Is White House Using Propaganda To Promote It's Policies and Wars?

If there is anyone in this country, - no, make that the world, - who doesn't see the blatant way the White House has been using propaganda to promote its policies and its wars, they must have been living in a cave for the past four plus years.

Let's look at the definition of propaganda. The World Book Encyclopedia describes it as "one-sided communication designed to influence people's thinking and actions."

Is what we hear, see and read one-sided? For those who still think the media is liberal I'll answer that with another question. How many of you are aware that the U.S. had been planning an attack on Afghanistan since June 2001, three months before 9-11? Now here is where you may need a program to tell the players.

Iran, that part of the so-called "axis of evil" that is rumored to be in George Bush's crosshairs as the next pre-emptive target of attack, was going to act as a facilitator along with India to help the U.S. and Russia in the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Both India and Iran supported the Northern Alliance and were helping the Afghan people through their humanitarian programs.

Pakistan, the country we had looking for Osama bin Laden who was operating training camps, was supporting the Taliban who was allowing the operation of terrorist training camps.

This information was published in Newsinsight.net on June 26, 2001 as well as in French, Indian and British publications.

The plans also called for any military attack to take place no later than mid-October to avoid the winter snows. The U.S. began its bombing attack on Afghanistan October 7, 2001 to almost unanimous support from the American people. Was our thinking influenced by the media saying it was in response to 9-11? Anyone who objected was labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American".

Did you hear about the gas and oil pipeline that Iran, India and Russia were working on? It was to supply the south and southeast Asian nations and was to run through India. Did you hear the fact that even though Afghanistan was known to harbor terrorists and terrorist training camps it was never placed on the official list of states that sponsor terrorism? If it were on the list it would have made it impossible for an American oil or construction company to sign a contract with the Taliban to enable building a pipeline to the rich gas and oil fields of the Central Asian region. If not, then what you heard was one-sided.

Moving along to Iraq, we were bombarded by members of this administration pounding visions of mushroom clouds into our brains. We were manipulated by color-coded terror alerts and being told Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, was harboring terrorists and participated in 9-11. When none of these assertions proved true, we were told we were liberating the Iraqis.

Even though most of the mainstream media are owned by a handful of wealthy Republicans who slant the news to favor this administration, the White House still paid actors to simulate news anchors reporting in glowing terms about this or that policy. These phony pre-packaged newscasts were shipped to all 50 states and inserted into local newscasts as real news.

The Department of Education paid Armstrong Williams, a columnist and commentator, $240,000 to tout Mr. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation to gain public support. It leaves one to ponder how many children were left behind because our tax money, that was supposed to help them went instead into Mr. Armstrong's pocket.

Health and Human Services paid $21,500 to Maggie Gallagher to promote its marriage initiative in her syndicated columns and $4000 to Mike McManus, another syndicated columnist.

These actions were deemed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) to be "covert propaganda" and an illegal use of taxpayer dollars in an attempt to influence public opinion.

Then we have the strange saga of Jeff Gannon. By day a member of the White House Press Corps asking soft questions of Scott McClellan in press briefings and of the president in press conferences. In reality he is really James Guckert, a self-promoted gay prostitute advertising his services on several internet porn sites that show off his wares in a series of photos in which he was definitely DE-briefed.

Jeff/James was denied a press pass on the Hill but managed to get into the White House on a day pass the month before his "news agency", an internet site with no circulation, was even established. He managed to continue to gain admittance on a day pass for two years with no writing credentials other than a $50 seminar on writing from a Republican organization, no credible news agency that employed him, and an alias.

The Secret Service investigates everyone who goes into the White House. Did they look the other way because Jeff/James wrote only talking points from the RNC and press releases from the White House on his website? Was it because he asked leading questions in the press room that allowed an opening to discuss what the White House wanted to be heard?

The bizarre story of the purported homosexual-for-hire being called on by his first name by the last two press secretaries and the president was uncovered, not by any mainstream media journalist, but by internet bloggers. It is still being downplayed in regular news outlets.

Does the White House use propaganda to promote its policies and wars? Does a one-legged duck swim in circles?