media to ignore him - especially when the words seem (as his speech yesterday to the VFW seemed) utterly to ignore the past three months of real-world events ..."

How is this not government-produced propaganda? Haven't we had enough of that with the fake news stories and paid pundits? I suppose you are suggesting something more...honest?

I think this is inspired by the misconception that the turning tide of public opinion is due to a "communications" problem. This is not the case. The reason behind the public's shift is (a) the administration has been steadily losing credibility and (b) the prospects for Iraq don't look very good to the objective observer. The loss of credibility has been fed by the following events:

- fake news reports and punditry exposed
- no Iraqi WMD's
- no one held accountable for intelligence failures
- the case for WMD's (especially nukes) in Iraq was obviously overhyped
- Joe & Valerie Wilson
- Cindy Sheehan
- repeatedly unfounded claims of progress in Iraq
- promises of swift success that proved false
- the inability of the Bush administration to admit ever making a mistake

As for the bad prospects in Iraq, the reasons for this are so obvious that I shouldn't have to mention them. But at the heart of it is the fact that the differences between the three major ethnic groups may be nearly impossible to reconcile and the insurgency has become quite entrenched.

So what would this Wartime Information Program tell us that would change our minds on these issues? Would people even listen to such an obvious shill? Besides, I think such a program already exists...it's called Fox News.

If we wanted to actually make headway in the war on terror (or the struggle against radical islamic violence) why don't we as a nation make some sacrifices that don't involve feeding the military/industrial complex. If we instituted fuel rationing to cut our import needs, the economic consequences would solve most of the terrorist problems. Why are we sucking at the tit of those who would destroy us.

However, such an act would take some true guts and leadership--something that this administration is fatally lacking.

Some Fella, actually there is a communication problem and you typify it. Your list of "reasons" why the administration is "losing credibility" are themselves misrepresentations of the events you purport have caused this.

Everytime Bush or Rumsfeld speak, they energize the looney left. Bush remains quiet, and even Juan Cole has to start arguing for "not pulling out the troops". The daily "good news" from Iraq isn't enough to create an event.

People like events, Reagan was a monster, until their was footage of people with hammers tearing down the Berlin Wall. Every couple of weeks, there are announcements that this street in Baghdad has been handed over to Iraqi security, that street is now a joint patrol etc. etc. etc.
Bush commenting on them cheapens his voice.

Public opinion will change...when all of Baghdad is handed over to Iraqi control. It will be an event, it will be a MAJOR event.

Whether that happens in October or April is anyone's guess. The ISF has the numbers of troops to do it, the question is really how much more practice and training will they need. A referendum in October and an Election in December should be a pretty good test.

Robin, you're not exactly helping the "problem". If I'm misinformed, go ahead and explain. Why wait for government to do what private citizens can do on their own? Surely a fan of this administration isn't going to wait around for the government to solve all their problems...

In all seriousness, tell me what I'm wrong about. Don't bother with Wilson and Sheehan because I'm sure we could debate those all week, so what's the point? But the others, I'd be really curious to hear an attempt to refute those.

i remember Viet Nam, and Nixons speeches. Now VN didnt end too well, but at least you got the idea that Nixon KNEW where, say Hue was, relative to Saigon. why he wanted Parrots Beak cleared out, etc, etc. Whether he was telling the truth or not.

Soldiers dad mentions turning over Baghdad to the Iraqis. Very good. But folks here who read blogs know that the Haifa Street district, parts of Diyala, etc are ALREADY in the hands of Iraqi forces. But most people dont read blogs, or listen to DoD press conferences. They WILL listen to the President. Why doenst Dubya sit there with a MAP, with some DETAILED explanation of whats going on, and why. Both to convince, but even more, to show HE knows whats going on.

liberalhawk asks:

"Why doenst Dubya sit there with a MAP, with some DETAILED explanation of whats going on, and why."

Do you think he really knows these details? I'll betcha he delegates that sort of thing. Bush jr. aint no Nixon. For Bush to do that sort of thing would be, let's face it, unprecedented for this administration.

