Rolling Stone:US Army Deploys Psy-Ops on US Senators

[Winehole23]

The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.


The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.


"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223

[Marcus Bryant]

But it was for something worthwhile so it's not an issue.

[Marcus Bryant]

I guess the visiting Congressional members weren't fully American, and needed some remedial instruction.

[Winehole23]

The ends justify the means. This used to be one of our main criticisms of the USSR and all things socialist, now it is a wet blanket we use to stifle internal dissent.

[Winehole23]

And indoctrinate US Senators, apparently

[Marcus Bryant]

We assume that history progresses to a better tomorrow...

I know, I know, an isolated incident.

[Marcus Bryant]

The ends justify the means. This used to be one of our main criticisms of the USSR and all things socialist, now it is a wet blanket we use to stifle internal dissent.

We are headed that way, primarily in our institutions. In a highly regimented organization of immense scale and scope, any room for deviation will be exploited by the human mind for what it wants.

Supposedly we are to be comforted by the fact that our "traditions" would preclude us from subjecting the individual to a assault upon one's mind by the state. Rousseau foresaw such activity, and of course approved.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course, other efforts by the state to shape the mind are seldom noticed, and often defended vehemently by the recipients.

[Yonivore]

Exactly what statute was violated and how?

After reading the story, it appears the Commander merely asked for advice on how to sell the CODELs on more funds and troops.

The soldier objected because he believed it was illegal.

Nowhere in the article does it state the Congressional delegations were "propagandized" or exposed to direct efforts of the IO team. There was a nice conflation of the ideas, by the writer, to suggest that just because the IO team has a mission with the enemy that their expertise couldn't be used in a completely legal exercise with visiting dignitaries.

What the story fails to expose is exactly what statute was violated and what specific actions were in violation.

[Marcus Bryant]

Exactly what statute was violated and how?

After reading the story, it appears the Commander merely asked for advice on how to sell the CODELs on more funds and troops.

The soldier objected because he believed it was illegal.

Nowhere in the article does it state the Congressional delegations were "propagandized" or exposed to direct efforts of the IO team. There was a nice conflation of the ideas, by the writer, to suggest that just because the IO team has a mission with the enemy that their expertise couldn't be used in a completely legal exercise with visiting dignitaries.

What the story fails to expose is exactly what statute was violated and what specific actions were in violation.



http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/edmcmahonjohnnycarson.jpg

Hi-O!

[Marcus Bryant]

'Hey you, trained in psychological warfare, how do I get these visiting dignitaries to agree with me? I mean, I'm not that great of a rhetorician.'

Yeah.

[Yonivore]

Hey you, trained in psychological warfare, how do I get these visiting dignitaries to agree with me?
And, when you demonstrate the returned advice was to lie or mislead or "propagandize" the delegation; you have a case.

I don't see that element in the story.

They spent three pages building a narrative that something illegal occurred without citing the law or what specifics acts occurred that violated said law.

[Marcus Bryant]

Why must it have happened? What constitutes a "lie"?

The point is the order was given.

[Yonivore]

Why must it have happened? What constitutes a "lie"?

The point is the order was given.
What was the order given?

[ElNono]

Why would a Lt Colonel lie? To make into a RollingStone piece?

Sorry Yoni, until proven otherwise, I give the benefit of the doubt to a guy that know his job and it's constrains...

[Winehole23]

Nowhere in the article does it state the Congressional delegations were "propagandized" or exposed to direct efforts of the IO team. That's because the IO team ordered to do so refused to do it.

There was a nice conflation of the ideas, by the writer, to suggest that just because the IO team has a mission with the enemy that their expertise couldn't be used in a completely legal exercise with visiting dignitaries.The fourth graf contradicts you:


According to Holmes, who attended at least a dozen meetings with Caldwell to discuss the operation, the general wanted the IO unit to do the kind of seemingly innocuous work usually delegated to the two dozen members of his public affairs staff: compiling detailed profiles of the VIPs, including their voting records, their likes and dislikes, and their "hot-button issues." In one email to Holmes, Caldwell’s staff also wanted to know how to shape the general’s presentations to the visiting dignitaries, and how best to "refine our messaging."

