Iraqi Information Minister:WTF?

yes, I had a laugh at that myself this morning. Even as he's outside saying they aren't there, columns of smoke are rising in the background behind him.

but, on a more sinister level, I'm sure if he reported anything DIFFERENT, he'd be dead with a bullet to the back of the head.
Under those conditions, I'd be announcing that Glenda, the good witch of the south had arrived in her bubble to whisk all the iraqis away if they ordered me to.

There's plenty of sand around there for him to stick his head in...

It got me thinking though - how much does the Pentagon lie? This is definitely a psychological war, because who appears to be in control will determine whether many Iraqi soldiers fight or not. Obviously, it's in the Iraqi govt's interest to make their soldiers believe they're still firmly in control. But for the same reasoning, it's in our interest to have them believe we are in control. So would the Pentagon lie about how well the war is going, in order to gain that kind of advantage? Would that be ethical?

I find myself smiling wryly whenever he appears on TV, minutes after live feed of coalition forces roaming around presidential palaces, and announces proudly that they are in complete control and will shortly crush the invading infidels. I would love it if he was taken as a POW, live, at one of his press briefs.

I understand that they have a bit of a falling out with Al Jazeera, and that some of their reporters were asked to leave Baghdad.

I actually quite like the Iraqi Minister for (Dis)Information, seeing him on TV is rather fascinating!

He should be called the Misinformation minister.

I certainly could see the strategic advantage of either side bending or witholding the truth in wartime...so I'm sure both have to some degree.
there is a much greater need for the Iraqis to do so in this instance, however, as they need to convince a population that they don't want them to surrender.

um...duh! ALL information ministers are there to CONTROL the information, not to disseminate it indiscriminantly.

I'm sure there is a lot if disinformation put out by both sides.

But there are tanks rumbling in the background for god's sake. That's like saying it is a beautiful sunshiny day when standing in a huge sand-storm. This guy's statements go well beyond the calculated sewing of half-truth. It is now in the realm of "rediculously detatched from reality."

THIS, though. I mean, THIS is an SNL skit.

Information minister- standing in the middle of Main St. Bagdad:
Nope. No Americans in Bagdad.

Abrhams tanks- 6 of them roll by. American GIs pulling bunny ears over the IMs head, waving and showing signs reading "hi mon".

Sir, what about those Americans there?

WHAT Americans? I see no Americans. There are NO Americans in Bagdad. You are simply falling for the proaganda of the American Pig Dogs! Read my lips. No Americans in Bagdad!

I mean, were it not tragic, it would be high farce.

CNN's Walter Rodgers reported seeing mass desertions in the western suburbs of the city, with some Iraqi troops abandoning their tanks and armored vehicles in people's driveways.

"George? Did you buy another truck? Didn't I tell you I wanted a cute little sports car? And what's this button d.... booooooom

Damn. George? Our house appears to be gone..."

besides the smoke we've caused, Saddam ringed baghdad with tenches filled with oil which he lit on fire to deter laser guided missiles (good move, we use GPS guided missiles now), so seeing smoke in the background doesn't mean its from our bombing.

That said, didn't the information minister say four days we didn't control the airport? And were is this "unconventional attack"?

Not attacking is a pretty unconventional way to defeat an army in a non-seige environment...

[edit] see below...

Here we go, the BBC's got a full transcript:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/2924129.stm

Highlight of the speech:

""They tried to bring a small number of tanks and personnel carriers in through al-Durah but they were surrounded and most of their infidels had their throats cut.

"We made them drink poison last night [Sunday] and Saddam Hussein's soldiers and his great forces gave the Americans a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly."

I think he may have some kind of delusional problems

I was wondering where Kelly Hogan had gone.

Gotta love Baghdad Bob.

Thanks. I almost pee'd my pants when I saw that. Now I have to clean the coffee off of my keyboard.

Ditto.

I love him... He's the most creative information minister.

"It's all Hollywood, special effects and stunts"

i couldn;t believe his stupidity either.

by far the funniest thing i have heard him say is that "the US troops are at the gates of baghdad and they are committing suicide"

what a dumbass..

At some point I think you have to question whether or not your propaganda efforts are backfiring. Why bother saying this crap when people can look our their windows and see US Armor rolling down the street or turn on the radio and listen to independent media talking about members of the 3rd Infantry taking showers in Saddam's gold-fauceted bathroom?

Hell, if they had spent more time telling their troops how to fight and where to go instead of spinning yarns on TV about coalition forces "committing suicide" at the gates of the city, they might have actually accomplished something.

So far so good. Let's hope nothing worse happens so we can get the hell out of there.

i think the reason he is saying it is with the hopes that other of his soldiers in other parts of the country may be watching on tv and still be suckered into fighting more

I suppose that's the idea, but I'm just wondering whether or not there are Iraqi soldiers (or even civilians) anywhere that don't already have a pretty good idea of how badly they are losing this fight.

