Seldom has a propaganda exercise been so obvious, so measured, and so quickly effective as this particular manipulation of this particular public and this particular President, about this particular war.
Within twelve months the American people have been moved from a position of wanting to pull out of Iraq, and not wanting another war, towards now wanting war throughout much of the “Levant”.
The Yougov chart above shows the change. The five links below describe the results and the basic methodology used to engineer the consent of the American people to yet another war.
The methodology is always the same: a) invent a brutal enemy oganization b) saturate the airwaves with apocalyptic tales of the threat to America c) repeat ad nauseam using administration spokesman and pundits paid by lobbyists and defense contractors.
#1 The Yougov poll below describes the change
# 2 A link to a news item about the Senate vote in September 2013, to bomb Assad despite the will of the American people
#3 A link to an oped in the NYT in August 2013 “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal”
#4 A link to a TV Pundit study carried out by FAIR in August September 2014 on the necessity to bomb Syria
#5 A link to a long article by Glen Greenwald describing in some detail THE FAKE TERROR THREAT USED TO JUSTIFY BOMBING SYRIA
1. From YouGov August 29 2014
The latest research from YouGov shows that attitudes towards the use of military force in Syria have changed significantly over the past year. In September 2013, when a deal to disarm Syria’s chemical weapons was agreed, 62% of Americans opposed the use of military force while only 20% supported it. Today when asked whether they support the use of military force against ISIS militants in Syria, the situation is reversed. 63% of Americans now support the use of military force in Syria, compared to only 16% who oppose it…. (Charts below)
2. HuffingtonPost.com | Michael McAuliff | Posted 09.06.2013 |
WASHINGTON — Overcoming reservations from the left, the right and the American public, a Senate committee Wednesday passed a resolution to bomb Syria in retaliation for President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons….
3. Oped NYT IAN HURD: August 27, 2013
EVANSTON, Ill. — THE latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad.
5. The TV Pundits
The study evaluated discussion and debate segments on the Sunday talk shows (CNN’s State of the Union, CBS‘s Face the Nation, ABC‘s This Week,Fox News Sunday and NBC‘s Meet the Press), the PBS NewsHour and a sample of cable news programs that feature roundtables and interview segments (CNN‘s Situation Room, Fox News Channel‘s Special Reportand MSNBC’s Hardball).
The key findings:
–In total, 205 sources appeared on the programs discussing military options in Syria and Iraq. Just six of these guests, or 3 percent, voiced opposition to US military intervention. There were 125 guests (61 percent) who spoke in favor of US war.
–On the high-profile Sunday talk shows, 89 guests were invited to talk about the war. But just one, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, could be coded as an anti-war guest.
–Guestlists leaned heavily on politicians and military insiders. Current and former US government officials—politicians and White House officials—made up 37 percent of the guestlists. Current and former military officials accounted for 7 percent of sources. Journalists made up 46 percent of the sources.
–Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 53-36, mostly due to the heavy presence of Obama administration officials advocating for White House military policy.
The study period covered what should have been a moment of serious debate: From the release of ISIS video beheadings of two American journalists through Obama’s September 10 televised address and right up to the first US airstrikes on Syria.
But the question of whether to launch attacks was hardly worth debating. As MSNBC host Chris Matthews put it (9/9/14): “When it comes down to how we fight this, everybody seems to be for air attacks, airstrikes. Everybody is for drone attacks.”
4. The Intercept
As the Obama Administration prepared to bomb Syria without congressional or U.N. authorization, it faced two problems. The first was the difficulty of sustaining public support for a new years-long war against ISIS, a group that clearly posed no imminent threat to the “homeland.” A second was the lack of legal justification for launching a new bombing campaign with no viable claim of self-defense or U.N. approval.
The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded “The Khorasan Group.” After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat — too radical even for Al Qaeda! — administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.
The unveiling of this new group was performed in a September 13 article by the Associated Press, who cited unnamed U.S. officials to warn of this new shadowy, worse-than-ISIS terror group:
On August 29 2014 Yougov published a poll of US voters: