digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Reagan's secret use of domestic CIA propaganda

consortiumnews.com — As historians ponder George W. Bush's disastrous presidency, they may wonder how Republicans perfected a propaganda system that could fool tens of millions of Americans, intimidate Democrats, and transform the vaunted Washington press corps from watchdogs to lapdogs. Now revealed, the Reagan administration built a domestic covert propaganda system

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • onyxcoltrane, on 06/30/2008, -12/+63FTA: ....but the chapter’s conclusions and its detailed account of how the “perception management” operation worked ended up on the editing room floor. The American people thus were spared the chapter’s troubling finding: that the Reagan administration had built a domestic covert propaganda apparatus managed by a CIA propaganda and disinformation specialist working out of the National Security Council.

    “One of the CIA’s most senior covert action operators was sent to the NSC in 1983 by CIA Director [William] Casey where he participated in the creation of an inter-agency public diplomacy mechanism that included the use of seasoned intelligence specialists,” the chapter’s conclusion stated.

    “This public/private network set out to accomplish what a covert CIA operation in a foreign country might attempt – to sway the media, the Congress, and American public opinion in the direction of the Reagan administration’s policies.”

    However, with the chapter’s key findings deleted, the right-wing domestic propaganda operation not only survived the Iran-Contra fallout but thrived.

    • JettaMan, on 07/01/2008, -26/+10Wait a minute... the press are lapdogs for Republicans? Give me a friggin break. 90% of the Press are registered Democrats. They push socialist causes up and down the flagpole. The CIA part might be true, but his other claim certainly lacks credibility.
      • mOdQuArK, on 07/01/2008, -4/+23A lot of reporters might have Democratic leadings, but the people writing their paychecks don't.
      • eryximachus, on 07/01/2008, -15/+8Funny how once again, the truth is dugg down.

        The media has been ridiculously liberal for decades. How does anyone question this? I want one digg reader to tell me who the evil conservative media pundit was in the 1980s. No, AM radio doesn't count.
      • Ridgeliner7, on 07/01/2008, -6/+13How absolutely stupid that statement is! The owners of the major newspapers and TV Networds, the actual bosses, majority stockholders, are all very left-wing, just like the owners of the NY Times. Jeeze!
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/01/2008, -3/+9I think Rupert Murdoch for one would be rather upset at being described as left-wing!
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/01/2008, -4/+9@eryximachus
        WTF?
        Are you seriously that stupid?
        Oh, I guess it was the LIBERAL media that helped Bush start the war.
        What a retard.
        I know you right wing ***** haven't paid the slightest bit of attention, but pull your head out of your ass and get a clue.
        See if your tiny brain can go back and figure out where the media was actually assisting the Bush lies. Then explain how that is "liberal" media.
        No wonder you rightards are so ***** dumb on the issues.
      • madeingermany, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4@CryRightardCry
        I'd say yes, the LIBERAL media has helped Bush start the war.
      • JettaMan, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4@CryRightardCry: Welfare-Liberals, Progressives, Social Democrats... whatever you want to call them, are INTERVENTIONISTS. They like to project the US military around the world and meddle in the affairs of, well, everyone. Classic conservatives (i.e. not neocons) have a policy of non-interventionism. So yes, the Liberal media is pushing for wars overseas, but no it is not conservatives or libertarians doing this.
    • djholybolt, on 07/01/2008, -10/+1seriously, quit posting FTA's. We know how to click links and read. thanks!
    • richmomz, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8The 'management' of public perception to fit presidential policy is at the root of everything that is wrong with America today. Once upon a time it was the other way around, where presidential policy reflected the will of the people. Now "government for the people, by the people" has become nothing more than empty rhetoric.

      This needs to be dugg into the stratosphere.
  • bbwolf7, on 06/30/2008, -7/+44The missing chapter can be found at: http://www.consortiumnews.com/lostchapter.pdf.
    FTA: the failure of the Iran-Contra report to fully explain the danger of CIA-style propaganda intruding into the U.S. political process would have profound future consequences. Indeed, the evidence suggests that today’s powerful right-wing media gained momentum as part of the Casey-Raymond operations of the early 1980s.

  • allowners, on 06/30/2008, -10/+30Ironically the perps are the same ones who coined the term "useful idiots." Indeed!
    • clementi, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2No, it was Lenin describing Western apologists for socialism. But they did popularize the term.
      • SuperMoses, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Correction: Lenin describing Western apologists for Soviet Union policies... not socialism as there were many socialists completely against the soviets.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/30/2008, -13/+24So with that kind of information control, then Big Brother did happen in 1984. Can we expect to find ourselves ready to go extinct as soon as Bush finishes spreading his own ***** through his hair?
  • duggtodeath, on 06/30/2008, -10/+54Idiocracy, here we come!
  • WiseWeasel, on 06/30/2008, -19/+49Expecting neocon collaborator post attacking this source in 3... 2... 1...
    • OC73, on 07/01/2008, -46/+9Expect leftists to use the term "neocon" like it actually means something in 3...2...1...
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -6/+24Hey, I'm a registered Republican, and I just can't stand nazi^Wneocon posers.
      • Nanite, on 07/01/2008, -4/+11Don't act like you don't know what neocon means, *****.