What the story fails to expose is exactly what statute was violated and what specific actions were in violation.The orders were allegedly illegal, and the statute violated is mentioned in the article:

Holmes believed that using his team to target American civilians violated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was passed by Congress to prevent the State Department from using Soviet-style propaganda techniques on U.S. citizens.

[Yonivore]

That's because the IO team ordered to do so refused to do it.
What was the order? I thought this guy sat in on meetings and gave advice to the General. Exactly which order did he refuse?


The fourth graf contradicts you:
First, anything that begins with "According to..." doesn't exactly fit the definition of proof. Secondly, the graf doesn't describe anything illegal. "Refining your message," to appeal to someone you're trying to sell on an idea, seems perfectly acceptable -- unless, you refine it with untruths or misleading propaganda.

They don't exactly specify if that occurred.


The orders were allegedly illegal, and the statute violated is mentioned in the article:
I overlooked it, my bad.

[Winehole23]

First, anything that begins with "According to..." doesn't exactly fit the definition of proof. Secondly, the graf doesn't describe anything illegal. Correct. I cited it as an example of the sort of "completely legal exercise with visiting dignitaries" you claimed the article did not discuss. You were wrong.

[Yonivore]

Correct. I cited it as an example of the sort of "completely legal exercise with visiting dignitaries" you claimed the article did not discuss. You were wrong.
I didn't suggest the general did not draw on the IO team's expertise in preparing for the visiting dignitaries, it is fairly clear he is described as having asked for their advice and input on how to best sell the need for more troops and money. And, like I said, as long as the returned advice didn't include "propagandizing," untruths, or misrepresentations, I don't see an issue. The article doesn't describe anything of the sort.

Your excerpt is no exception.

[Yonivore]

Why would a Lt Colonel lie? To make into a RollingStone piece?

Sorry Yoni, until proven otherwise, I give the benefit of the doubt to a guy that know his job and it's constrains...
I never accused him of lying and, he could be mistaken about the illegality of what he was asked to do.

There's not enough information in the article to make that determination.

And, as for the motivation of military men seeking the limelight for selfish motivation, they're a dime a dozen. The networks are strewn with Lt. Colonels that will take just about any position on a topic so long as it pays well. But, again, I don't know enough about what is being alleged to know what I think about his assertion of illegality.

Rolling Stone Magazine appears to have decided on a narrative and is intentionally obtuse in its three-page article.

[Marcus Bryant]

Having your name turn up in an article such as this is unlikely to be good for a military career.

[Winehole23]

I don't see an issue. Then certainly there must not be one.

[Yonivore]

Then certainly there must not be one.
Okay then; glad we agree.

[Winehole23]

In a pig's eye.

[Yonivore]

In a pig's eye.
Look, I never said there wasn't an issue, I just don't see one. And, nothing in the article or in this thread convinced me otherwise.

Is what was done unsavory? Maybe to some but, so is Congressmen and Senators traveling to countries and negotiating with other world leaders to undermine the aims of the United States executive branch and that happens -- even though it is arguably illegal and unconstitutional.

I'm just not convinced a crime took place. Maybe it should be investigated by real criminal investigators instead of being tried in the media. Maybe that's happening but, I don't recall that being indicated in the article either.

[LnGrrrR]

And, as for the motivation of military men seeking the limelight for selfish motivation, they're a dime a dozen. The networks are strewn with Lt. Colonels that will take just about any position on a topic so long as it pays well.

Why does Yoni hate our military? :lol

[Yonivore]

Why does Yoni hate our military? :lol
And y'all wonder why I become snarky and resort to ad hominem. Usually, it proceeds from nonsensical rhetoric such as this.