Jamaican-Americans, you mean.

Actually, the first time he said that he was right: journalists were brought to the airport and confirmed his words.

To be fair, both sides are lying: it's just that the Iraqis lies are more easily uncovered.

Hmmm. I don't remember those reports. I do remember journalists saying that they were supposed to be taken there, but that they never were.

they have been listening to it for 30 years from saddam. they are basically brainwashed. hopefully they can use their own minds now after all that

Iraqi officials then took the journalists on a round of the airport where there was no sign of any attack.
http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/apr/03iraq7.htm

Hours after Central Command first announced that lead elements of the U.S. force had reached the airport early Thursday, Iraqi officials escorted international media representatives to a quiet, largely deserted terminal, clearly still in Iraqi hands.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/5556602.htm

So where are the Americans? I prowled the empty departure lounges, mooched through the abandoned customs department, chatted to the seven armed militia guards, met the airport director and stood beside the runways where two dust-covered Iraqi Airways passenger jets...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisp...ection=dialogue

If they were 'fighting a war' they would have already surrendered - but it's an invasion of their country they are fighting against, so they'll keep resisting despite all odds.
It's the human nature.

Speculation said that they had probably mistake the old RAF airport for Bagdad International.

BG

Granted, the Iraqi lies are easily uncovered, but our side isn't LYING. LYING requires INTENT TO DECEIVE. The US doesn't have intent to deceive. But you already knew that.

boy its a good thing we aren't like the iraqis: brainwashed to believe whatever the government says.

good thing, eh?

No, I'm sure there is some intentional "fun-with-facts" going on from the US side. But if you're going to lie, keep it simple and within the boundries of fact.

Your faith is admirable, even if I find it hopelessly naive.

When they tell untruths it's malicious, when we do it it's an honest mistake?

That's just silly, finboy. Once again I'm struck by the irony that I'm supposed to be the romantic idealist and you're supposed to be the hardbitten realist.

If they thought the Dow Jones would go up 1000 points, they would tell you that the moon was made of cheese.

I don't think the Pentagon is lying about the success of the war effort. I don't think they have a reason to. Things seem to be going miraculously well for them so far.

I think there is some "fog of war" stuff, revisions ex post, etc. But I don't think there is any intentional lying that we'll never see corrected (some occassional, temporary disinformation is expected).

If the administration was lying or encouraging lies, they'd be taken out and nailed crosses, one by one, by the Left in the media. Hell, they don't even get credit for the REAL stuff that they do. Unless it's mis- or dis-, there is no lying going on. Nothing on purpose.

To say that there is is to once again FAIL TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS. A lot of info is coming from the front lines -- our troops are part of a mass coverup!!!!!! They KNOW about the oil thing and the atrocities and they're IN ON IT.

Consider for a moment the reputation effect that a lying media would have to deal with, and you may see how patently ridiculous it is to suppose that the media is lying to us.

I realize that many of you don't seem to understand our system here in the US (even those IN the US don't seem to get it -- a pity). Here, you're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. You can't lie, though, because the most important thing that you have in this type of system is your reputation. People go to great lengths, every day, to preserve and enhance their reputations in the free market system. Lying is a good way to waste all that time and effort, and sometimes the blow to reputation is permanent (although Gerry Rivers seems to keep defying the odds). Anyhow, you ARE your rep., and that helps stop lying.

er...I found your point a bit confusing...by the end you seemed to be saying there's no way the liberal media would lie to us, which is a good thing for a right wing person to finally admit, but I wonder if that was indeed your intent.

FWIW, I distrust ALL governments at least a little bit, because they are all about power, and knowledge, especially in a war situation where it cannot be easily confirmed, where what you say and how you phrase it can be seen as either boosting or deflating moral or support from the folks back home, where revealing too much can compromise the operation.....I find it hard to believe that ANY govt. would be entirely and completely truthful, because there is no real strategic advantage in doing so, at least in the short term.

No offense, but I find your pollyanna-ish blank check acceptance of everything our government says, not only naive, but not historically cognizant nor consistent.

No, no. Don't get me wrong. I don't think they are telling whoppers and expecting us to swallow them. I think that some of the dis-information may be part of the psych-ops stuff. Saying publicly that we have secured a city like Um Qasur only to find out later that we don't quite have it in hand is the stuff I'm talking about. It certainly helps us on the psychological front because it a) adds to the morale of our troops while b) demoralizing the opposition troops. That could easily save a few lives on both sides. Report of a quick victory (even if unconfirmed) is exactly the kind of thing the pentagon would want out there.

whoa that guy just came on and gave another announcement and said that saddam was actually Allah! i think someone is putting stuff in his coffee

I guess they moved the gates of Baghdad.

We'd better hurry up and surrender, those swords look sharp!!

.

Or "liberal media."

Here's an interesting piece from CNN: