FROM THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INFLUENCE

As a privately held company, The Office of Strategic Influence is not required to publicly report on any of its operations or activities. This blog is a faint reflection of our interests and opinions. Thank you.

~ Spinboydotcom


17 September 2007

License to Kill Revoked?

The Iraqi Government finally decides to look out for its people - and today revoked the license of Blackwater because the private mercenaries blew away a bunch of civilians while 'protecting' an American convoy.

Funny - even Al Jazeera calls Blackwater a "security firm" instead of a mercenary army. That's the power of the press release.

Here's who else has or doesn't have a license to kill in Iraq.











Iraq Ends US Security Firm License

Al Jazeera

The Iraqi interior ministry has cancelled the operating licence of a US security firm after it was involved in a shootout that killed eight people, a senior official said.

Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a ministry spokesman, said 13 people were wounded when Blackwater USA staff opened fire in a Baghdad incident involving an attack on a US motorcade.

"The interior minister has issued an order to cancel Blackwater's licence and the company is prohibited from operating anywhere in Iraq," Khalaf said on Monday.

"We have opened a criminal investigation against the group who committed the crime."

The spokesman said witness reports pointed to Blackwater involvement but said the incident, in a predominantly Sunni area of western Baghdad on Sunday, was still under investigation.

US troops are immune from prosecution in Iraq under the UN resolution that authorises their presence, but Khalaf said the exemption did not apply to private security companies.


Crime Committed

Blackwater, based in North Carolina, provides security for many US civilian operations in the country.

The company was not immediately available for comment.

The US embassy in Baghdad said a state department motorcade came under small-arms fire that disabled one of the vehicles, which had to be towed from the scene near Nisoor Square in the Mansour district.

A state department official said the shooting was being investigated by the department's diplomatic security service and officials working with the Iraqi government and the US military.

Late on Sunday, Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, condemned the shooting by a "foreign security company" and called it a "crime".


Secretive Force

Tens of thousands of private security contractors operate in Iraq - some using automatic weapons and body armour, helicopters and bulletproof vehicles.

They also protect journalists, visiting foreign officials and thousands of construction projects.

Blackwater has an estimated 1,000 employees in Iraq, and at least $800m in government contracts.

It is one of the most high-profile security firms in Iraq.

The secretive company is based at a massive complex in North Carolina.

Until the September 11 attacks, it had few security contracts, but since then, Blackwater profits have soared.

It has become the focus of numerous contractor controversies in Iraq, including the May 30 shooting of an Iraqi believed to be driving too close to a Blackwater security detail.


Witness Testimony

Iraqi police said the contractors were in a convoy of six four-wheel-drive vehicles and left the scene after the shooting.

Hassan Jabar Salman was hit by five bullets while trying to flee the scene of the incident in his car, he told the AFP news agency while recovering in Baghdad's Al-Yarmouk hospital.

Salman said he heard an explosion near Al-Nisoor Square and saw the convoy two cars ahead of him.

"The foreigners in the convoy started shouting and signaling us to go back.

"I turned around and must have driven 100 feet [30 metres] when they started shooting.

"There were eight of them in four utility vehicles and all shooting with heavy machine guns," he said as he lay wrapped in bloodied bandages on the hospital bed.

"My car was hit with 12 bullets, of which four hit me in the back and one in the arm."

Propaganda on Propaganda

A brilliant bit of post-WWII duty drill, apparently directed by Frank Capra and written by Dr. Suess himself, Theodor Geisel - back when they used to call the war department, "The War Department".

Best Paranoid Warning: Watch out for the... clockmakers?

10 September 2007

Payola Automotivation

Yes - "influencers" are worth courting.

However, The Office of Strategic Influence has not, nor ever will seek the favors of General Motors. We find this type of collusion dishonest, reprehensible and un-American.

That said - our lines of communication are always open to business, especially Ferrari.










Nader Wants FCC To Look Into GM's Gifts To Radio Hosts

Bloomberg News

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has asked U.S. regulators to look into whether Rush Limbaugh and other radio hosts are receiving payment or gifts from General Motors in exchange for praising the company on air.

Nader's letter to the Federal Communications Commission cited a report in the Aug. 6 edition of Automotive News that said GM was buying ads, loaning cars and offering other incentives to national and local radio hosts in exchange for the promotions.

FCC rules require broadcasters to say if content has been aired in exchange for money or other considerations.

GM since the first quarter has provided free use of vehicles and bought advertising time hoping for on-air endorsements from program hosts, said Ryndee Carney, a spokeswoman for the Detroit- based auto maker.

"We've been very transparent about this," Carney said. "We think this is a good way to build relationships with some of the talent and to get the word out about our great vehicles."