I'll try not to be baited.

[Cane]

And y'all wonder why I become snarky and resort to ad hominem. Usually, it proceeds from nonsensical rhetoric such as this.

I'll try not to be baited.

:lol

[symple19]

lobbying?

[Winehole23]

Look, I never said there wasn't an issue, I just don't see one. And, nothing in the article or in this thread convinced me otherwise.Fair enough, but there were a few signs you read in haste. Enough that your dismissiveness comes off as more temperamental than learned, even now. Your rejection of material it is clear you barely read in the first place, is not very compelling.

Is what was done unsavory? Maybe to some but, so is Congressmen and Senators traveling to countries and negotiating with other world leaders to undermine the aims of the United States executive branch and that happens -- even though it is arguably illegal and unconstitutional.Bush era violations of the Logan Act still upset you? Ok. This relates to the current discussion how, please?

I'm just not convinced a crime took place. Maybe it should be investigated by real criminal investigators instead of being tried in the media.Well and good, but we mainly trade in opinion here.
The discussion has no time to wait for the legal facts to be established, that can take years. Anyway, the discussion itself relates to the underlying actions.

You may limit yourself to legal certainties if you wish, but it is absurd to expect much emulation in free-flowing, wide ranging conversations between adults.

[Winehole23]

Sidebar related to: Smith-Mundt (http://mountainrunner.us/smith-mundt.html).

[Yonivore]

Fair enough, but there were a few signs you read in haste. Enough that your dismissiveness comes off as more temperamental than learned, even now. Your rejection of material it is clear you barely read in the first place, is not very compelling.
I figured any salient detail would be elucidated here. But, you're right, I did read in haste -- after discovering in the first page -- the article wasn't going to point to any specific illegalities but would, instead, rely on the allegations of an aggrieved tattler.

I saw the narrative developing. And, since you didn't come up with any specific acts being alleged, either; I can only conclude my judgment, in not wasting more time closely studying the article, was accurate.


Bush era violations of the Logan Act still upset you? Ok. This relates to the current discussion how, please?
The selective outrage of the Left. It seems the left is willing to construct awful conclusions about the acts of Republican administrations based on the slimmest of innuendo while completely failing to notice the blatant acts of the Left.


Well and good, but we mainly trade in opinion here.

The discussion has no time to wait for the legal facts to be established, that can take years. Anyway, the discussion itself relates to the underlying actions.

You may limit yourself to legal certainties if you wish, but it is absurd to expect much emulation in free-flowing, wide ranging conversations between adults.
And, my opinion is, absent an specific allegation if criminal wrongdoing, I'm not buying it. It appears, on the surface, to be another liberal attempt at smearing an effort with which it simply disagrees.

The article doesn't allege a crime it crafts a narrative.

[Yonivore]

Sidebar related to: Smith-Mundt (http://mountainrunner.us/smith-mundt.html).
Can't get the link to work. May be my browser as I'm having trouble with other domains and sites. Will try later.

[Winehole23]

(still works for me, boss)

[Winehole23]

I figured any salient detail would be elucidated here. But, you're right, I did read in haste -- after discovering in the first page -- the article wasn't going to point to any specific illegalities but would, instead, rely on the allegations of an aggrieved tattler.Who got railroaded by the army for making a principled stand. There's a story there for sure.

I saw the narrative developing. And, since you didn't come up with any specific acts being alleged, either; I can only conclude my judgment, in not wasting more time closely studying the article, was accurate.Your prerogative of course.

The selective outrage of the Left. It seems the left is willing to construct awful conclusions about the acts of Republican administrations based on the slimmest of innuendo while completely failing to notice the blatant acts of the Left.Classic projection. You do the very same thing with striking regularity. Your apparent unawareness of your own resemblance to the hypocrisy you claim to despise, is very striking too.

