Washington Post caught out in blatant propoganda re-write

Washington Post Caught Out in Propaganda Rewrite

[quote]The original Reuters story contains the following paragraph concerning an American attack on the Iraqi city of Diwaniya, quoting American military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl:

“Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced ‘explosively formed penetrators’ (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.”

These are, of course, the famous explosives that the propagandists claim must be coming from Iran, as the locals in Iraq lack the sophistication to manufacture them. Another lie busted.

But don’t count the Washington Post out yet. In an extensive rewrite of the Reuters piece – in fact, so extensive, you can only see the original framework by looking carefully – the Washington Post scrubs the paragraph about the origin of the EFPs, but ensures that the following is inserted (emphasis in red):

“The U.S. military said two U.S. soldiers died in separate roadside bombings in the east and west of Baghdad on Friday.

[color=red]One of the bombs was an explosively formed projectile, a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants[/color].”

In other words, they use the classic Judy Miller/Michael Gordon technique from the New York Times of passing on Bush Administration propaganda by ensuring that it is prominently placed – together with the appropriate weasel words referring back to the original, completely unquestioned, government source – so that there is no technical lying, although the intent is obviously to deceive (the last two honest paragraphs in the Reuters article have also gone missing).[/quote]

uhh…this really isn’t much of a story. Its been verified that Iran has supplied both technology (know-how) and trainers to the terrs operating in Iraq.

What your “source” has found appears to be a simple re-write of a breaking story that was sent out multiple times to multiple sources. A very common thing.

Thanks for playing… :bravo:

Here’s the story…much more relevant:

[quote]raqi, U.S. forces sweep through volatile Iraqi city
Sat Apr 7, 2007 7:17 AM IST163

DIWANIYA, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi and U.S. forces clashed with Shi’ite militia loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Friday in a dawn operation aimed at returning the volatile city of Diwaniya to government control.

In Ramadi, west of Baghdad, a truck bomb killed at least 10 people and wounded 24 in the latest in a string of attacks that have spewed poisonous chlorine gas into the air, three Iraqi police officers said. A fourth officer put the toll at 35 dead.

The Iraqi government said this week it was extending a seven-week-old U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in Baghdad to other cities as it seeks to halt the slide to sectarian civil war.

While the crackdown has succeeded in reducing the murder rate in Baghdad, the government says militants forced out of the capital have turned other areas into new “killing fields”.

Iraqi and U.S. troops fought militiamen in southeast Diwaniya, a stronghold of Sadr’s Mehdi Army, which the Pentagon says poses the greatest threat to peace in Iraq. The head of Sadr’s office in the city blamed rogue gunmen.

Pamphlets dropped by U.S. helicopters warned police, who are suspected of being infiltrated by the militia, to stay off the streets. Any found carrying weapons would be shot.

A U.S. military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, said three to six “enemy fighters” were killed, five wounded and 17 captured. U.S. and Iraqi forces suffered no fatalities, he said.

A Mehdi Army leader said six women and children were wounded when a U.S. helicopter fired on a hostel in the city. Bleichwehl said the report was untrue. The militia leader also said four men on motorbikes were shot dead by U.S. and Iraqi troops.

Resident Qassim Abid said he saw two armoured vehicles damaged by roadside bombs and a third by rocket-propelled grenades. There was no independent confirmation.

The director of Diwaniya’s health directorate, Hameed Jaati, said the local hospital had received one body and 15 wounded.

“Iraqi army soldiers swept into the city of Diwaniya early this morning to disrupt militia activity and return security and stability of the volatile city back to the government of Iraq,” the U.S. military said in a statement.

SCATTERED RESISTANCE

Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.

Residents said a curfew had been imposed as troops blocked streets and conducted house-to-house searches.

“It is good they have started this operation because we have been living in fear recently,” said Ali Hassan, 45, a worker with seven children. “We could not go out after dark or allow our children to go outside on their own.”

In Ramadi, capital of western Anbar province that is the heartland of the Sunni Arab insurgency, police colonel Tareq al-Dulaimi said the chlorine truck bomb targeted a police patrol, killing 35 people and wounding at least 45 more.

But Captain Louay al-Dulaimi and two colleagues from a police station near the explosion put the death toll at 10.

There has been a spate of chlorine truck bomb attacks, mainly in Anbar. U.S. commanders and Iraqi police have blamed al Qaeda militants for several of the attacks.