        And if you truly don't know what it means, than you probably are one.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11If the boot fits.
      • Somnabot, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3haha. You've been dugg down even more than WiseWeasel has been dugg up.

        Where are your friends now?
  • ScienceDoc, on 06/30/2008, -25/+50The current mess we are in is courtesy of the Great Fornicator, Ronald Reagan. He turned people against their own government while handing the purse strings to big business. The laws passed under Reagan are still screwing us today. Remember Trickle-Down Economics?
    • mikeyeah, on 07/01/2008, -11/+26I don't know why people are digging you down, everything you said is absolutely true. As far as I'm concerned, Reagan was an elitist, racist prick who inspired Bush and the neocons to rob this country blind and squeeze the life out of the middle class. Posthumously, Reagan can go ***** himself.
      • Wakkyweed, on 07/01/2008, -6/+22The people digging him down are probably all the young republicans who were brainwashed by years of republican propaganda into believing that Ronald Reagan was a great president. I've heard people seriously say that his image should be added to Mount Rushmore!

        I remember the Reagan years very well, and he was a complete ass. Christopher Hitchens puts it very well in this article, for those of you with short memories.

        http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/
    • jessehadden, on 07/01/2008, -4/+15Who better to use as the mouthpiece for warped policies than a popular actor? He gave his blessing to a lot of evil & hypocrisy, while giving the public a wink & a nod. After his death, the media decided to bestow him with sainthood, and to give him credit for any positive world event that he gave a speech about.
    • toetagger, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1http://www.soaw.org/
  • onyxcoltrane, on 06/30/2008, -20/+43Trickle down = Piss on
    • jonnyboy1544, on 07/01/2008, -12/+2My bank account doesn't smell like piss. Does yours?
  • Hiji, on 06/30/2008, -12/+4High class hookers?
  • Dumbledorito, on 06/30/2008, -18/+73And yet the "liberal media" myth persisted. Interesting... and quite scary.
    • zorpscorp, on 07/01/2008, -3/+27who do you think made it up in the first place?
    • michelebot, on 07/01/2008, -2/+20It's not a liberal media. It's a sycophantic media.

      The media will make sure they don't allow the administration that is in power look bad so they have continued access to it.
    • kingUssop, on 07/01/2008, -2/+10That's the nature of propaganda, pure lies. Look how well it has worked. Look how many imbeciles will say things "aren't reputable" unless the government or MSM news says it is.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5It's Corporate Media telling you it is liberal because they put people on who whine sometimes. That is NOT advocacy for the Citizen.
  • borez, on 07/01/2008, -11/+27Why do these ***** feel the need to lie and deceive, control and mess with normal human beings?

    Is this some kind of sick joke that I'm not privy to coz I don't have enough cash ? Or are they all just a bunch of c..ts?

    • chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -3/+23They think they are more important than you. If you were important you would have more money.
      • borez, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11What's so special about being important in the grand scheme of things?

        BTW, your comment is a great bit of philosophy in itself mate.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -2/+14"What's so special about being important in the grand scheme of things?"

        Exactly. It's a mental condition.
      • PJ1967, on 07/01/2008, -5/+8And remember, the far-right masses have been brainwashed to believe that those who have money are favored by Jesus.
      • Jlaugh, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8That's not what Jesus said about money. Blessed are the poor...
      • sodade, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Jlaugh - go read 1984 and you will understand. Slavery is freedom.
    • kingUssop, on 07/01/2008, -3/+8Some people are born with endless greed, some are born with sadistic tendencies. Some are just pawns thinking they're doing the right thing.
    • ATLien74, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Why? Power.
    • Psyber1an, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" applies to more than just communists...it applies to ALL of us.

      http://www.bartleby.com/59/6/allanimalsar.html
      • frontalpha, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1In America our constitution and government gives us equal opportunity to become rich and powerful but some people take advantage of that more than others. And by you being less important, you are less important than the lives of all Americans. And I am definitely less important than the lives of all Americans so suck it up. If our government has information or "lack of information" that could provoke an enemy advantage to kill and destroy Americans, our government has the right to withhold information from us.
  • TinternAbbot, on 07/01/2008, -25/+34This is hardly a reputable source.
  • radiantstorm, on 07/01/2008, -8/+10It's deja vu all over again. The MO remains the same, while the technology improves.
  • thedogfatherx, on 07/01/2008, -27/+15consortiumnews??? Bwuahahahahahaha.....hahahahahaha

    What a joke.
  • 55mph, on 07/01/2008, -10/+27'perception management'

    Once upon a time the President and his trolls, cared what we thought. Not anymore.

