Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
U.S. Troops Given Misleading, Inaccurate Bios Of Lawmakers Visiting Iraq
thinkprogress.org — Reps. James Moran (D-VA), Jon Porter (R-NV), and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) recently returned from such a trip. While there, Tauscher and Moran noticed sheets of paper that “seemed to be everywhere” in the Green Zone. Instead of the official bios, they were new ones that cherry-pick the representatives’ “most incendiary" statements.
aterkel- 641 diggs
- digg it
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -7/+30If someone is trying to cause US and Iraqi troops to rampantly (and unfairly) dislike specific US congresspeople who need their active protection in a hostile environment, some people might even call that "attempted murder." That probably isn't the intent, but it's where such a stupid campaign of misinformation ultimately leads. What else could possibly be gained by the people who put out those fliers? Bad table service at the VIP mess hall?
- JCSaint, on 10/26/2007, -5/+12It's definitely not to cause physical harm. Some public relations person, who is probably a political appointee, probably put these together to simply make the Dems look bad. More and more soldiers are fed up with the Iraq war and supporting Dems and they want to stop that as much as possible.
- SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9So let me get this straight... They're not trying to cause physical harm to the lawmakers, just misrepresenting information and actually lying to soldiers (who are risking their lives on a war those soldiers didn't create) for political gain?
- dondara, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You act like that is something they wouldn't do. Are you new to this planet?
- SteveMax, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3What impresses me is that JCSaint gave that explanation as if it made their actions acceptable. Seriously, even the Republicans should go and protest on the streets against this: those people are throwing away the dignity of American troops (and playing with the minds of "our boys in Iraq"), as Fox News loves to call them).
- dondara, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You act like that is something they wouldn't do. Are you new to this planet?
- EntropyMan, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3JCSaint, if what you say is true, then why wouldn't they routinely put out negative information on all congresspeople who they want the soldiers to dislike, and not just the ones that are currently visiting?
- SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9So let me get this straight... They're not trying to cause physical harm to the lawmakers, just misrepresenting information and actually lying to soldiers (who are risking their lives on a war those soldiers didn't create) for political gain?
- subman697, on 10/26/2007, -3/+20Someone doesn't want the troops getting wind of Ellen Tauscher's bill regarding equal time off for time spent in IRAQ, so they paint her as a villain.
- DaveV, on 10/26/2007, -9/+3If those politicos wanted to be liked, maybe they should not have said those things.
- Terr01, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6If you wanted to be respected, maybe you'd should RTFA and understand what it means when something is incredibly "out of context".
- TheCash, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3According to this article, only one representative received an altered voting record in their bio. The rest were just quoted verbatim without any context given.
By the looks of things, these aren't exactly official handouts, so an individual or group of soldiers must have decided to let the rest of the ranks know exactly what these politicians who most likely spent plenty of time shaking hands and kissing @ss were really saying about them back home behind their backs. Of course I disagree with misrepresenting anyone (be it good or bad) and think quotes taken out of context have no real validity, I can't pass judgement on whomever made these because I've seen the media and several blog sites like the one this article was linked to do the exact same thing many times before. Nothing stings worse then having your own tactics used against you, but getting blustery and hypocritical about the whole thing isn't going to win you any sympathy either.
If those politicians had any sort of integrity and respect for those men, they'd come clean and say 'yeah, I did say those things and vote that way, but I did it because I love each and every one of you and I'm just trying to do my best to serve your interests and the interests of the nation you're risking your lives to protect right now in the best way I know how. That's why I'm here in the first place, to see things for myself so I can go back with the most informed opinion possible." Instead, they are pitching a fit over some exercised first Amendment rights that happen to rub them the wrong way. Winning strategy.
- JCSaint, on 10/26/2007, -5/+12It's definitely not to cause physical harm. Some public relations person, who is probably a political appointee, probably put these together to simply make the Dems look bad. More and more soldiers are fed up with the Iraq war and supporting Dems and they want to stop that as much as possible.
- Insightful, on 10/26/2007, -7/+38What? Someone is trying to politicize the military? You don't say!
I mean, what will they do next? Politicize NASA and make sure scientists don't talk about certain facts against this administration's policy? Politicize the justice department so that only Republicans with certain ideology bending are hired and those who do not heed the ideology are fired mid-term?
Oh wait... - thejoshuablog, on 10/26/2007, -6/+18Imagine what the Idiot in Chief is doing with the domestic spying program if they can be as blatant as this.
- TheOther1, on 10/26/2007, -12/+1sources? examples? or just your usual FUD?
