Evil Iraqis Murder Babies

steissd

Would you kindly name the Arab and American sovereign nation?

Arabia is a peninsula, America a continent.

America (in meaning of the USA, as it appears in context of Frolic's posting, he meant the particular country and not a continent as a whole) is a sovereign nation; Arab is a member of a certain ethnic group (just like Jew or Czech).

Wanneer jij een volzin in het Nederlands of 'en français' kan schrijven zal ik arab en american met een hoofdletter schrijven! Deal?

Ah, OK, you claim that in Dutch they write these words using the small letter, if I understood well? But in English the spelling rules differ...

We are glad to have you as a skilled teacher here, steissd!

Walter, Frolic,

Like you, Steissd is not a native speaker of English. He is an Israeli immigrant from the Soviet Union. We, who grew up with this screwy language, make allowances for your grammatic and occasional spelling errors. Even native speakers of this language often violate its rules here without being called to task for them. Why not extend the same curtesy to Steissd?

It's a two way street.



He was referring to the appointment of Ms. Beers "a former chairwoman of J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather.. her task was to devise a multimillion-dollar public diplomacy campaign, complete with academic exchange programs and slick public service advertisements, to soften anti-American feelings [in the Muslim world]".

I've been busy recently. But I suppose it's better late than never, as the saying goes.

While Hill & Knowlton, may appear to be just one of many PR firms in the world, being paid to carry out the wishes of a client, I think you all need to research it's past, and it's links to covert operations, covert operatives, and government figures. Here are a couple of links that may help you understand that it's perhaps more than just another PR firm.

Public Relationships:Hill & Knowlton, Robert Gray, and the CIA.
http://mediafilter.org/caq/Hill&Knowlton.html

Robert Gray is a rather famous individual. Although perhaps you don't know him, since he moves in rather powerful circles. I first came across his name back in the 1980s. Shortly after the Iran-Contra Scandal emerged, I was doing some private research on the subject. Attempting to make a picture from the complex jigsaw of evidence, and the people named during the investigation etc. Names such as former CIA operatives Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, along with various other intelligence / military individuals such as Richard Secord, were the doors I passed through, that led me to rogue CIA operative Edwin Wilson (Imprisoned for selling arms to Libya). They all knew each other. They all had connections either through working for the government, or through business relationships, or both. Edwin Wilson, also knew Robert Gray, head of Gray & Company (Later merged with Hill & Knowlton). It's a small world, isn't it?

Do you remember the BCCI scandal?

HILL AND KNOWLTON AND BCCI'S PR CAMPAIGN
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/18hill.htm

If Hill & Knowlton is a privately owned company, any government cannot be blamed for its activities. It might have misinformed public, but any PR usually includes some deal of misinformation: sometimes it implies exaggerating the advantages or blurring disadvantages of the product or person being advertized, sometimes this may imply a sheer lie. The client pays, the client provides information, and the PR company only presents it in the shape that may attract attention of the target audience.

Steissd

I think you are missing the point.

Hill & Knowlton is not a typical PR company, that has been picked at random by a government to spread disinformation, on a single occassion.

Hill & Knowlton, (Including Robert Gray), has a surprisingly long track record for links to the Republican Party, covert operations, criminal activities and scandals. That's a little more sinister, than your view of the services that a typical PR company offers a client who is trying to sell a product.

There has been a growing trend for governments, especially the US government, to privatise or sub-contract it's covert work to non-governmental organizations.

Why?

It reduces the amount of public / governmental oversight and scrutiny that would otherwise be applied to covert activity if conducted by a government agency. It also helps with 'plausibile deniability'. Since it's not a government agency, people in positions of power, can claim to have no knowledge of what is happening.

It's not confined to the world of PR. Covert operations have made use of many types of businesses, employing 'freelance' operatives from 'private' security companies for example.

Like-minded people, from various lines of work, fighting for the same causes.

One of the aspects of our government which is most fascinating is its entanglements with the private sector, Stinger. Fascinating and often horrifying. You're quite right about plausible deniability! I keep thinking that we should focus a discussion on the inter-relationships -- personal and business -- which illuminate this or any other recent administration's actions and policies.