    Cheney is asked about public opinion being decidedly agains't the War in Iraq and he says 'So ?"

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=c-sS07uDYBE
    • sodade, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2I am thinking that Nixon blew it by resigning.
  • swrostmore, on 07/01/2008, -9/+29W. Bush's secret use of domestic propaganda-

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20gen ...
    • coyote1284, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Not much of a secret...
      • swrostmore, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3that's stupid, neither is the titular "CIA propaganda"...as of now...but it was in fact secret for years.
  • katorga, on 07/01/2008, -2/+14Read the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers arguing over the adoption of the Constitution. It is ironic that the Federalists made the same arguments of national security and defense to justify the growth of national power at the expense of state or individual power as politicians today.
    • sodade, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2I'd guess that they actually had credible threats back then.
      • tightscrummy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Hamilton was British tool and deserved the bullet (or ball?) he got from Burr. We really could use one or two badasses like Aaron Burr right now.
  • Thrilltone, on 07/01/2008, -6/+28Dugg for "transform the vaunted Washington press corps from watchdogs to lapdogs"
    That was our downfall.
    That is why we tolerate special interests controlling our leaders.
    Who do you think gets all that special interest money in the end?
    The Media does, as payment for campaign advertising.
    That's why they tolerate and even condone the treachery.
    The foxes are guarding the henhouse.
    • Stavrosian, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2And even the journalists who aren't willingly complicit face losing access to key politicians if they step out of line. It's a grand old set-up.
  • JaNkz, on 07/01/2008, -24/+9This just in!! Jimmy Carter once took a ***** and didn't wipe!

    That's basically what this story says. Let's not forget Reagan's entire presidency was carried out during the cold war. A lot worse CIA ***** went down during the cold war than this ridiculousness, even if this is true, who cares?
    • Elissar, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2The CIA is barred by law from operating within the United States as per the National Security Act of 1947--you know, the law that created it.

      "(1) collect intelligence through human sources and by other appropriate means, except that the Agency shall have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions;"

      The CIA even has to turn over agents to the FBI that it's recruited overseas if they come to the US.


      http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml
  • munen123, on 07/01/2008, -11/+21regan was a horrible president, I thought he was the worst we could get; then we hire gw ***** for president!

    how come we always hire moron presidents for two terms? (yes that includes clinton, thou clinton wasnt as bad as regan or bushes)
    • eryximachus, on 07/01/2008, -12/+9It's spelled Reagan you ***** ignorant child. Before you let such infantile emotions cloud your judgment, learn how to spell the names of the people you trash.
      • ddawggin, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Don't see how you're getting buried for making a simple observation.
    • coyote1284, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5"how come we always hire moron presidents?"
      FTFY
      'Cos it takes an inmate to run this asylum.
    • davidron, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4I'm having trouble with your logic:

      We always hire moron presidents for two terms. Clinton is less of a moron than both Bush's. But, the first Bush was only in office for one term.
      • Jlaugh, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7The first Bush wasn't a moron he's just evil. Strictly evil presidents only get one term. He coined the term "Voodoo economics" about Reagan's economic trickle down policy, that's proof he knew what was up.
    • droo31, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5How do you figure that RWR was the worst president? Was it defeating communism? Ending nuclear proliferation? Providing the economic policies that brought America out of a hopeless tailspin? When Carter's administration left office...interest rates were around 20%...Iran had been holding American hostages for a long while. Reagan ended all that.

      Seriously...read a history book instead of just regurgitating this liberal nonsense about "worst presidents" ever.

      BTW, Reagan hovered at 65% or higher approval ratings throughout his presidency and won 44 states in his 1980 bid for the White House and 49 states in his '84 bid.

      Worst president, indeed.