John Burgess in comment 5 says, "What's being proposed is rather clearly prohibited by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948."

But this act does not apply to my proposal.

The act to which John refers is officially titled the "United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948". Its full text is here.

The act is very specifically written to govern the role of the US State Department in disseminating information about the United States to foreign audiences:

The Congress hereby declares that the objectives of this Act are to enable the Government of the United States to promote a better understanding of the United States in other countries, and to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries. Among the means to be used in achieving these objectives are

(1) an information service to disseminate abroad information about the United States, its people and policies promulgated by the Congress, the President, the Secretary of State and other responsible officials of Government having to do with matters affecting foreign affairs;

(2) an educational exchange service... .

Far from prohibiting the release of such information to the American public, the act actually specifically requires it in Section 501:

Any such press release or radio script, on request, shall be available in the English language at the Department of State at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations [italics added], and, on request, shall be made available to Members of Congress.

To make the information available to the American media is the same as releasing it to the general public. Furthermore, my proposal specifically stated that the JIO would use information already being produced by the various executive departments and already being released by them. As well, the Smith-Mundt Act is concerned exclusively with State Dept. information programs for foreign audiences, while my proposal is concerned with an information program for a domestic audience, not produced by State or any other existing executive department.

I also recognize that the president can't simply create a JIO out of thin air. Congress would have to authorize it in any event, even if only to allocate funding. What Congress can legislate in it can legislate out; the Congress is not bound by its own precedents or preceding legislation. That a JIO would come under appropriate Congressional oversight would only be right and proper, just as every other executive department and agency does.

Donald, I was going to say something but I figured the post was a troll. Still, it did get me checking wikipedia.

Some Fella,

Robin's point is that your list of events - which include points that have been debated and thoroughly covered since the war began - has nothing to do with Bush's lack of incessant pep talks.

Besides, the pro-war side's continuous back-and-forward push with the anti-war side won't do anything to change minds that have been already been set on how they think the war's going. A frequent "fireside chat" from the President on the events in Iraq would convince people of Bush's sincerity and resolve and buck up his base of war supporters and the American public at large. Or it would convince his critics that his "war for oil" or whatever is still going.

I agree with Donald that the administration is doing a woeful job with projecting a message -- both at home and abroad.

One of the many things we should have taken into Iraq in 2003 was a cadre of Iraqi-Americans who had been trained in television journalism, to set up a studio that would broadcast news, information, and entertainment to the people of Iraq. Not as American propagandists, but as cultural bridge-builders who could put to the people the points of what America was doing in their country, and what it meant to them.

There's a model for what the administration could be doing. It's also an anti-model, at the same time. I wrote about it here.

RG,

I disagree with your point, and with your characterization of Robin's point. He said:

"Your list of "reasons" why the administration is "losing credibility" are themselves misrepresentations of the events you purport have caused this."

In other words, my "reasons" are "wrong". He's not saying that my point doesn't apply (correct me if I'm wrong, Robin). That's what YOU are saying.

And my point DOES apply. What I'm saying is that no matter how many "pep talks" come out of Bush's mouth, he has a credibility problem that will render them DOA. A lot of people just don't trust the president anymore. I can go out and find the link if you aren't familiar, but recently, for the first time in this presidency, more people have come to believe that Bush is dishonest.

That is a big reason why public support for Iraq, and the administration, is waning. And that is why people are not going to be receptive to an "information program" (or pep talks, for that matter).

If my points are wrong, then this distrust is not well-founded. Thus my request for an attempt at refutation rather than Robin's plain disagreement. But with all due respect, I think you are the one who's missing the point here.

Donald - Your denials not withstanding, it sounds like you are advocating a Ministry of Propaganda. Worse than that, you are calling for selling this war as one would market any other consumer product.