And, my opinion is, absent an specific allegation if criminal wrongdoing, I'm not buying it. It appears, on the surface, to be another liberal attempt at smearing an effort with which it simply disagrees.Loyal, principled soldiers got smeared for making a principled stand. Just saying.

The article doesn't allege a crime it crafts a narrative.Fair enough, but so what? This whole forum is narrative and nothing but.

[Yonivore]

Who got railroaded by the army for making a principled stand. There's a story there for sure.
Or so we're told.


Your prerogative of course.
Of course.


Classic projection. You do the very same thing with striking regularity. Your apparent unawareness of your own resemblance to the hypocrisy you claim to despise, is very striking too.
You don't list any examples but, how you characterize me would not be affected by my knowing and responding to such claims...so, have at it.


Loyal, principled soldiers got smeared for making a principled stand. Just saying.
Exactly...just saying. That's all the Rolling Stone did, as well. Just said.


Fair enough, but so what? This whole forum is narrative and nothing but.
This forum isn't the Rolling Stone Magazine.

[Winehole23]

This forum isn't the Rolling Stone Magazine.Nobody said it was. Do you like arguing with nobody?

[Yonivore]

Nobody said it was. Do you like arguing with nobody?
Obviously.

[Winehole23]

Between what real posters actually say and what nobody says, you choose to refute what nobody says. Which is totally your prerogative.

[Winehole23]

Ignoring the plain meaning of what other posters say in favor of your own rather obvious twistification of what they say is an irritating habit and not a little discourteous.

[Winehole23]

Nor does it serve any broader purpose of understanding or moving the conversation. Quite the contrary: it is a hazard that often impedes it.

[Winehole23]

There are real posters here, Yoni, should you choose to engage them.

Paying attention to what they actually say on a putative discussion board is a fairly minimal/basic level of courtesy, don't you think?

[Yonivore]

Between what real posters actually say and what nobody says, you choose to refute what nobody says. Which is totally your prerogative.
You're the nobody advancing the Rolling Stone's narrative...it's not your narrative or opinion, it's something you read and believe.

[Yonivore]

Holy shit! I pull up one post, to respond, only to find out you've had some sort of posting spasm. What's the matter, do you think this is Twitter and, therefore, each post is limited by word count?

[Yonivore]

There are real posters here, Yoni, should you choose to engage them.

Paying attention to what they actually say on a putative discussion board is a fairly minimal/basic level of courtesy, don't you think?
Nobody in here is real. Nobody. Not even me.

[Winehole23]

Holy shit! I pull up one post, to respond, only to find out you've had some sort of posting spasm. What's the matter, do you think this is Twitter and, therefore, each post is limited by word count?lol. Not at all.

Others have accused me of post padding, but in truth sometimes I just prefer to keep my posts short.

[Wild Cobra]

Put my original words back in:

What an awesome way to make a story.

Take actual quotes, arrange the facts, leave out others...

Instant story to fit the Rolling Stone's agenda!

At no time is the colonel quoted as saying he was asked to use his skills on the congressmen.

Dignitaries include local tribesmen and other people of influence in the region.

--Add edit--

Let me change this:

At no time is the colonel quoted as saying he was asked to use his skills on the congressmen.

to this:

At no time is the colonel quoted as saying the general asked to use his skills on the congressmen.

[Winehole23]

Nobody in here is real. Nobody. Not even me.We're all brains in vats, or something like that?

[Winehole23]

At no time is the colonel quoted as saying he was asked to use his skills on the congressmen.
According to Holmes, the general wanted the IO team to provide a "deeper analysis of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds." The general’s chief of staff also asked Holmes how Caldwell could secretly manipulate the U.S. lawmakers without their knowledge. "How do we get these guys to give us more people?" he demanded. "What do I have to plant inside their heads?"

[Wild Cobra]

We're all brains in vats, or something like that?
Or are we on the 13th floor?

