The book Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq is by the co-editors of PR Watch and co-authors of Trust Us, We’re Experts! and Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! Since the production of propaganda is accelerating so rapidly these days, I wondered what they would like to have included in their book if it hadn’t already gone to press.
“The main thing that stands out in my mind,” Sheldon Rampton told me, “has been the progressive unraveling of the propaganda campaign and the efforts by the government in Britain, Australia and the United States to paper things over. On the one hand, there has been a steady trickle of whistleblowers [who] have come forward and declared that the intelligence information was selectively interpreted, manipulated, cooked, and falsified. The Bush and Blair governments have responded by retreating into minutae and by attempting to re-spin these exposures as a simple question of whether they ‘lied’ or not. . . .
“Other things that I find interesting from a propaganda perspective recently: The renaming of ‘Total Information Awareness’ as ‘Terrorism Information Awareness’; and Bush’s repeated charge that his critics are trying to ‘rewrite history. ’ I find this phrase interesting at several levels: First, it says something about the shallowness of the man that he thinks of events from only a few months ago as ‘history.’ Secondly, it is a patent attempt at reversal, since the Bush administration has been trying to rewrite history by shifting attention away from the issue of weapons of mass destruction (one of the core claims of its argument for war). What Bush is really trying to do is claim that as the winner of the war in Iraq, it is his prerogative to write the history. Of course, he really hasn’t won the war yet. . . .
“I was struck recently by reading a letter to the editor in an Arizona newspaper by a woman named Carol Drew. She began by complaining that the people of Iraq are ‘selfish and thankless’ for ‘crying and whining about how little food and water there is, and blaming it on America.’ She then went on to say that she has a niece stationed in Iraq as a soldier. ‘The soldiers are suffering diarrhea,’ she reported. ‘They sleep on the ground in ditches to cover themselves from constant gunfire from the Iraqis. . . . She has lost 15 pounds and is weak from lack of proper nutrition and water, but is adamant about being there to do the job that her government has required her to do.’
“The first time I read the letter, I was rather angry that a woman in Arizona would attack the people of Iraq as ‘selfish and thankless,’ after all they’ve been through. As I reread it, though, I began to feel more appreciation for what she must be going through as she worries about her niece. But it also struck me as a powerful example of how effective the propaganda campaign in the United States has been at shaping the thinking of many people in the United States. It seems that even ‘constant gunfire’ from the Iraqis isn’t enough to wake her up to the fact that the Iraqis don’t want us there.”
I also asked about the relationship between gossip and propaganda.
“Gossip can serve as effective propaganda,” John Stauber replied, “in the hands of a skilled ‘perception manager,’ another word for a PR flack. Gossip is undocumented information spread popularly from person to person, that may or may not be true. It is often malicious, and started by an individual to smear or undermine an enemy or opponent. Gossip is very difficult to defend against because the very act of denial seems incriminating. Gossip puts the burden on the victim to prove an often anonymous charge to be false, rather than requiring that the gossipers prove an allegation to be true. Gossipers are an anonymous mob, passing on allegations that by the very act of passage are granted some invisible authority. Gossip can be very harmful, even if at some point it is exposed as false and malicious.
“Skilled propagandists can plant gossip and, if it takes root and spreads successfully, it can serve a useful propaganda purpose. For instance, gossip has helped spread the false propaganda that Jews stayed home from work at the World Trade Center on 9/11 because they were warned of the attacks in advance. This is an outrageous lie, but that has not stopped it from being spread and believed by those predisposed to so believe. Critical thinkers reject gossip and rumor, but popular media promotes it. Imagine the tabloid or entertainment press without it; it’s impossible. Propaganda and gossip are both enemies of critical thinking and democracy. Propagandists can exploit the part of human nature that embraces gossip to plant and promote rumors that serve their purposes.”
CONDOLEEZZA, LINDA AND MONICA
What was it again that Condoleezza Rice testified she couldn’t remember telling George Bush? About sleeper cells in the United States? Or was it stem cells? Does any reasonable person believe she really forgot? If she didn’t tell Bush, she’s covering her ass. If she did tell him and he did nothing, she’s covering his ass. Maybe the 9/11 Commision should’ve offered her HT-0712, the “Mind Viagra” pill that restores memory in fruit flies and mice. But would that make any difference if Condi was consciously resorting to blatant deception in the guise of false memory-loss syndrome?
Just as there’s selective memory, there’s selective deception. The infamous Oklahoma City bomber, frontman Timothy McVeigh, was a frequent guest at the home of co-conspirator Terry Nichols. He shared with Nichols an unspeakable act of domestic terrorism. And yet, Nichols’ wife, Marife Torres, testified at his state murder trial that she eventually became jealous of McVeigh because Nichols spent more time with him than he did with her and their daughter, but that during one of McVeigh’s visits, she had an affair with him—which, of course, McVeigh kept secret from Nichols.
In order to best deceive others, one must deceive oneself until that deception becomes a reality. A Bush family member was quoted in the Los Angeles Times: “George sees this as a religious war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know.”