Certainly what many don't realize is the extent to which the back- and middle-grounds of the national photograph remain the same, only the faces of the guys in front change!

For example:

N. Korea get nuclear data
Transfer pact stays in effect
By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 3/7/2003 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has not suspended or revoked the authority of Westinghouse Co. to transfer documents related to nuclear technology to North Korea, despite the fact that the Asian nation has admitted that it violated terms of a nonproliferation agreement it signed with Washington in 1994, US Department of Energy documents show.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/066/nation/US_lets_N_Korea_get_nuclear_data+.shtml

We should explore that Westinghouse-NK relationship and its ties to the US government... over the years.

Tartarin

It's strange that you should mention how only the faces of the guys out in front change. On Sunday, I provided some links on another thread of mine....'The Iraqi Logic Puzzle'. Amongst the links, were three that you may find interesting.

Iran-Contra men return to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,539429,00.html

No more Mr Scrupulous Guy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,651977,00.html

Iran-Contra Report
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

The final link, for the Iran-Contra report, is an interesting little piece of bedtime reading! Useful for answering the five W questions.

Who? What? Where? When? Why?

Or should I say, it helps us move a little closer to the truth, since it's unlikely the whole truth will ever be known by the general public. If you don't feel like reading it all, just skim through the final chapters, to remind yourself of who was less than helpful or honest during the 1980s, then ask yourself, where are they now? Or ask yourself, how many senior members of the current administration, were working in the 1980s, for figures implicated in Iran-Contra.

As a comedian observed (I think it was Jon Stewart), watching the new administration take power, was like watching an old rock band reform for one last gig. (I'm paraphrasing in the extreme, but I think you get the point!).

The deck of cards has just been reshuffled. It's still the same cards being dealt. Although a cynic might suspect that some cards are being dealt from the bottom of the deck, when nobody is watching!

Stinger -- Don't I know you from somewhere?... Um, Fenwick... um... I agree with your response (and thanks for the links which I'll explore right away) but here's how we fight the battle: continue to put faces and names and actions together. The internet is wonderful in this regard. Find the threads which links these guys together. Every time Rumsfeld's name is raised, re-link him to arming Saddam, post the handshake photo, etc. etc. Constant reiteration seems to actually get through to FoxTV watchers and it could work here!! There is a problem though: the venality spreads from Right to Left and everything in between. Those who want their party to win more than they want a decent future will back off when their guy is involved...

Stinger -- This is a great piece of work, too. Maybe we should continually quote chunks of it: http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n5/war.htm

steissd

If you wish to believe that it's just a coincidence that a PR company with long term links to the US intelliegnce / military / political community, was spreading propaganda on behalf of Kuwait, in order to effect US public opinion on support for a war, then you go right ahead and ignore what many others will see. Personally, I see dual masters in this little operation. It benefited more than just the Kuwaitis.


It appears to be your assumption that only the Kuwaitis wanted to change / win public support for the 'Gulf War'. You are overlooking the fact that governments in the West, including the USA, also had to win the support of their electorate, for the war.

Although, it was a hell of a lot easier a decade ago to win support for a war, than it is now! Perhaps if people had been told the truth more often in the past, instead of propaganda and lies, they may be more willing to believe their political leaders today. People now want evidence, facts, the truth, before giving their suppoprt to conflict. They are not sure if they can believe what they are being told.

People are now more cynical. Why do you think that is? I suppose it's all the fault of the Kuwaitis!!!!

tartarin

Thanks for the link.

My tiny island, The Duchy Of Grand Fenwick, became famous in a Peter sellars film, 'The Mouse That Roared'. We had a plan to declare war on the USA, then surrender in order to receive money, as did Japan and Germany. Clever plan don't you think?

Reminds me to get a copy of that fillum for my video collection. Had forgotten all about it. Thanks for a reminder! Was mixing you up with another former Abuzzer!

interesting sites, Stinger.