Beast Banner March 2007
ISSUE #114
Issue 114 Cover Small
Last Issue Archives Blog Comix
Web BEAST Blog
 
Contact Download PDF RSS Subscribe Advertise Links Sign up and we'll let you know when a new issue is born.
Features

ArrowSchlep Boys
Failing forward in one act

Allan Uthman

ArrowThe Britney Budget
Matt Taibbi

ArrowEeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe
Blogger and journalist Brad Friedman of The Brad Blog on the hijacking of democracy and more

ArrowObama
The best BS artist since Slick Willy

Matt Taibbi

ArrowSweet Nothings
Lies my paper told me

Allan Uthman

ArrowMenace in Seat 36F
Based on a True Story

Michael J. Smith

ArrowBEAST gets poetic on dat ass!
Saul Williams schools us on Hip Hop and our choice of lunch

ArrowCelebrity Buttholes Will Be the End of Us
A. Monkey

ArrowThe BEAST Melanin / Electability Index

ArrowThe Truth Spin
Sometimes, honesty really is the best policy

Allan Uthman

ArrowTV Highlights
CBSs Numb3rs signals the end of the end of the American Empire

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Departments
ArrowKino Korner: Movies
The Abandoned, Wild Hogs, The Number 23, Zodiac, Reno 911!: Miami, Amazing Grace, Black Snake Moan, Shooter, The Astronaut Farmer, Inland Empire

ArrowBEAST-O-Scopes
As divined by your ethereal guide

Arrow[sic] - Letters
The Pussy of the Christ, How Great We Art, Dumb Shit, PhD, All You Need is Loathe and more

 

The Truth Spin

continued - page 2

In summary, the WMD/fostering democracy narrative on Iraq, which served the mission well at first, has over time degraded to the point that it is a serious liability. To ensure our mission’s success and continuance beyond the present administration and to retain party electability, this difficult problem must be addressed.

There are few historical precedents to draw upon, in part because information control is particularly difficult in this era, despite our efforts in the area, especially the innovations of former Secretary Rumsfeld. But we can look to what some of the leading public relations firms do when faced with similar circumstances in other fields. In Hollywood, for instance, when a movie star’s credibility is impugned by rumors, the first step is to deny the rumors and discredit those who spread them, as we have done, with mixed results. But when the problem becomes unmanageable, many troubled celebrities have salvaged their careers by finally “coming clean” with their audience, admitting their transgressions and regaining public sympathy.

It is our contention that the time has come for us “come out” on the Iraq war. We need to jettison the current narrative for the war effort, as it has become an albatross for the administration. In its place, we recommend a bold, new, virtually untested tactic: telling the truth. Obviously we can’t tell the whole truth, especially with regard to our secondary goal of destabilizing the Muslim world by fomenting sectarian violence throughout the region (needless to say, it wouldn’t help to acknowledge profiteering efforts or the ad hoc creation of loose money pools for black ops either). But the truth that we should tell is the simple tale of the necessity of securing energy reserves in order to maintain American global dominance.

The new story would be short and logical: The nation needs to secure its energy future, and that means controlling the bulk of the world’s oil reserves, before other nations get to them first. We would endeavor to tie this broad objective to the lifestyles of regular Americans—SUVs, plastics, air conditioning, etc., and their continued affordability. Of course, these messages should be processed through the usual test marketing channels and should be subjected to the analysis and recommendations of prominent message consultants.

The new talking points need not come from the POTUS himself, at least not until the new “true” narrative has been well established in the media. We recommend giving the bulk of the heavy lifting to administration officials who are seen in focus groups to be considered more “serious” and “intelligent” by the public: Vice President Cheney, for instance, or Secretary Rice. At the same time, we can utilize friendlies in the press to laud the honesty of the White House, and to elicit sympathy for an administration that, after all, only had the nation’s best interests at heart. This should also be accompanied by a series of related entertainment efforts—a major network miniseries about a near-future dystopian scenario in which the country has run out of oil, for instance.

This suggestion may sound radical, perhaps even suicidal, but when we examine the facts at hand, it seems we can do no worse in promoting the war effort than we already have. Polls show support for the war has bottomed out at about a third of the nation, and research has shown this third, sometimes referred to as “the base,” will support whatever this administration does—we literally cannot lose them. In fact, market research indicates that this demographic would be particularly favorable to starkly imperialist foreign policy goals—they have never quite been comfortable with what they consider to be “touchy-feely” objectives in Iraq, and would likely be even more firm in their support for war than before if we revealed an aggressive motive. It is also a known that this demographic has the least difficulty with the prospect of being deceived by leaders “for their own good.”

With the two thirds of Americans who describe themselves as anti-war, reactions will be more mixed. Some will be further embittered, but we will likely win back the majority of conservatives, who will again support the war effort if presented with a rational reason for it that directly impacts our economy. Some of the center-left will also peel off from the anti-war majority, and even the far left will gain some respect for the effort if we “level” with them. In general, many will feel an appealing sense of security, preferring a sense of global power over the current media climate of total fear. All told, the “truth” initiative has a good chance of winning back majority support for a continued military presence in Iraq.

A secondary positive this recommendation’s implementation would generate is that we can use the same truthful justification for future operations, not only in Iran, but in Syria, Venezuela, Colombia, and anywhere else we may conduct operations in the future. This will greatly reduce the expenditure of assets and brain-power on continued efforts to demonize leaders in these nations in anticipation of future invasion.

Negatives include increased international umbrage, especially from powerful and energy-hungry entities such as China and Russia. While these nations and others surely already suspect our true intentions, such honesty may be perceived as “impolite” and a sign of disrespect. Still, it is highly unlikely that either would be willing to challenge us militarily, excepting minor proxy wars which will no doubt occur regardless of our rhetorical strategy.

In conclusion, we urge the recipients of this report to look past their natural human aversion to admitting malfeasance in this matter. Truth be told, almost everyone has already decided that we are liars, and those who haven’t never will. Our credibility is at its ebb, and can only be bolstered by changing direction. The truth may seem like a bizarre thing to tell the public, but it is incontrovertible fact that it can’t possibly be worse than what we’re telling them now.

Thank you for your attention.

 

register your indignation here

 

Ads

Textbook125x125

Banner 10000035button

Banner button

button

button



send your ill-informed ravings to us here
Affiliate Sponsors
MotoSport, Inc.|Netflix DVD Rentals. NO LATE FEES; Free Shipping. Try for FREE! | music123.com | Direct2Drive
T-Shirts only $14.99 when you buy 3 or more at CCS.com | Shutterfly.com | LinkShare Referral Prg
Popular Favorites from the Archive



© Copyright 2002-2006, The Beast. All rights reserved.