That’s virtually interchangeable with this utterance by Abu Bakar Bashir, an Islamic cleric and accused terrorist leader: “America’s aim in attacking Iraq is to attack Islam, so it is justified for Muslims to target America to defend themselves.”
And so it came to pass that, after four mercenaries—oops, I mean contractors—were slaughtered in Fallujah, and consequently U.S. Marines bombed mosques where weapons of individual destruction had been stored, they also shot bullets into copies of the Koran. Which only increases the perception of a religious war that Muslims must avenge. And, with provocation like that, who needs friendly fire?
Recently I told my friend Avery Corman, the author of Kramer vs. Kramer and Oh God, that I was finally working on my first novel.
“It’s really hard writing fiction,” I said. “You have to make everything up.”
“Oh, come on, Paul, you’ve been making up stuff your whole life.”
“Yeah, but that was journalism.”
So I was prepared to believe that “Deep Throat”—the secret source of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their investigation of the Watergate breakin—was actually a composite of several sources, invented for the sake of dramatic effect. In any case, that code name was a seminal point in the pornographication of news.
On NPR, commentator Daniel Schorr referred to it as “recycling the title of a movie.” He didn’t mention that it was a porn movie. Deep Throat has become such a mainstream reference that you don’t even have to know that the Linda Lovelace character’s clitoris was embedded deep in her throat, so that performing fellatio on a man was her only way of achieving orgasm.
I was also prepared to believe that Woodward only imagined that he snuck into CIA head William Casey’s hospital room and obtained exclusive deathbed confessions.
But Homey don’t play that game no more. Or does he?
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Harry Levins wrote about Woodward’s new book, Plan of Attack: “Can a book that reconstructs events without naming its sources be trusted as real history? Woodward’s book re-creates private conversations between decision-m
akers word for word, even though no reporters were present. Except for a few on-the-record interviews, the book makes no mention of who told Woodward what had been said at these meetings. . . . In fact, said Professor Mark Hanley of Truman State University in Kirskville, Mo., ‘Woodward’s book isn’t history. It’s a book by an investigative reporter who’s enormously important—and who knows what will make his book interesting.’”
History or not, it’s revealing how Woodward’s on-the-record interviews have instigated a mini-goldmine of ass-covering lies.
Item: The New York Times reported that “Secretary of State Colin Powell disputed Woodward’s account . . . he said that he had an excellent relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney, and that he did not recall referring to officials at the Pentagon loyal to Cheney as the ‘Gestapo office.’” Who among us would be unable to recall uttering such an epithet? Indeed, Powell later apologized for it.
Item: Donald Rumsfeld said—referring to the impending attack on Iraq—he didn’t remember assuring Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, “You can take that to the bank.” Then Woodward produced a transcript of the taped interview, and there it was.
Item: Appearing together before 9/11 commission members—in private and not under oath—Bush and Cheney inspired several editorial cartoons showing Cheney as a ventriloquist and Bush as his dummy; one caption stated, “No wonder Cheney talks out of the side of his mouth.” My inside source, “Green Door,” tells me that Cheney was asked, “Did you inform Prince Sadar, ‘Saddam is toast’?” To which Bush-dummy responded, “No, he said, ‘Saddam likes toast.’”
Woodward had previously written a book—Bush At War, about the attack on Afghanistan—that was favorable to George W. Bush, which is why Bush requested him to write a book about his entry into the Iraq war, granted him permission to interview White House officials, and instructed them to cooperate.
Referring to Plan of Attack, Larry King asked Woodward, “Did they expect a more favorable book?”
“I think they expected a more favorable war,” he replied.
In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke had written: “Just before going to the meeting [in 1998 with Bill Clinton], I read a CIA report from a source in Afghanistan that bin Laden and his top staff were planning a meeting on August 20 to review the results of their attacks [on the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya] and plan the next wave. Terrorist coordinators from outside Afghanistan had been summoned back for the session. As we sat down in the Cabinet Room, I slipped the report to George Tenet, who was sitting next to me. On it, I penned, ‘You thinking what I’m thinking?’ He passed it back with a note on it, ‘You better believe I am.’
“We had both come to the conclusion that this report meant we had the opportunity not merely to stage a retaliatory bombing, but also a chance to get bin Laden and his top deputies, if the President would agree to a strike now during the white-hot ‘Monica’ scandal press coverage. . . . Although we had been going after al Qaeda for several years, now it would be the top priority to eliminate the organization. The President asked National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to coordinate all of the moving parts necessary for a military response, tentatively planned for August 20, six days later. . . . ‘Listen, retaliating for these attacks is all well and good, but we gotta get rid of these guys once and for all,’ Clinton said, looking seriously over his half glasses at Tenet . . . ‘You understand what I’m telling you? . . .’
“All of this was taking place against the backdrop of the continuing Monica scandal. Like most of his advisors, I was beyond mad that the president had not shown enough discretion or self-control, although from what I knew of Presidential history, marital infidelity had also been a problem for several of his illustrious predecessors. I was angrier, almost incredulous, that the bitterness of Clinton’s enemies knew no bounds, that they intended to hurt not just Clinton but the country by turning the President personal problem into a global, public circus for their own political ends. Now I feared that the timing of the President’s interrogation about the scandal, August 17, would get in the way of our hitting the al Qaeda meeting.