[Winehole23]

Did you just skim it too, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

WH, asking how is not the same as applying his skills to them.

[Winehole23]

What were the letters of reprimand for, then?

[Wild Cobra]

Did you just skim it too, WC?
No, but I am re-reading it. I don't think what I posted is in error, but double checking. If you note, almost as soon as I posted it, I deleted my remarks, replaced with "ooops-- editing."

I think I will end up putting my original remarks back in without change.

[Wild Cobra]

What were the letters of reprimand for, then?
Hold off...

I'm reading the story again.

Give me a few minutes, also snacking. hungry...

Did the Rolling Stone produce supporting documents of the repremand?

[Winehole23]

And, my opinion is, absent an specific allegation if criminal wrongdoing, I'm not buying it.Many unethical, immoral and very offensive things occur short of criminal wrongdoing. Also, demanding criminal levels of proof on a discussion board sets bar for credibility absurdly high.

[Winehole23]

Did the Rolling Stone produce supporting documents of the repremand?Dunno. Did they?

[Yonivore]

Many unethical, immoral and very offensive things occur short of criminal wrongdoing. Also, demanding criminal levels of proof on a discussion board sets bar for credibility absurdly high.
So, it boils down to you'll believe and advance what you want to believe and I'll believe and advance what I want to believe.

Sound 'bout right?

And, for the record, I didn't see anything in the article that would lead me to believe anything unethical, immoral, or very offense took place, either.

What I find unethical, immoral, and very offensive is that a combat commander is left having to justify his mission to a congressional delegation. That's what the Joint Chiefs and President are for. The military, deployed in the field of battle, has a mission that shouldn't depend on how a field commander markets his mission to junket junkies.

[Winehole23]

And, for the record, I didn't see anything in the article that would lead me to believe anything unethical, immoral, or very offense took place, either.How totally unsurprising.

What I find unethical, immoral, and very offensive is that a combat commander is left having to justify his mission to a congressional delegation. That's what the Joint Chiefs and President are for. The military, deployed in the field of battle, has a mission that shouldn't depend on how a field commander markets his mission to junket junkies.Not sure I get you. Would it have been preferable for Caldwell to ignore the Congressional delegation then, and miss the chance to influence their decisions?

[Wild Cobra]

Dunno. Did they?
No.

They just said they obtained a 22 page report.

[Wild Cobra]

Not sure I get you. Would it have been preferable for Caldwell to ignore the Congressional delegation then, and miss the chance to influence their decisions?
Caldwell could use what ever influence he had. His request for background checks of public formation was only beneath the colonels abilities, but not inappropriate.

Can you show me where the general, at any point, asked for the colonel to violate the law or integrity of the colonels job?

I find it ironic that the article concludes with Carl Levin as a target, who naturally would have voted "YES" for the appropriations anyway.

[LnGrrrR]

And y'all wonder why I become snarky and resort to ad hominem. Usually, it proceeds from nonsensical rhetoric such as this.

Did you not see the smiley afterwards? :D I couldn't resist.

[Marcus Bryant]

'Hey, you specially trained manipulators of thought, how do I get these elected mucky muck representatives of the people from the civilian government to agree with me?'

It's not hard to see what the problem is, unless you are obtuse or wish to obfuscate the incident instead of recognizing it for what it is. Attempting to brainwash elected representatives of the people is attempted fucking treason.

I'm sure if this directive originated out of anyone close to the POTUS that the same arguments would be made.

We could have a military coup and the same characters would argue it's not a problem.

P.S. - Perhaps this is why laws should be enforced instead of ignored provided they serve the policy goals of the executive branch.

[Yonivore]

'Hey, you specially trained manipulators of thought, how do I get these elected mucky muck representatives of the people from the civilian government to agree with me?'

It's not hard to see what the problem is, unless you are obtuse or wish to obfuscate the incident instead of recognizing it for what it is. Attempting to brainwash elected representatives of the people is attempted fucking treason.