- Insightful, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Had you RTFA, you would have seen the actual cheat sheets. Here is also Washington Post's report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001848.html
- TheOther1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Had you read his comment, then mine, you would see that was not what I asked. No mention of domestic spying in the article, yet Junglered1 felt the need to press the panic button.
- mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Moron.
All you saw was "SPYING PROGRAM" and went nuts.
- mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Moron.
- TheOther1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Had you read his comment, then mine, you would see that was not what I asked. No mention of domestic spying in the article, yet Junglered1 felt the need to press the panic button.
- brianary, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This IS the example, dumbass.
- TheOther1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"Imagine what the Idiot in Chief is doing with the domestic spying program"
Where in the article does it mention domestic spying? *****.
- TheOther1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"Imagine what the Idiot in Chief is doing with the domestic spying program"
- toddcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He said "imagine", dumbass.
- Insightful, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Had you RTFA, you would have seen the actual cheat sheets. Here is also Washington Post's report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001848.html
- TheOther1, on 10/26/2007, -12/+1sources? examples? or just your usual FUD?
- jthomp3120, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1/rhetorical
How is this going to effect moral?- Coven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4morale you morone
- Coven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4morale you morone
- Fascist, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1Digg down pl0x
- combustion8, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4so what, they're just there to kill towel heads.... ratta tat tat!!!
- ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5And if you decided, as a solider, that you didn't like his statements, and just said "Eh, they're not gonna get attacked anyway," and let down you guard.
Then one of these Senators gets killed. The ones they SHOULDN'T be protecting are the ones who treat Baghdad like it's Chinatown, strolling around, taking valuable military assets away from their real duties, not stupid photo ops.
That's right, McCain and Lieberman, I'm talking about your stupid butts. - expat001, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Is Fox News working for the Pentagon now too?
- jaycliche, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You have to ask?
- Shiftyeyedgoat, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7WHY WOULD THEY ***** WITH THEIR BIOS?
THAT COULD SCREW UP THE WHOLE COMPUTARS - lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6note that there are no examples of innacuracy or misleading statements given in either the "think Progress" piece or the source article. buried for innacuracy
- Insightful, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Buried you for not RTFA and not thinking on your own. Here is also Washington Post's take on the dog-and-pony show: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001848.html
- lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I did RTFA and if you had you would have noted no innacuracy or misleading info was shown there either.
this is just another example of "think progress" spam- mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You just keep telling yourself that.
Now hurry, there's a Fox News special on how liberals hate America.
- mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You just keep telling yourself that.
- lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I did RTFA and if you had you would have noted no innacuracy or misleading info was shown there either.
- Insightful, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Buried you for not RTFA and not thinking on your own. Here is also Washington Post's take on the dog-and-pony show: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001848.html
- farshad153, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The War Criminal in the Living Room (offcourse Bush): http://zonow.com/348
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I don't get it. The woman's bio looked fine to me.
- bwhancock, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm thankful that on Digg nothing is ever taken out of context.
- phunlee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Maybe cause I'm not in the military..?? but everything in those bios,especially hers, made them sound like really good people. Going against Bush at every possible turn is how I want my politicians at this point. He's proven himself inadequate for the job, so even if the most brilliant plan to solve all the world's problems came out of his mouth, I'd tell him to stfu.
- DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6What is misleading is this article on ThinkProgress. The fact is everything in the fliers was true. The only thing the politicos didn't like is that it was presented to the people they were trying to *****.
- mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, a rightard saying ThinkProgress is wrong yet without any proof!
Shocker!
In fact it's YAWN a daily occurance.
Typical rightards. Just whining about how it's wrong without being able to prove it.
Pathetic.
- mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, a rightard saying ThinkProgress is wrong yet without any proof!
- alliekins619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Does anybody notice that ThinkProgress never bothered to "obtain" the Republican's bio? What if the company who put there out just blows at getting their ***** right in the first place? Also, when were these fliers made? If it was before Aug. 2, how can you expect them to be completely up-to-date on Tauscher's votes? And, in closing, how can ThinkProgress blame anybody for picking out only "incendiary" statements to sway opinions when they do the same ***** thing?
- aterkel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2allikeins619 - We did attempt to obtain Porter's bio, but received no response. Additionally, as we highlighted in our piece, Porter didn't even know this was going on and presumably didn't see the bio they had made for him: When Porter learned about his colleagues’ rap sheets, he stated, “I had never seen that in the past. That’s new. Now I want to see what they’re saying about me.”