Look, what's wrong with the Iraq war is NOT that we haven't received enough propaganda and positive spin about it. Fox News blares 24/7 pro-war, pro-administration, pro-fear fare. Ditto the adminsitration's vast network of ditto-head talk radio. Add to that the fake "news" segments produced by the Administration and distributed to gulliable local networks, and the fake "reporters" they allowed into the white press room to toss soft balls at Bush.

The problem with this war in Iraq is that it is a bloody debacle based on lies that has turned into the best anti-American recruiting tool Osama could ever hope for, ruined our standing in the world, severely limited our options in combatting real threats, and bankrupted our future. Ain't no positive spin, or fancy marketing, or Fox News propaganda going to be able to change that.

Nope, Some Fella, I think it's you who's missing the point.

"Your list of 'reasons' why the administration is 'losing credibility' are themselves misrepresentations of the events you purport have caused this."

The words "misrepresentations" and "purport" seem to have flown right over your head. And two, your argument is hinged on Bush's credibility, which, for you, especially if you oppose the war and our current efforts in Iraq, is the central problem. And since you focus more on the president's credibility than on his efforts to keep the public's attention focused on what is important in Iraq, you have deviated entirely from the problem of communicating our successes in Iraq to America that is the point of this post.

Thus, my disagreement with your list and the way you replied to Robin.

Quick Aaron, point out one war sucesfully fought by a democratic power that was not sold or marketed.

Actually, all the questions raised have easy answers.

First, Bush has poor speaking skills. His verbal affect strongly indicates that he isn't a bright person. Short sentences, short words, simple thoughts. And even these often contain howlers (e.g., misunderestimated, suiciders, "our enemies never stop thinking about how to harm us, and neither do we," etc.).

Then there's the personality problem. He isn't likeable. The beady eyes, the quickness to anger, the reflexive decision-making - with Bush, you hope you get lucky because he's guessing right, but even the most die-hard, avid Republican booster can't with a straight face assert that our president makes wise and reasoned decisions. He doesn't work that way.

Put all this on top of his track record and you start to feel like this isn't someone you'd let drive your car, let alone run your country. It's a leadership problem. Imagine you were with a group of lost people in the wilderness and Bush stood up and said, "Hey everybody, I've got an idea, follow me!" He'd be walking off alone.

Oh, and per this blog entry, can we please knock off the "blood and treasure" meme? It isn't "our blood," it's the lives of our soldiers. And it isn't "treasure" fergawdsake - that sounds like gold and jewels spilling out of some pirate's steamer trunk. It's our tax dollars.

Whenever the shit sandwiches fail to sell, you can be sure someone will say the solution is better shit sandwich marketing.

RG,

I'm not going to parse Robin's words anymore; I stand by my interpretation, and I am open to his correction of that.

However, what I will do is explain the relevance of my point. I think Aaron said it better and more concisely than I did. The problem is NOT that the administration is not getting out the message of its successes. The problem is that the public doesn't believe the message. That's where credibility comes in.

You think that the message isn't getting out there, so does Mr. Sensing. This is not what I see. There has been a constant drumbeat of optimism, milestones of supposed progress. Do you have some secret information about Iraq's progress? Please share it. Ultimately, I'd trust it more from some guy I read in a blog comment than the president. Do you see how credibility is an issue here? Whatever you think of my opinion, the polls say I'm not alone.

Now, if the president wanted to rally the commitment of Americans, the best course is actually exactly the opposite of what this post suggested. In other words, an acknowledgement of the difficulties, setbacks and mistakes would do a lot to restore the confidence of the American public. Triumphant statements of round-the-corner victory are a big part of the credibility gap. The public wants to see a president who is connected with reality and being honest about it. If the administration trusted the public to be able to handle the raw truth, then the public would be apt to return the trust.

I know this advice will never be followed. To this administration, admitting error is tantamount to doubt, which is another name for weakness.

Now, do you see how the president's credibility is important to his ability to communicate his successes? If not, I honestly don't think I can be more clear. Just because you disagree with my premises doesn't mean my point is tangental.