      Moron.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -17/+5The conspiracy theorists crack me up. For one, they give these politicians WAYYYY too much credit. I'm sorry, folks. Politicians and the bureaucrats that work for them aren't that smart, sinister, or coordinated. They fly by the seat of their pants for a few years between elections.
    • republicker, on 07/01/2008, -5/+4So, I guess the conspiracy is bigger than any puppet politician. I guess you think world events just fall into place and happen by chance, like a game of cards. lol
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5No, I think that these people are so unorganized that if they tried to pull half the ***** you guys accuse them of, they'd get caught before the plan ever got off the ground.
      • republicker, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2vexingmodstwo
        I suspect you have never read about the secret lives of CIA operatives have you. The world is run behind the scenes, the show that the public witnesses is merely a global sitcom named "Bread and Circuses" and the Joe public cant get enough.
    • wynja, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1mmm, no one's giving politicians credit. their saying it was the work of the CIA whose ***** job it is to be sneaky and covert.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I apologize. All the references to politicians in the article led me to believe otherwise.
  • Infidelcastr0, on 07/01/2008, -6/+16Reagan was more or less the same in terms of policy positions as Dubya. He just had more charm, better PR, and didn't go quite as far, which meant the disastrous effects of his policies took a bit longer to really take hold. I'm sure the church of Reagan will bury me for this but if you look at the facts and where his policies led years down the road you will see that I'm right.
    • TinternAbbot, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1What were the disastrous effects of his policies?
      • Infidelcastr0, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Those would be terrorism, economic instability, unemployment, speculative bubbles and redistribution of wealth towards the rich. The neocon philosophy that is hurting us so badly now got it's first taste of power during the Reagan administration, and their horrid foreign policy is what got us into the mess we're in with radical Islamists today. Then of course there was his union-busting. And let's not forget about the abomination that is the "War on Drugs."
  • sk11, on 07/01/2008, -7/+21"how Republicans perfected a propaganda system that could fool tens of millions of Americans"

    Fooling Americans isn't exactly quantum physics.
    • 8m4ck, on 07/01/2008, -4/+5Fooling any human isn't, for that matter...
    • 2612, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Nope. A freshman senator with a pretty unimpressive record and a tendency to change positions is doing it now.
  • davidron, on 07/01/2008, -6/+37I'm not a republican, but I'm going to defend them for a second here. Manipulation of the media dates back a lot farther than the 1980s, and the granddaddy of democrats, Franklin D. Roosevelt headed some monster World War II propaganda (propaganda that continued into the administration of Democrat President Harry Truman).

    Let us not forget Democratic President Woodrow Wilson's "Committee on Public Information" as well.

    Perhaps manipulation through media is something that's as old as politics itself. Something we should be aware of and simply assume that the information we get is incomplete regardless of the source.
    • IRPro, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Indeed, and thank you for a breath of fresh "reality" from my "opposing faction/Political Party".

      That has been the one thing I truly never understood about Liberals (or otherwise the far left), that they feel they have "all the information" that those in power have. "They" just can't seem to figure out why people like Pelosi will say one thing in public and (as in this weeks example alone) turn around and authorize funding for our President to begin upscaling Black-Ops in Iran... It's because she has more information then you, and the President has more than her...

      Not everything is a conspiracy for oil or for some "evil Neo-Con", vast right wing conspiracy.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1AS a progressive, Pelosi is a disappointment.

        Just because she has a (D) after her name, and in general, Liberals have pushed the country forward, doesn't mean that someone cannot hijack the Democratic party.

        The difference is, we identify with the goals, and not the cheerleaders. Progressives are results-oriented and we will use whatever works best, and drop any politician who says; "Impeachment is off the table."
    • ssn697, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I wish there was a way to put your post at the top of the thread and digg it up 50 times.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1AS a progressive, Pelosi is a disappointment.

      Just because she has a (D) after her name, and in general, Liberals have pushed the country forward, doesn't mean that someone cannot hijack the Democratic party.

      The difference is, we identify with the goals, and not the cheerleaders. Progressives are results-oriented and we will use whatever works best, and drop any politician who says; "Impeachment is off the table."

      >> While there are examples of Democrats working the propaganda -- I have a hard time with any defense of the Republican party, because it has only EVER existed to give more to the elite, and to sell the idea of more burden to the middle class. Their best pitch is "lower taxes." Yeah, Bush lowered taxes, only to print more money. Whatever you got back on taxes quickly got spent on heating your home, health care, education, and utilities. Much of the increase in gas prices is the depreciating dollar. THAT right there is what happens when you print money instead of pay for it with taxes.

      Less war, less prison, and replace more roads with rail tracks and we could be saving a lot of money. But Republicans, for the most part, have never pushed any concept of the commons, and have piggy-backed on Religious dogma.

      Fundamentally, there is nothing sound in their economic policy, or in their ideas of how to help the Economy. The only thing they manage to do is bust unions.
    • MercFox1, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I ask anyone who really thinks that their respective party will change anything in Washington this question:

      Why fight "the man" when you can be "the man"?
  • HarryCaIlahan, on 07/01/2008, -12/+7Seeing as how seemingly every comment and post except for a few isolated in these forums are borderline communist and based upon absolutely nothing, I figure I'll give my borderline Fascist opinion based upon absolutely nothing. If all the Presidents greatest attributes were combined into one, they would perhaps equal the greatness in Reagan's pinky. Punks like you are meant to be exploited for the idiots you are, cause all you can do is whine in an internet forum thinking your opinion matters, which it does about as much as mine, which adds up to absolutely nothing. The sooner you people realize that our opinions mean dick, and that unless you have money it will continue to mean nothing, the more content you will be with your most likely meaningless existences. Theres your attack wiseweasel, sorry its a little late.
    • nycmac247, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8You didn't read the article, did you? I realize I might be wrong...
    • wynja, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6Reagan was a god damn actor, and a bad one at that. Oh, and he was ***** senile for his second term.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3The NeoCons and the conservative propaganda machines took over education. Such that people like yourselves can't tell the difference between the Common Good and Communism.