I'm sure if this directive originated out of anyone close to the POTUS that the same arguments would be made.

We could have a military coup and the same characters would argue it's not a problem.

P.S. - Perhaps this is why laws should be enforced instead of ignored provided they serve the policy goals of the executive branch.
You'd have a point if the quote were an accurate representation of what is being alleged...much less, what may actually be the truth.

[ChumpDumper]

yoni and WC are authoritarian lap dogs.

This is not news.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sidebar related to: Smith-Mundt (http://mountainrunner.us/smith-mundt.html).


The impact of the "firewall" created by Smith-Mundt between domestic and foreign audiences is profound and often ignored. Ask a citizen of any other democracy what they think about this firewall and you're likely to get a blank, confused stare: Why -- and how -- would such a thing exist? No other country, except perhaps North Korea and China, prevents its own people from knowing what is said and done in their name. ...

You never know when American proles might start believing that shit. Though likely the desire to avoid official domestic propagandizing was the overriding factor. More academic than significant, imo.



Congress has no similar concerns when it comes to content produced by foreign governments and their official news agencies. Congress decided in 1994 that "political propaganda" by foreign governments was safe for Americans

An interesting quirk, no doubt. The populace, sufficiently skeptical of all things foreign, could be trusted.

[Winehole23]

They just said they obtained a 22 page report.A brazen lie, no doubt.

When you've no credibility left to stake, or the public is too addled and stupefied to comprehend what is being done to them, there is no penalty for lying.

[Winehole23]

Or:


Attempting to brainwash elected representatives of the people is attempted fucking treason.

[Winehole23]

Can you show me where the general, at any point, asked for the colonel to violate the law or integrity of the colonels job?To a legally provable certainty? No.

But I don't think the OP claims to either.

[Winehole23]

An interesting quirk, no doubt. The populace, sufficiently skeptical of all things foreign, could be trustedOr, they were counting on drowning us all in a tide-like surge of journalistic bilge. Mission nearly accomplished.

[Winehole23]

@ WC and Yoni:

This ain't no goddam courtroom, it's a goddam message board.

Please please study the difference. The Perry Mason schtick got old on Perry Mason, and there never was a worse premise than a lawyer who wins every time.

[Stringer_Bell]

@ WC and Yoni:

This ain't no goddam courtroom, it's a goddam message board.

Please please study the difference. The Perry Mason schtick got old on Perry Mason, and there never was a worse premise than a lawyer who wins every time.

He actually lost a case, The Case of the Deadly Verdict...

[Winehole23]

thanks the gentleman for the correction.

[hater]

Fluoride

[Wild Cobra]

To a legally provable certainty? No.

But I don't think the OP claims to either.
That's my point. The article wants to attack the general, when the only quotes related to him were reasonable. It was officers in Caldwell's command who Holmes claimed did the pressuring.

Let's assume these are the facts. Under that assumption, I would say we still have two probable possibilities:

1) The general did in fact tell his people to do this.

2) The general's people took it upon themselves to gain brownie points.

Again, I try to keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions, especially conclusions laid out by leftists.

[Wild Cobra]

@ WC and Yoni:

This ain't no goddam courtroom, it's a goddam message board.

Please please study the difference. The Perry Mason schtick got old on Perry Mason, and there never was a worse premise than a lawyer who wins every time.
You forgot the blue.

[lazerelmo]

I would say we still have two probable possibilities

Here's a third

3. He's actually a Texas National Gaurd reservist who happens to own a company (SyzygyLogos) that is actively pursuing govt contracts outsourcing the work the PSYOP does. By alleging the military's misuse of PSYOPs, he is in effect promoting his own business.

:wow

Ok, it's a little out there but there are pieces to this puzzle conveniently absent from the Stone's article.

[Winehole23]

Interesting wrinkle.


(Would you be willing to share your link for that?)