She declined to comment on Nader's appeal, disclosed in a letter released over PR Newswire on Friday.

Nader and Janice Wise, a spokeswoman for the FCC, weren't immediately available for comment.

Limbaugh is the most listened-to radio host in the country, and his show is distributed by Clear Channel Communications. Michele Clarke, a spokeswoman for the company, wasn't available to comment.

Automotive News, a Detroit-based trade publication, also said GM was soliciting endorsements from Bill O'Reilly, Laura Schlessinger, Whoopi Goldberg, Sean Hannity, Ed Schultz, Bill Press and Ryan Seacrest.

How Do Images Influence What You Buy?










"When you buy Cialis, this is what you get - Guaranteed!"

Blatant associations work - in sex, politics, business... everywhere. It's why people buy cars they want but don't need. It's why families go to Disneyland. It's how politicians get elected.

This goes down as another study in Obvious Science.


FDA to Study Images' Impact in Drug Ads

By MATTHEW PERRONE

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -

Federal regulators plan to study whether relaxing, upbeat images featured in TV drug ads distract consumers from warnings about the drugs' risks.

The announcement, posted Tuesday to the Food and Drug Administration's Web site, comes a week after a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested the agency's drug-ad enforcement has steadily declined.

The FDA says it plans to study how 2,000 people react to television drug ads to determine whether they have an overwhelmingly positive impression of products despite audio warnings about potential side effects.

In a statement released Tuesday, the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said TV ads are an important way for patients to learn about diseases and treatments.

Drug companies are legally required to present a balanced picture of a drug's benefits and risks in promotions. But critics charge that the images of smiling and relaxed couples and families featured in ads overshadow audio warnings about possible complications.

One ad for Eli Lilly & Co.'s impotence drug Cialis features a middle-aged couple walking hand-in-hand past a restaurant while smooth jazz plays in the background. Toward the ad's end, a male voice lists common side effects, including headache, back pain and muscle aches.

"If advertisers were really interested in getting information about drug risks out, they'd show pictures of those problems, but you almost never see that," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the advocacy group Public Citizen, which frequently criticizes drug industry marketing.

According to the authors of the NEJM article, the FDA sent 21 citations to drug companies last year for problems with consumer-directed ads, compared with 142 in 1997.

During the same period, drug industry spending on such advertising soared 330 percent, to $29.9 billion in 2005 from $11.4 billion in 1996.

The U.S. is one of two industrialized countries that permit TV drug ads - the other is New Zealand.

The FDA's Tuesday announcement says a study is needed on whether some ads "simply distract consumers from carefully considering and encoding risk information."

Besides looking at how images used in ads affect consumers, the FDA will also study how text on the screen can focus or divert attention from audio warnings. FDA says text directing viewers to company Web sites or magazine advertisements can distract viewers from more important audio about side effects. On the other hand, FDA said the repetition of language about risks in text format could help reinforce warnings.

In response to increased scrutiny, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America recently issued voluntary guidelines for members on promoting drugs to patients. Members include Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., Wyeth and most other major pharmaceutical companies.

The guidelines recommend companies submit TV ads to the FDA for review before broadcast. Drug companies agreed to start paying the agency $80,000 per ad to offset the cost of hiring more drug ad reviewers.

Last month, however, House lawmakers rejected the proposal, recommending that federal money finance the regulatory reviews. The legislators said having drug companies pay salaries of FDA ad reviewers could create potential conflicts of interest.

House lawmakers are slated to meet with their Senate counterparts in September to work out differences between companion bills aimed at increasing the FDA's enforcement powers.

"The Big Lie" Still Works

The Big Lie tactic is a propaganda device often associated with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Simply, it's this:

If those in authority repeat an outrageous falsehood over and over, and there is no countervailing voice exposing this big lie to the public, or if that voice is censored by the media, the big lie is likely to be believed.











The Big Lie still works, and rather well according to the New York Times. Buried deep in an assessment of Iraq War Withdrawl is the proof:

"... 33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001."

911 had nothing to do with Iraq, and Iraq had nothing to do with 911. But that's the power of the Big Lie. ~ Spinboydotcom


Americans Feel Military Is Best at Ending the War

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and MEGAN THEE

September 10, 2007

Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

On the eve of what is sure to be a contentious debate on Iraq, the results underscored the benefits to the White House of entrusting the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, to make the case that an increase in American forces this year had been successful enough to continue into next year.

Today, General Petraeus will appear on Capitol Hill along with the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, in what has become the most anticipated testimony from a military commander in decades.

The poll found that both Congress, whose approval rating now stands at its lowest level since Democrats took control from the Republicans last year, and Mr. Bush enter the debate with little public confidence in their ability to deal with Iraq. Only 5 percent of Americans — a strikingly low number for a sitting president’s handling of such a dominant issue — said they most trusted the Bush administration to resolve the war, the poll found. Asked to choose among the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed most trust in military commanders.