Police in Basra indicated an explosion that destroyed a British armoured fighting vehicle, killing four soldiers and a translator on Thursday, was caused by a new type of bomb.

“We found two bombs … that were similar to the bomb that exploded targeting the British troops,” Major General Mohammed Moussawi told Reuters. “These are new bombs that haven’t been used and do not have a precedent in southern Iraq.”

The bomb blast left a crater several metres (yards) across and a metre deep in the road.

U.S. and British forces have accused neighbouring Shi’ite Iran of supplying Shi’ite militias with EFPs, which are normally placed on the side of the road and fire a metal projectile embedded in the device into the target at high speed.

But a Western explosives expert in Iraq said it appeared from photographs of the crater that the blast had been caused by a commercial landmine buried in the road, not by an EFP.

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy in Baghdad, Aref Mohammed in Basra)
Reuters[/quote]

“Verified”? Care to substantiate that claim?

Prove it hasn’t been.

Prove it hasn’t been.[/quote]

I didn’t think so.

Verify \Ver"i*fy, v. t. Verified}
1. To prove to be true or correct; to establish the truth of;
to confirm; to substantiate.

Ya, it was verified…just like the yellowcake uranium that came from Niger.

That’s disgusting.

Good morning children…

[quote]US says Iran arming Sunni groups
Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 April 2007, 18:50 GMT 19:50 UK

The weapons were captured in a Sunni district last week, the US said

The US military has for the first time accused Iran of arming Sunni militants fighting in Iraq.

Sunni militants are being armed with Iranian-made munitions, US military spokesman Maj Gen William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad.

These include mortar rounds and rocket-propelled grenades, he said.

There was no immediate reaction from the government in mainly Shia Iran which has been accused of arming fellow Shia militants in Iraq in the past.

Training claim

The weapons, which were shown at the news conference, were discovered in a car in a Sunni district of Baghdad last week, the Americans said.

Gen Caldwell said the Iranians were not only supplying weapons to unspecified groups fighting the coalition and Iraqi government forces but training them too.

“There are groups that are receiving training in Iran with the most modern weapons and munitions that are available and then being smuggled into Iraq and being utilised by these groups against the Iraqi security force and coalition forces,” he said.

“That required some very skilled training to be able to use them and employ them like they were being used.”

Iran threat

Gen Caldwell also accused the Iranians of helping Iraqi militants use roadside bombs, which have been used to devastating effect in ambushes on US and coalition forces.

The devices have so far killed more than 170 US soldiers since the Iraq invasion in 2003.

The BBC’s Jim Muir says the Iraqi government is hoping a planned conference in Egypt next month will defuse tensions with its neighbours, and perhaps even start a reconciliation process between the Americans and Iran.

But now Iran is threatening to pull out of the talks, as they are demanding the release of five Iranian officials seized by the Americans from an office in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq in January, our correspondent says.

The US on Wednesday ruled out freeing the five, who it accuses of meddling in Iraqi affairs.

The White House also denied Iranian state television reports it tortured a diplomat held in custody for two months.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6546555.stm[/quote]

Hondu - try getting your facts straight before posting a comment…mmm’kay…

Are accusations and proof the same thing?

I know they were in 2003 but you would think people would have learned the difference by now. Apparently not.

Yeah, I’d have to agree with Spook that the military isn’t exactly the most reliable source for info, there, TC. Remember how they flatly denied having used white phosphorous against any combatants, then suddenly flip-flopped (gotta love that term) and said they in fact had used it against them (the evidence was sorta overwhelming) but it wasn’t technically a chemical weapon? (Come to think of it, you Right-leaning Forumosans sorta took all that in hook line and sinker, so you may not find this argument compelling…)

ANYWAY…

I may be hard of reading, but I think you also skipped over a rather essential point, there, TC:

Now, since one of the reasons we “know” the Iranians “must” be supplying these weapons to the Iraqi insurgents is that the Iraqi insurgents couldn’t possibly be making them themselves… well, you do the math. Next we’ll hear, well, SOMEONE had to teach them how to make those weapons they couldn’t have been making by themselves that they actually are making by themselves!!!

Anyway, seems the Post story might’ve wanted to mention this little wrinkle…

check your dictionary TC, mmm’kay?

TC, being a Dubya apologist must be exhausting…

I suppose for neoconservatives it’s natural to assume that Iran, while proclaiming itself the friend and ally of the Iraqi Shiite community, would be arming both sides so they could kill each other off more efficiently in sectarian violence.