      OH, and Reagan was a Democrat, back when he still had a brain, before Nancy reprogrammed him.
      • Enigmocracy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I think the bigger problem is that people can't tell the difference between Communism and the system of government the Soviet Union ran under.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Finally, some boot-licker recognition...
  • BoatCaptainBob, on 07/01/2008, -2/+24Wait, are you saying our government lies to us and manipulates information for its own benefit?!?

    Shocking.
  • wynja, on 07/01/2008, -9/+18Hel-*****-lo people, George Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA for 25 years. Stop giving Reagan, the crappy actor, credit for stuff that was done by his vice president.

    When you give Reagan credit for it, your buying straight into the propaganda.
    • obliviousfool, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Good point. We shouldn't give credit to a president who's most important contribution to his cabinet meetings was not snoring.
    • GRTWHT, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Someone that actually knows a little history and has given a little thought to the facts....amazing!
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2for the past 4 decades, it has been the Bush Crime Family running things. Yeah, Reagan wasn't much in the drivers seat. Reagan got shot by Hinkley, Bush's college buddy who he successfully lobbied to get released -- then after that, he was giving speeches with an ear plug where someone would tell him what to say.

      Nixon was Prescott Bush's protege. And our Cuban embargo policy, is probably mostly due to the Bush family losing oil drilling and mob money.
    • aadyss, on 07/01/2008, -2/+0George Herbert Bush was head of the CIA. He served in this role for 355 days, from January 30, 1976 to January 20, 1977 when the Democratic favorite son, Jimmie Carter, was sworn in as President. Somehow Wynja seems to believe the VP is the head of the CIA. Unbelievable!! I guess it is hard to stop when you get started on a leftist rant.
      • wynja, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry. He was only a CIA agent previous to that. His ties to the CIA stem from his military career.
  • pigfister, on 07/01/2008, -7/+9its been the same for years, the USA and UK are committing murder worldwide but the propaganda machine make out that they are just.

    its a case of its all right for us to do it......
  • executorzz, on 07/01/2008, -11/+12I don't know the reliability of consortium news but a Harvard research study showed a significant bias against republicans in the media:

    " ...a joint survey of the project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Pubic Policy: *

    The morning news shows produced twice as many stories on Democrats as Republicans (51 percent to 27 percent). *

    Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) front page coverage was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative. Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. In contrast, for Republicans the tone was positive in only about 25 percent of stories and was negative in 40 percent of stories.

    CNN programming cast a negative light on Republican candidates by a margin of three-to-one. CNN's coverage of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was 63 percent negative while Mr. Obama's was only 8 percent negative. *
    • phydeaux70, on 07/01/2008, -4/+10But...the typical digg'er would like to ignore this in favor of some unproven conspiracy theory.

      They read a post from Huffington or some other liberal press and think it's gospel. Yet...ironically they talk about how Republicans manipulate things and are dishonest.
    • Haapi, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6I call BS. The only place I can find that text is in right-wing blogs. On the site mentioned, I can only find "CHARACTER AND THE MEDIA 2008:
      What Were the Media Master Narratives about the Candidates During the Primary Season?", where the basic finding is that the media blindly repeats what the campaigns are saying. And that is no surprise.

      And if FOX News and a certain drug-addled gasbag had changed their tune on McCain, it would have evened up the scores.

      Also, McCain was practically a non-entity for the period of the closing months of the Democratic primaries. What else is the new gonna talk about besides the Dem horserace?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2The police are biased against bank robbers, since they seem to do more of the robbing.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -17/+3You people have watched one too many movies. Go outside and smell the fresh air.
    • insanebrain, on 07/01/2008, -4/+3you have seen to many diggs, time to see some buries.
  • Arkons24, on 07/01/2008, -12/+4This is such complete and total ***** that I can smell it from 200 miles away. Iran-Contra, first of all, completely dismantled the CIA as a useful tool for the president. The witch hunt that occurred following Iran-Contra is partly to blame for 9/11 because of what happened to the CIA. You guys are ***** idiots if you believe this *****.
    • wynja, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Right, that's why the only person ever charged in connection to the Iran-Contra affair was a lowly colonel whom happens to have received his very own TV show after getting out of jail.
      • Arkons24, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Oliver North who you refer to was not even associated with the CIA he was the military adviser to the national security council. Also, North wasn't even close to the only person convicted during that time. John Poindexter was another and there were quite a few more as well.