That is almost certainly why the White House has presented General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker as unbiased professionals, not Bush partisans. President Bush has said for years that decisions about force levels should be left to military commanders, although the decision to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq this year and keep them there was not uniformly supported by military leaders. It was primarily made in the White House, and specifically by the president in his role as commander in chief.

Some Democrats took issue with the characterization of General Petraeus as operating free of influence from the administration, suggesting that they would like to diminish his credibility heading into days of intense sparring over how much more time Mr. Bush’s strategy for Iraq should be given.

“I don’t think he’s an independent evaluator,” Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said on “Fox News Sunday.” A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, responded sharply, saying, “Attacking him in this way is reprehensible.”

Still, the poll showed how difficult the White House’s task of sustaining support for an unpopular war had become. There is a deepening disillusion over the war’s course and its purpose, with the highest numbers of Americans, 62 percent, saying that the war was a mistake, and 59 percent saying that it was not worth the loss of American lives and other costs.

A majority, 53 percent, said they did not think that Iraq would ever become a stable democracy. Still more, 70 percent, said they did not think the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was doing all it could to bring stability.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans said the United States should reduce its troops in Iraq now or withdraw them. Asked if a timetable should be established for a 2008 withdrawal, a position many Democrats in Congress have advocated, 64 percent favored doing so.

But the sense that the country has come to a clear conclusion that the war should come to a swift end was undercut to a degree by responses to a number of other questions.

The poll’s results encapsulated sentiments that at times seemed contradictory, highlighting the complexity of a debate over how to win a war that has had few easy answers. As a result, Americans reflected a nuanced concern about the consequences of a withdrawal, even as they fervently expressed hope for one. The consequences of leaving Iraq hastily or prematurely has been one of the administration’s recurrent themes of late.

Presented with three possible plans, the poll found that Americans favored a measured approach, with 56 percent supporting reducing troops in Iraq, but leaving some in place to train Iraqi forces, fight terrorists and protect American diplomats.

Twenty-two percent favored a complete withdrawal in the next year, and 20 percent favored keeping the same number of troops “until there is a stable democracy in Iraq.”

Just under half favored a decrease or withdrawal of all troops even if the result was “more mass killings” among Iraq’s ethnic groups. The proportion favoring reductions or a withdrawal dropped to 30 percent if Iraq would become a base of operations for terrorists as a result.

The poll was conducted nationwide by telephone from Tuesday through Saturday and included 1,035 adults. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus three percentage points.

The findings suggested that both parties were paying a price for the way they have handled the war. Six in 10 Americans said in the poll that administration officials deliberately misled the public in making a case for the war; 33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The poll found that the edge held by the Democrats this year on the issue had diminished, perhaps because of the inability of the party’s leadership in Congress to push through measures that would restrain Mr. Bush or mandate any steps toward ending the war.

What was an 18-point advantage in May for the Democrats on the question of which party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war has fallen to a 10-point advantage, 42 percent to 32 percent for the Republicans.

The Democrat-led Congress also enters the debate in a weakened position. The popularity of the current Congress reached a new low, the poll found, less than a year after the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate. Only 23 percent of Americans approved of the job lawmakers were doing.

While Congress has rarely scored highly in the public mind, the current Congress’s rating is now lower than that of its predecessor in the months before the election swept the Republican Party from power.

“I think both parties will make the wrong decisions,” one of those polled, John Cross, a lawyer and a Democrat from Greensboro, N.C., said in a follow-up telephone interview yesterday. “I just think they’ll make them differently.”

With barely 16 months to go in his presidency, Mr. Bush has a popularity rating that hovers nears its historic lows, with only 30 percent approving of his handling of the job and 64 percent disapproving. That level — essentially the reverse of his ratings when the war began in 2003 — has remained roughly the same since Mr. Bush announced in January the increase in American troops that became known as the surge.

Only 26 percent approved of Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq and of foreign policy generally, while only one in four Americans think the country is generally on the right track.

Politically speaking, the poll indicated that Americans favored a flexible approach to Iraq as opposed to unbending positions.

That could prove significant in this month’s debate in Washington and in next year’s presidential election. A vast majority, 94 percent, said that sharing a candidate’s view on the war was important or very important.

And 71 percent said flexibility in deciding on a withdrawal was more important than demanding either an unqualified victory (Mr. Bush’s position) or an immediate withdrawal (that of much of the antiwar Democratic base).

Over the summer, perhaps with such sentiment in mind, Democratic candidates and lawmakers in Congress have softened their demands for a hard and fast schedule for pulling out.