“It did not. Clinton made clear that we were to give him our best national security advice, without regard to his personal problems. ‘Do you all recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice or personal advice about the timing. That’s my problem. Let me worry about that.’ If we thought this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat for the ‘Wag the Dog’ criticism that we all knew would happen, for the media and congressional reaction that would say he was using a military strike to divert attention from his deposition in the investigation. . . . Ironically, Clinton was blamed for a ‘Wag the Dog’ strategy in 1998 dealing with the real threat from al Qaeda but no one labeled Bush’s 2003 war on Iraq as a ‘Wag the Dog’ move even though the ‘crisis’ was manufactured and Bush political advisor Karl Rove was telling Republicans to ‘run on the war.’”
Poor, naive Monica Lewinsky. The Starr Report disclosed her fantasy about being together with Clinton more often when he was out of office. She quoted him as saying, “I might be alone in three years.” In that same section of the report, she quoted Clinton as saying, “Well, what are we going to do when I’m 75 and I have to pee 25 times a day?” And it must have been embarrassing for Clinton to hear the tape that Linda Tripp made, where Monica told her what she had said to him on the phone: “I love you, Butthead.” Fortunately, he didn’t respond, “I love you, Beavis.”
Clarke wrote, “The American public’s reaction to the U.S. retaliation . . . was about as adverse as we could have imagined. According to the media and many in Congress, Clinton had launched a military strike to divert attention from the Monica scandal. . . . Our response to two deadly terrorist attacks was an attempt to wipe out al Qaeda leadership, yet it quickly became grist for the right-wing talk radio mill and part of the get Clinton campaign. That reaction made it more difficult to get approval for follow-up attacks on al Qaeda, such as my later attempts to persuade the principals to forget about finding bin Laden and just bomb the training camps.”
Who could possibly have predicted that Monica Lewinsky—who had merely been performing oral sex on Bill Clinton while Yassir Arafat was waiting in the Rose Garden for their appointment—that years later she would be considered as ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the unrelated invasion of Iraq? Not me, babe.
I FORGET THE TITLE OF THIS
Ronald Reagan’s funeral was a week-long series of photo-ops, a most appropriate postscript to a presidency that was an eight-year celebration of government by public relations. There was that photo of Ronnie and Nancy posing with Michael Jackson. Then there was Nancy, sitting on Mr. T’s lap—he was dressed in a Santa Claus costume and she was kissing him on the cheek. And there was Ronnie and the pope—the Great Communicator meets the Great Excommunicator.
When Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, a network TV correspondent presented a hard-hitting report about the White House ducking issues for the sake of a “feel good” campaign. Yet a Reagan aide phoned and said, “Great piece, we loved it,” explaining to the confused correspondent, “We’re in the middle of a campaign, and you give us 4-1/2 minutes of great pictures of Ronald Reagan. And that’s all the American people see.”
Reagan used to wear only one contact lens when he appeared before crowds. Whenever his speech-writer Ken Khachigian tried to shorten his stump speech by eliminating a line, Reagan replied, “Have you seen the way people respond when I say that?” The eye with the contact lens would read the speech, and the other eye would study faces in the audience for their reaction.
When he testified before the committee investigating the Iran/contra scandal, he was unable to recall whether he had approved trading weapons for hostages, testifying 130 times that “I don’t remember.” During his 1980 campaign, there had been rumblings of senility, and Reagan publicly offered to take a senility test if the proper authorities conclud
ed that he had become senile, but nobody ever took him up on it. Perhaps his convenient losses of memory were actually early tremors of the Alzheimer’s disease that plagued him for the last ten years of his life.
Nowadays, of course, there are other excuses. A reader wrote to the column “People’s Pharmacy” by Joe and Teresa Graedon in the Los Angeles Times:
“I took Lipitor for more than a year, and I thought I was doing great. My cholesterol levels dropped significantly with no side effects. Then I began having problems remembering names. Sometimes it took me till noon to gather my scattered thoughts enough to work. I couldn’t put a complete sentence together, and I began avoiding situations that required meeting with people. I’m in the advertising and marketing business, but I avoided clients and preferred to work by e-mail. After reading one of your articles that linked Lipitor to memory problems, I immediately contacted my doctor, and he agreed to a holiday from Lipitor. It took a few months, but my memory has returned. Memory problems should be listed as a side effect of Lipitor.”
And the answer: “Amnesia is listed as an infrequent side effect of Lipitor, and memory loss is noted as a potential side effect of other cholesterol-lowering drugs such as Lescol, Mevacor, Pravachol and Zocor.” (Pravachol promises to prevent your first heart attack and to prevent your second heart attack, so that when you do have your first heart attack you’ll think that it’s really your third.) “Although this seems to be rare, we have heard from readers who have had difficulty with names, numbers and concentration while taking one of these. Some have even reported episodes in which they could not remember their address, spouse or occupation.”
But how to account for the current epidemic of memory loss among Bush administration officials testifying before investigating committees?
One Hand Jerking Page 15