Some Fella,

your facts are not the reason why propaganda doesn't help anymore. The real reasons why are
a) Americans die in Iraq.
b) Americans don't really care about arabs.
c) The new Iraqi goverment are a bunch of fundamentalist muslims.

a,

I agree those are generally true, but I don't understand how they invalidate propaganda.

Quick, PD Shaw, name one selling point about this war that will make the overall reality of it disappear.

Yep, reality is a real b*tch. It always trumps smooth marketing.

President Bush gives speeches, and radio addresses all the time about Iraq, and the War on Terror.

But at most we see a few odd snippets of these here and there in the media.

President Bush has given prime time press conferences that weren't broadcast because the networds didn't think they were important enough.

So, even if the President makes a greater effort at getting the message out, what makes anyone think that the media will pick it up and broadcast it as delivered. And not manage to mischaracterize it and butcher the meaning.

RG.

I think Robin's refusal to support her own comment should have clued you in here.

And frankly, anyone perusing the WOC comment thread and not coming to the conclusion that Robin is purely a drive by commenter is not paying much attention.

I seriously doubt that any minds will be changed, or any new thoughts hatched, but give a lot of WOC commentors and posters credit (?) for staying intractably pro-war, no matter what happens. It’d be as if massive stockpiles of WMD were found being loaded onto bombers the day we invaded, and then Iraq spontaneously erupted into a libertarian utopia and I were standing here waving my finger in the air, shouting, “It still wasn’t worth it!”

NOTE - I shamelessly have stolen and altered the above quote from Unqualified Offerings

Some Fella,
Some examples of your misrepresentations:
" Joe & Valerie Wilson"
It is the Wilson's who have no credibility after the 9/11 Commission showed that Joe Wilson's claims were false.

"- Cindy Sheehan"
The idea that a woman repeating the most ludicrous of the far Left canards attacks the President's credibility is simply hilarious.

"- repeatedly unfounded claims of progress in Iraq"

Elections and now a draft Constitution. It is your claim that is false.

"- promises of swift success that proved false
Your claim of promises is itself simply false.

Davebo,
Grow up. People don't post at your command.

JC -

And I'll grant similarly bemused credit to opponents of the war - who, having decided a long time ago that it was going to be a bad idea, have no interest in looking at any other point of view.

But I do appreciate that you stick around, even if it just means we all keep having the same debate. It would be nice to get past it somehow, and on to some new ones.

A.L.

Robin,

Thanks for finally responding. I think this settles RG's comments...you disagree, you aren't saying I'm off topic. Not that I really needed the affirmation...

Well, we could really go days and days over these points. Thus, I'll try to keep my responses short yet meaningful.

- The Wilsons

What was untrue? That he went to Niger and found out that uranium was not purchased? More evidence that the case for Iraqi nukes was a complete fabrication.

- Sheehan

You may feel that way, but it's time for you to get out of the echo chamber. Whatever her cause, she showed a leader without leadership. He could have made it all go away with one final meeting, but instead he biked past her and told the press that he needed "to move on with his life". He looked like a clueless aristocrat. Take a look at the polls.

- unfounded claims of progress

Ok, the elections WERE a good start. But this constitution? Just a piece of paper. It doesn't resolve any of the really sticky issues (federalism, Islam, women, etc.), and it doesn't have any Sunni sign-off. How is this supposed to blunt a Sunni insurgency? And unless this goes somewhere, the election will turn out to be a joke, since this is what it was for! Watch closely over the next few days.

- false promises of success

"Mission Accomplished"? What about Rumsfeld's comments about the insurgency "last throes"? How about all the claims leading up to the war that we would be in and out, and no civil unrest was anticipated (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice)? If you haven't heard of these things, google em.