        William Casey gave weapons to Iran so that they would save face and not kill any hostages. Second the reason the CIA had its hands tied after was because administrations being completely against any type of covert action following it. This is part of the reason we never apprehended Bin Laden because people were scared ***** of political fallout like during Iran Contra. The CIA largely had little to do with Iran-Contra but were basically screwed because of it. At least scan wikipedia before you try and argue about something. No surprise your complete ***** has 4 diggs at the time of this posting though. The people of the comments section love being lied to at least or even more than the rest of the this country.
    • Jaguwar, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4Ditto,
      A lot of truth packed into a few lines.

      My only addition might be "....dismantled [what was left of the CIA after the "reforms" of Carter, Frank Church, Seymour Hirsch/MSM and the McGovernites] as a useful tool....."
    • BobNoxious211, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Reagan gave weapons, CIA training, and 2 BILLION dollars to Osama Bin Laden, making 9-11 not just a possibility, but a reality.

      Dismantled the CIA? The same CIA that tried to warn Bush about the coming of 9-11? The same CIA that Bush used to trump up a war against a country that never attacked us? The same CIA Bush uses to spy on Americans?

      Read a book, Arkons. One that wasn't written by Limbaugh or Coulter.
      • Arkons24, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Reagan didn't give any weapons to Bin Laden you *****. Bin Laden was only a bit player in the Afghanistan war and didn't receive any U.S. weapons or training for that matter. Secondly, the weapons given to Afghanistan started during the Carter administration not Reagan's and furthermore the subsequent increase in funding to Afghanistan rebels wasn't part of the White House agenda, it was a small subset of congress lead by Congressman Charlie Wilson (Democrat) that gave the rebels the extra funds. The CIA was dismantled following Iran-Contra by its next 4 Directors all of whom largely thought that the Clandestine part of the CIA should be shut down or weakened and we should all depend on satellites. This dismantling was the biggest reason that the CIA largely missed all the cues coming about 9/11 go read a book about it. "American Hubris" or any book by Robert Baer will tell you all about it. The CIA never warned the president about 9/11 in a way that was substantial. The CIA brought up incredibly deep evidence of biological weapons that Saddam had. He likely destroyed all of these weapons before the attack and every other intelligence service involved agreed that the evidence was extremely conclusive. Not that we needed that as a reason to attack Saddam anyway considering his outright refusal to disarm his nuclear program and his collaboration with known terrorists (not named Osama Bin Laden). Also the CIA is absolutely forbidden from spying on US citizens and if there was even a inkling of proof that they had they would up to their ears in *****. You're thinking about the NSA you arrogant ass.
        You're a tool shed. Learn to read a book. Rofl. Try learning to read you arrogant know-nothing. Go read something not written by some *****-run, far left, conspiracy theory factory.
    • Arkons24, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1This is pretty much the perfect thread for pointing out how foolish the majority of digg users are. Respond to their emotional response with fact and they'll just digg you down because they don't want the truth.
  • Jaguwar, on 07/01/2008, -17/+7 Blah, blah, F-word blah blah moveon.org talking point. blah blah George Bush is Hitler blah blah shredding the constitution blah blah Guantanamo fascists. Blah blah something I heard on the Daily Show blah blah F-word blah blah Huffington Post talking point, blah blah torture fascists Blah blah Fox news blah blah.

    Blah blah something my college professor with the pony tail once said blah blah Dick Cheney blah blah Abu Ghraib blah blah lied about Iraq blah blah. When will America wake up blah blah neo-cons blah blah Karl Rove blah blah NSA blah blah neo-con blah blah. fascists racist homophobic blah blah.

    Whewwww, I am drained, speaking truth to power is so exhausting, I think I will listen to the new Coldplay on my iPod, have a latte and edit my Facebook page.
    • wynja, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Why don't you just go ahead and eat an aborted fetus while your at it.
    • BobNoxious211, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Blah, Blah, I no longer have any rights.
      Blah, Blah, our country is a fascist state.
      Blah, Blah, why vote at all.

      This is what's wrong with US news media. Most folks are numb and are no longer outraged by everyday atrocities. Cut off their tv and music, THEN they'll get upset.
  • IRPro, on 07/01/2008, -15/+9Only Blind, partisan Liberals would call a Presidency that liberated two nations under repressive regimes "disastrous".

    How blind you children are... how very, very blind.
    • sodade, on 07/01/2008, -6/+6Regan's presidency didn't liberate anyone you ***** sheep.
    • BobNoxious211, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens?
      Raising taxes 11 times in 8 years?
      Selling missles to Iran?
      Selling the WMD's to Saddam?
      Giving weapons, CIA training, and BILLIONS of dollars to Bin Laden?
      Secret wars and US financed Death Squads in Central America?
      Committing high treason?
      Financing terrorism?
      Supporting Noriega in Panama as he moved tons of drugs into our nation?