Yes, that would be up Iran’s alley, and similar past actions in Lebanon and elsewhere have been thoroughly and meticulously documented by Kenneth Pollack in his book the Persian Puzzle. Lest you think that he is one of “us” check out his background. He works at the Brookings Institute.

I would assume if the Iranians were arming the Sunnis, it would be to put pressure on the US. The main goal of Iran is to see us fail in Iraq while attempting to keep Iraq divided and conquered and thus easier for them to control and influence. The Iranians engaged in similar behavior in Lebanon and Afghanistan. I believe that the Iranians do not want to even see a strong Shia government in Iraq. The stronger that government would be, the less likely Iran would be able to influence it. This all makes perfect sense to me, doubly so since Spook seems to think it illogical.

Yes, that would be up Iran’s alley, and similar past actions in Lebanon and elsewhere have been thoroughly and meticulously documented by Kenneth Pollack in his book the Persian Puzzle. Lest you think that he is one of “us” check out his background. He works at the Brookings Institute.

I would assume if the Iranians were arming the Sunnis, it would be to put pressure on the US. The main goal of Iran is to see us fail in Iraq while attempting to keep Iraq divided and conquered and thus easier for them to control and influence. The Iranians engaged in similar behavior in Lebanon and Afghanistan. I believe that the Iranians do not want to even see a strong Shia government in Iraq. The stronger that government would be, the less likely Iran would be able to influence it. This all makes perfect sense to me, doubly so since Spook seems to think it illogical.[/quote]

Or you may be – given the history of the Iran-Iraq war in which U.S. policy was to pit both sides against one another despite the human cost – be looking at the issue through neoconservative lenses.

The acid test is whether Iraq’s Shiite community and current government believe the accusations because they’re the most likely to know the truth versus propaganda.

“Verified” by the same people who figured the WMDs in Iraq were a “slam-dunk”? Heckuva job, TC.

We did not pit anyone against anyone in that war Spook and you know it. Stop making it sound as if the US lives to just fuck with other countries.

Interesting then that the government is going after Sadr’s forces to the degree that he is threatening to pull out of the government. I think everyone knows what’s what in Iraq these days.

As to MFGR, I believe that the fact that Iranians are operating in Iraq has been long known and more importantly verified by a number of sources. Do you doubt them? Really?

We did not pit anyone against anyone in that war Spook and you know it. Stop making it sound as if the US lives to just fuck with other countries.[/quote]

The U.S. doesn’t. Neoconservative elements within the U.S. government do. Any objective person conversant with the facts of the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980’s recognizes that Reagan Administration policy was for the Iraqis and Iranians to fight themselves to a debilitating stalemate despite the fact that Saddam Hussein attacked Iran and used illegal weapons of mass destruction in the process.

[quote=“Hondu Grease”][quote]The US military has for the first time [color=red]accused[/color] Iran of arming Sunni militants fighting in Iraq.[/quote]check your dictionary TC, mmm’kay?
TC, being a Dubya apologist must be exhausting…[/quote]
…being a tool must be frustrating…last in line to get the talking points…wasn’t even what I was referring to about ya…now go check koskidz & dummiesunderground for your next reply…

The US did not start the war. The Iranians had made enemies of the US. The Iraqis were not much better. Why should we have been sympathetic to the losses of either side? BUT given the variables, do you think that it would have been better for Iran to have taken Basra and continued down the coast to Saudi Arabia as the leadership stated they intended to do? or to have helped Iraq? even though Saddam was leader? and even though he was using illegal weapons of mass destruction?

Because they were human lives and many perhaps didn’t deserve to die? Or were perhaps being force fed propaganda that led them to their deaths. Anyway wasn’t the U.S. responsible for some of the arms that were used in that war? O.K. so if the U.S. was, then I suppose they need not be sympathetic at all right? I mean that if one produces and sells arms, then one need not be sympathetic toward the symptoms of usage right? I’m not trying to debate the whole thing again, as I have in the past, I can’t be bothered, but why can it be impossible to be sympathetic? I think that’s a bit small minded. Should I have no sympathy for WWII American soldiers and their families, just because the U.S. government didn’t ‘have to’ go to war? Or have I myself just stepped on a land mine with my comments? As I said, I’m going to be a bit lazy to debate this one. I’m tired and I have a cold. Sorry in advance.