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a third

3. He's actually a Texas National Gaurd reservist who happens to own a company (SyzygyLogos) that is actively pursuing govt contracts outsourcing the work the PSYOP does. By alleging the military's misuse of PSYOPs, he is in effect promoting his own business.

:wow

Ok, it's a little out there but there are pieces to this puzzle conveniently absent from the Stone's article.
There are often more possibilities than one thinks of. That's why I inserted the word "probable."

[Yonivore]

To a legally provable certainty? No.

But I don't think the OP claims to either.
So, they're just stirring up shit because the military has nothing better to do than to swat these fucking flies all day.

[lazerelmo]

Interesting wrinkle.


(Would you be willing to share your link for that?)

Top secret stuff...
View at your own risk.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-holmes/27/b88/88

http://www.facebook.com/pages/SyzygyLogos-LLC-A-Strategic-Communications-Firm/111104692241458

[Wild Cobra]

Top secret stuff...
View at your own risk.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-holmes/27/b88/88

http://www.facebook.com/pages/SyzygyLogos-LLC-A-Strategic-Communications-Firm/111104692241458
That is interesting.

NG, probably kicked and screamed all the way to Afghanistan.

[Winehole23]

So, they're just stirring up shit because the military has nothing better to do than to swat these fucking flies all day.Keep spinning. Asking US officers to brainwash US Senators is still way over the line

[Winehole23]

Spox denies Psy-Ops claims:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/asia/27military.html?_r=1

[Wild Cobra]

Spox denies Psy-Ops claims:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/asia/27military.html?_r=1
Isn't the jist of that article pretty much what I said?

[Winehole23]

Posted for balance, not finality.

[Wild Cobra]

Posted for balance, not finality.
I figured as much, but you have to admit, I read the story as likely the same way they later explained.

I don't fall for the planted bias of the media.

[Winehole23]

Yet somehow you hit on Caldwell's exact riposte. Bald denial.

Thanks for the D.

[Wild Cobra]

Yet somehow you hit on Caldwell's exact riposte. Bald denial.

Thanks for the D.
How many times were Rolling Stoner political articles any where near accurate?

[Winehole23]

Since when have your posts been accurate?

[Winehole23]

Your initial post in this thread was one big inaccuracy, so why should we take anything else you say seriously?

[Wild Cobra]

Your initial post in this thread was one big inaccuracy, so why should we take anything else you say seriously?
No it wasn't, unless you count research that anyone can do as part of his skills spoken about.

[Winehole23]

While there is something indeed to the contention that Holmes may have been misquoted, you said he was not quoted at all in the article. That was incorrect.

[Winehole23]

No disgrace in that, though. My point was that it can be risky to impugn the accuracy of others when one is careless oneself.

[Winehole23]

Plus, the practice of waving off all content from providers you have found to be biased is tedious and simple-minded, and often substantially wrong. Passing judgment on things you never even read in the first place is absurd and incredibly irritating.

[Wild Cobra]

While there is something indeed to the contention that Holmes may have been misquoted, you said he was not quoted at all in the article. That was incorrect.
I don't recall saying that.

At no time is the colonel quoted as saying he was asked to use his skills on the congressmen.

to this:

At no time is the colonel quoted as saying the general asked to use his skills on the congressmen.

I specified congressmen.

[Winehole23]

my bad, wc. Jesus I'm on a roll today.

[Winehole23]

I misremembered.

[Winehole23]

(effed up)

[Winehole23]

Shown up by WC. It was bound to happen eventually.




Cheers, WC. :lol:toast

[Wild Cobra]

Shown up by WC. It was bound to happen eventually.




Cheers, WC. :lol:toast
You misread me all the time. This must be one of the rare times you realize it.

[Winehole23]

You misread me all the time. This must be one of the rare times you realize it.Well, sorry for the goof.

[Winehole23]

I pick on you too much. It's become a fault. I'll try to pick my spots a little better, WC.