      Oh yea. He did a GREAT job. WHICH two countries did he "liberate"?
    • sandersdamnit, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2i think he speaks of The Decider sodade, i don't think Boosh would have been so quick to jump to war if all his buddies didn't sit on the boards of just about every major defense contractor in the ***** world oh yeah and ***** oil too lets not forget about that..... anyway they try and spin it, but we all know what it's really about and they laugh all the way to the goddamn bank while people like IRpro vote them into office because they think Jesus sent them W to "save the world from islamo-fascists and gays"
    • SoulDrift404, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2And he oversaw that impressive win in the war on Granada. What's your point?
    • richmomz, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Ask the inhabitants of those countries how 'liberated' they feel right now.
  • Jitan, on 07/01/2008, -9/+3I'm far from being a fan of Reagan. In fact, I dislike him very much. But Consortiumnews? C'mon. You can't be serious. This is one of the few places that might actually be worse than WorldNetDaily.
    • SoulDrift404, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Robert Parry was a well known AP journalist who broke many of the stories in the Iran Contra affair 20 years ago. The fact that he's publishing on a smalltime internet site now is basically irrelevant.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry
  • Ridgeliner7, on 07/01/2008, -13/+7Buried as "inaccurate", total speculation and moronic pap.
    • MadKennyP, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4From the guy who makes up quotes. Nice.
  • jlhoben, on 07/01/2008, -4/+8Regan = another war monger.
    • jack104, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1REAGAN....= a man who ended the cold war and possibly spared the world from WWIII. Have some respect for the dead.
  • JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -13/+2Buried as inaccurate blatherings from whiny liberals. Reagan was so popular because he did so many things correctly...and the general population knew about it. It really is that simple.

    But, liberals will always lie, use propaganda, and attempt to rewrite history in a vain attempt to push their agenda. Too bad. So sad. Poor babies. Better luck next time.
    • BobNoxious211, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens?
      Raising taxes 11 times in 8 years?
      Selling missles to Iran?
      Selling the WMD's to Saddam?
      Giving weapons, CIA training, and BILLIONS of dollars to Bin Laden?
      Secret wars in Central America?
      Committing high treason?
      Financing terrorism?

      Oh yea. He did a GREAT job. Re-writing history is what Repuglicans try to do every time one says "Reagan was a great man".
      Spaz.
      • JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Hey, no president is perfect. And I never said that Reagan was an awesome president with whom I agreed on everything.

        But, this article was asserting that propaganda campaigns were why Reagan was popular. THAT is bullcrap.

        It's like liberals just cannot stand that most people had an overall positive opinion of Reagan as opposed to Clinton and Obama.
  • uu2b, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11The vast majority of "news" is slanted one way or another, left or right. News hasn't been news in this country for years (BBC still tends to be better than most US media outlets). You get some news, with a ***** of "Commentary" from pundits/experts who all have an agenda, strategic corporate alignment, or personal feeling that interfere with any objectivity whatsoever. When I read a FOX "News" story, I know they generally favor the right, and conversely, during CNN, I know they're left-leaning. If you keep that in mind at all times, you can generally filter out the BS...which is about 50% of their stories.

    The real problem is that all major "news" outlets want to make money, and to do that, you have to keep your base coming back so they can target you with advertising during the "news" that you like. It's all mostly *****.

    http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_ ...

    Of course, The Daily Show, is where the informed viewers go. http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.po ...
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3"Left-leaning" means nothing if a News organization cannot go after a crooked company or sponsor. Is Archer Daniels Midland going to get called on the carpet by National Public Radio, when they are a major sponsor? So the "lefty-sounding" nature of what they say is not so important as what they will talk about.
    • SuperMoses, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Left and right in a very narrow political view. It's the small bubble of the republicrats that have a left and a right and the media can be bias in either direction of that small bubble. However, there is a left side (see: Democracy Now,ZCommunications, Counterpunch, etc) that is virtually ignored in the media. They are not part of that narrow bubble.
  • Observer001, on 07/01/2008, -10/+6One more point for old Ronnie as Worst President in American History.
  • SuperVepr308, on 07/01/2008, -11/+2***** all that besmirch President Reagan's legacy. This means you, digg.
    • BobNoxious211, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens?
      Raising taxes 11 times in 8 years?
      Selling missles to Iran?
      Selling the WMD's to Saddam?
      Giving weapons, CIA training, and BILLIONS of dollars to Bin Laden?
      Secret wars and US financed Death Squads in Central America?
      Committing high treason?
      Financing terrorism?
      Supporting Noriega in Panama as he moved tons of drugs into our nation?
      Setting the stage for 9-11?