The problem here with the GOP is that you believe your own spin. That's often a good thing (it sells it better), but when other people aren't buying it, conservatives are often unaware. You can see that Bush didn't understand the damage Sheehan was doing to him, or he would have met with her and nipped it in the bud. Sure, you and your pals thought she was a joke. But what did the mainstream think? Let me show you:

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

This mostly focuses on the economy, but the first table deals with overall job ratings. Fascinatingly enough, if you read the text, you will see that independents track like democrats. In other words, THAT is the current mainstream. Robin, no offense, but you and other Bush boosters (including the administration itself) are falling out of touch.

Sorry, this went on longer than I wanted.

Just to save you the trouble of digging through the link I posted, here's the revelant text:

Among Republicans (35% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 77% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 18% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 15% approve and 81% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 21% approve and 72% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

pop

Indeed, Some Fella, you really don't understand the events you are refering to. Wilson's report actually confirmed the administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium, the administration didn't claim that the transaction occurred. Wilson reported that a Niger official told him of an Iraqi approach. The 911 Commission confirmed that Wilson misrepresented his own report. This has been reported although the MSM still falsely pretends that Wilson someone refutted the administration. Wilson lacked credibility on that event, not the administration.

Sheehan has done nothing to undermine the credibility of the administration which you seem to continually confuse with public relations. In fact, her alliance with the anti-semitic and pro-terrorist Left undermines the credibility of people who cite to her.

And obviously you cannot back up your misrepresentation of your assertion that the administration claimed that the Iraq occupation would be easy. The "Mission Accomplished" banner was actually requested by the military commander Gen. Franks himself to celebrate the military's record-breaking success in the invasion of Iraq itself.

As I said, and you've only confirmed, your list of things that have undermined the credibility of the administration consist of almost entirely of a litany of misrepresentations of the events - none of which actually undermine the adminstration's credibility.

Credibility means that people believe that you are "credible".

Since less than 50% of the US population now believes that Bush is honest, he has clearly lost his credibility, more as a result of his continued detachment from reality than from any action of Sheehan. International surveys would show a much smaller percentage considering Bush credible.

From the online dictionary...
cred·i·bil·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krd-bl-t)
n.
1. The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief: “America's credibility must not be squandered, especially by its leaders” (Henry A. Kissinger).

Robin,

Yes, I've heard about the seeking of uranium. That's very different from the idea that he might have HAD uranium, which is the picture that was being painted. I refer NOT to the infamous "sixteen words", but numerous speeches, cable TV appearances by Ms. Rice (getting the old message out), and the like. The case for nukes was totally hyped and misrepresented, and if you don't believe me, I'll walk you through it.

By mentioning Wilson in the first place, I am also referring to the Plamegate scandal, which has also hurt the presidential credibility. Bush stood up and said that Rove had nothing to do with it, and that any leakers would be fired. Then he revised that to say any ILLEGAL leaking would be fired...after Rove was named. Talk about a moving target.

I am yet to see anything about Sheehan that actually shows her to be anti-semitic. Complaining about neocons is NOT anti-semitic, no matter what G. Gordon Liddy (*cough*crook*cough*) says. If you have something, please post a link. As for pro-terrorist...have fun with that one. This kind of rhetoric is only going to hurt the GOP. Smear away, it's your grave.

You have a point that Sheehan is more about PR than credibility. I'll give you that. Of course, everything that I say is dead wrong....

As for the mission accomplished banner....puulease. This president's appearances, especially those outside the white house (and especially those involving him flying a fighter onto an aircraft carrier!) are carefully stage managed. I don't care who asked for the banner. Don't you think someone on his staff could have asked them to take it down? Last time I checked, Commander-In-Chief outranks general. I guess nobody noticed the banner until it was too late.

I like how you are disputing fewer and fewer of my points each time...less for me to refute. But seriously, these are all beside the point, at least in this discussion. You're talking more about your own view of these matters. But is that view shared? Check the polls, the answer will come to you.

In other words, don't bother with your own personal interpretation of these events. We're talking about the president's credibility among a slightly larger pool of people. Has he lost credibility among the public? Whether that loss is fair or not is another matter. Of course, I think it is fair, but that's just me (and a couple other people).