- mstoneburner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why ask the hard questions when it's easier just to assume it's some plot orchestrated by Chimpy McBu$hitler's cronies?
- GiggleStick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How many times has the left claimed that the troops are demoralized and ready to quit in Iraq? If that is the case, then after reading that bio of Tauscher, they should be in love with her. As far as cherry picking, it seems more like they just narrowed their bio to the votes and statements specifically to do with Iraq, since that's kinda why they are there, not to talk about free health care for poor people or anything. If they're views on Iraq are truly unflattering, I guess the should just not put anything on the bio about in the future, eh?
- Nirgaul, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It isn't that they narrowed their bios to issues specifically addressing the war. They purposely misconstrued the most relevant facts. These leaflets are propaganda designed to undermine the representatives' ability to have useful diplomacy in Iraq.
If you care anything for the troops in Iraq, for their families, or if your empathy goes as far as caring for the well-being of the Iraqis themselves, then you must know that this false propaganda is only serving to undermine potential stability. If the Iraqi government fails, any chance at democracy fails. - tsotha, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0What we have here is a group of congresspeople touching down in the green zone so next week, when Petraus releases his report they can say "I was in Iraq last week and it's way worse than he says it is.," without mentioning the fact they never left the Green Zone. They're setting up a fraud, and the troops know it. The Democrats cannot afford a US victory in Iraq, and this is just a small part of their efforts.
- Nirgaul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Its this kind of partisan paranoia that ruins the process of diplomacy. The fact is, you can't win this sort of war. Its different than vietnam - in vietnam, the US only bombed the South. In the middle east, you have Afghanistan, which has been the centerpiece for carpet bombing that has gone on for several decades. The USSR flattened it. Then the US. You can blow up buildings with bunker bombs all you want, but you're not going to demoralize the inhabitants. You can only galvanize their will to resist. Read Sun Tsu's Art of War - he address war abroad, even desert warfare. Same issues now as they had then.
As for needing the war to fail, there are enough scandals in the republican party right now to ensure still more democrats will be elected next term.- tsotha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Carpet bombin"? Do you have any idea what that term actually means? We haven't carpet bombed anyone since 1972, and we have most definitely not been carpet bombing either Iraq or Afghanistan. And we're not trying to demoralize the inhabitants. As for reading, maybe you should read stuff from people who are there and know what they're talking about, like this:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/
As far as Democrats being elected... we'll see. I remember in early 1992 GHWB looked to have an unassailable lock on the coming election. The leading lights of the Democratic party refused to get into the election becuase they were sure to lose. So they picked some yokel from Arkansas to be the guy for the "rebuilding" year. As far as scandals go, the Democrats have plenty of their own. The big difference is they don' t resign when they're caught, like William Jefferson or Harry Reid. For now they have a compliant press to rely on, but that can change quickly.
- tsotha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Carpet bombin"? Do you have any idea what that term actually means? We haven't carpet bombed anyone since 1972, and we have most definitely not been carpet bombing either Iraq or Afghanistan. And we're not trying to demoralize the inhabitants. As for reading, maybe you should read stuff from people who are there and know what they're talking about, like this:
- Nirgaul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Its this kind of partisan paranoia that ruins the process of diplomacy. The fact is, you can't win this sort of war. Its different than vietnam - in vietnam, the US only bombed the South. In the middle east, you have Afghanistan, which has been the centerpiece for carpet bombing that has gone on for several decades. The USSR flattened it. Then the US. You can blow up buildings with bunker bombs all you want, but you're not going to demoralize the inhabitants. You can only galvanize their will to resist. Read Sun Tsu's Art of War - he address war abroad, even desert warfare. Same issues now as they had then.
- WaltDismal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Now we know where Karl Rove has been since he left the White House. Well, only 'officially' left. In reality, he's still out there and very active, now freed to pull dirty tricks like this. Still linked into the GOP backchannel email and communications system. Still free to delete incriminating correspondence, and direct rotten tricks.
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Tauscher's leaflet sure doesn't look negative to me. If anything, it highlighted the fact that she disagrees with how long the stay in Iraq is and wants to start bringing the troops home. Then again, this is ThinkProgress who posted this, so no brain power was used in the writing of this article.
- donelson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3////////////////////
Well, that stinks of KARL "Goebbles" ROVE and DICK "F'ck Your Mother" CHENEY. - chase001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The last official work of Karl Rove.
- jimski1961, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Democrats hate the military. The troops were getting info on whether it was worth their life to save these traitorous cretin's. As far as the lone Republican? He's a piece of crap also
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by