      Oh yea. He did a GREAT job.
  • l0k0, on 07/01/2008, -7/+6You guys think propaganda began in the 1980s and is only practiced by Republicans? That's funny.

    But back on topic: the article itself is not very useful. It states stuff we either knew already, or that is speculative with weak supporting evidence.
    • SuperMoses, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1// You guys think propaganda began in the 1980s and is only practiced by Republicans? That's funny. //

      Who said that? I would think most people by now know the Democrats and Republicans are the same *****.
  • davidwasman, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7Anyone ever notice the republicants always wait to come into a story like this to rip it apart?

    They know they will be buried into oblivion if they speak too soon, so they all circle jerk one another in the bottom of an article, digging each other up as if they're right.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3They're just bitter they weren't able to bury this story before it hit the front page...
  • gtluke, on 07/01/2008, -12/+3digg at a new low, bashing reagan, our greatest president
  • 8m4ck, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Doesn't appear so secretive if everyone on Digg knows about it...
    • SuperMoses, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Secret in the past tense moron. Didn't you read the description "Now revealed"... are you that stupid?
      • 8m4ck, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Are you that stupid to not recognize sarcasm?
  • Labyrinth336, on 07/01/2008, -6/+3I like how it says Fools millions of Americans and intimidates democrats.... so the liberals are immune to it? Or does it just have not effect on the retarded?
    • Stavrosian, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2You may be too stupid for mere words to describe.
  • jack104, on 07/01/2008, -8/+1Say what you want about Bush, but back off of Reagan. The guy pretty well ended the cold war and saved the world from what could have been WWIII. Basically, what this "article" is saying is that the Government isn't playing ball straightforward and telling people just exactly what is going on. Furthermore, it's stating that all liberals are innocent and republicans are evil deceptive war mongers. News flash people. The government will never tell citizens just exactly what is going on because honestly....if I look deep down....I don't want to know the deep inner workings of our government. I just want to know that elected officials are striving to do the best they can to represent those who elected them, us.
    Additionally, I can refute the whole liberals being innocent with one noun. Congress. Liberals have the majority and still nothing has been done to alleviate "the plague put on this nation by the republicans."

    I'm really just tired of people sitting in their freaking computer chair and writing lofty stories about our government. If there is a problem then stop bitching about it and do something. I don't think there is a problem, at least not in this aspect, so i'm not doing anything.
    • Stavrosian, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Gorbachev ended the cold war, Reagan just tried to avoid falling over while eating Wrigleys.
      • Enigmocracy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1This is true. The myth that Reagan ended the Cold War is one of the silliest things ever. It was 100% Gorbachev.
      • jack104, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0No, it was Reagan's who beat Gorbachev in a spending race. Reagan was able to pump enough money into the American military to the point where the USSR could match. We bankrupted them essentially.
  • joeanon, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6what do you think the whole Red Scare was in the first place ?

    Listen to JFK's speech about secret societies and conspiracies.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6425528413 ...

    He wasn't talking about communism or extremists Muslims.

    He was warning you of the wealthy conspiring to control your nation and drag you to war while feeding you media propaganda.

    It does appear he died for nothing, because people are still apathetic toward all this.They either don't believe the rich can manipulate the entire nation or they just don't care because in their small minds it doesn't affect then.

    Yea, not more than plantations affected slaves.
    • TylerDurden0, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I forgot Kennedy came from a poor family and his poor old pop just wanted his own brand of politics run for 50 years of Kennedy presidents. He never had a hand in dirty politics, right?
    • SuperMoses, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1This is Kennedy just regurgitating the propaganda surrounding the Red Scare. This is the same guy that launched a covert war against Cuba which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and launched a war against Vietnam... all under the guise of "fighting communism".

      This ***** launched to wars and he's canonized yet he was not much different from Bush. Guess what... Dems and Republicans = same crap.
  • droo31, on 07/01/2008, -8/+3Ronald W. Reagan was the best president of my lifetime...this is pathetic that now the lefties are trying to rewrite his history also.
  • chase001, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Saint Ron the Pius did bad things? I can't believe it. According to all the revisionist history about him he was magnificent. Were his great acts before or after his second "vegetable" term?
  • vonmises05, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Ronald Reagan was by far the best presidet this country has seen in a long time; how dare you critisie a moral man and try and time him into your political agenda. He was a man of good heart, helped to bring down the Soviet Unionand was moral and upright. He established some of the greatest reforms as far as our economy is concerned by deregulating it; go to US statistcs online and note how every year Regan was in office, due to his policies, the unemployment rate went down. Perhaps you prefered when Clinton was in office and disgraced and scandalised our nation, then lied about it? Our country was not made great by people who tear great men down. The hubris of the left is always your most notable characteristic.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.