Just as an effective cover story requires consistency, so too does an effective disinformation campaign. Trying to convince people that your target is an atheist Muslim probably won’t work, nor would trying to convince them that he is a gay womanizer. According to conventional wisdom, certain traits are mutually exclusive.
Internal consistency is the key to creating a credible illusion. A disinformation campaign may attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, even after first fabricating the molehill. So it was with false "defector" reports regarding the Iraqi threat, just as it was with right-wing misrepresentation of Frank Marshall Davis's involvement with the Honolulu NAACP in 1949.
Inconsistency is always a threat to crude disinformation campaigns. Because illusions are often built by stacking lies upon other lies, the slightest misstep may cause the illusion to crumble. Although an illusion may not survive serious scrutiny by an objective analyst, it should still be plausible to those with the appropriate predisposition to believe. It should make sense to the casual observer. This is a cardinal rule of effective disinformation.
In the series of disinformation claims regarding Frank Marshall Davis’s encounter with the Honolulu Branch of the NAACP in 1949, Accuracy In Media (AIM) may have violated this cardinal rule. Perhaps Cliff Kincaid’s theoretical “mentor,” the head of the Soviet KGB’s “active measures” department, may be rolling over in HIS grave due to AIM’s mutually exclusive messages.
In this case, rookie Honolulu NAACP board member Edward Berman's 1949 misrepresentation of Frank Marshall Davis was further misrepresented by conflicting AIM reports since 2008. This cumulative error increases whenever when AIM customers further exaggerate AIM reports.
SYNOPSIS: By 1949, Roy Wilkins had become a vocal opponent of communist influence within the NAACP. According to board member Edward Berman, the Honolulu branch was also in conflict due to the infusion of purportedly “Stalinist” new members from the recently defunct Hawaii Association for Civil Unity (HUAC). Berman stated that Frank Marshall Davis appeared at ONE meeting to “propagandize the membership about our ‘racial problems’,” and was supported by the “Stalinist” group . Based on Berman’s one letter to the NAACP describing the situation, AIM fabricated four different versions of Davis’s encounter with the Honolulu NAACP:
Fabricated Version #1 (“Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army”): In this version, Berman criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the “avowed intent” of converting the same meetings .
Fabricated Version #2 (“Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign”): Davis allegedly tries to take over meetings instead of sneaking into them .
Fabricated Version #3 (“Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists”): Roy Wilkins supposedly criticized Davis directly when he “rightly noted of Davis and his comrades: they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP" .
Fabricated Version #4 (“AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor”): In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself! 
Obviously not all accounts can be true. Even without reviewing the testimony, it should be readily apparent to an objective observer that some must be misrepresentations. In fact, ALL are misrepresentations.
BACKGROUND: In a report of Hearings Before The Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, April 17, 18, and 19 April 1950, page 2065 contains the testimony of Edward Berman, who testified :
1. The Hawaii Association for Civic Unity (HACU) was organized back around 1946. It was supposed to be a liberal organization for the purpose of civic unity. He learned in 1947 that a lot of people had moved into the organization who were repugnant to the original membership. He was invited to see if something could be done to neutralize the group that entered into the organization, who had practically taken it over. As a result of the conflict between the left-wing and right-wing groups of the HACU, the organization just collapsed.
2. Sometime in 1948, he got a call from Mrs. Catherine Christopher (acting president of the Honolulu NAACP), and from Miss Mary Noonan, who was secretary of the local Republican Club, and they asked him if he would join the NAACP. The same elements who had once controlled HACU had moved into the NAACP.
3. He went to the first NAACP meeting, and found that the same group that had been in the HACU meeting had now moved over and had practically taken over the organization. They got a few more people in and were soon in a position where their groups strength was about equal to the other group. Both groups were trying to bring in people to offset each other.
4. He wrote a letter date September 26, 1949 TO Roy Wilkins, Acting Secretary, NAACP, which said:
a. He is a member of the executive committee, Honolulu Branch. He believes Mrs. Catherine Christopher, acting president of Honolulu Branch acted in good faith by not holding an election under prevailing circumstances.
b. He was at one of the election meetings at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii. Comrade Davis was supported by others who recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.
c. “These others were the same party liners who tried to take over and dominate an organization known locally as the Hawaii Committee for Civic Unity. The organization collapsed, due to their tactics. Having destroyed that organization they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP.”
d. “I am Caucasian.” “There is no segregation here.” “The point I am making is that the Communist Party was deliberately trying to stir up racism in an area where there is fine racial unity and harmony. It is better to have no organization than to have these tactics continue. Mrs. Christopher acted in good faith. She knew what was going on and it was her method of checking them. Already, scores of Negro members were frightened away from these meetings because of the influx of this element.”
Mr. Berman read the response of the NAACP to the Honolulu Branch: The board on November 14, 1949 voted to revoke the charter of the Honolulu branch for the following reasons:
“The officers of the Honolulu branch have, by their failure, refusal or neglect to complete the holding of the election of officers as required by the constitution and bylaws for branches and as ordered by the national office, been guilty of conduct inimical to the best interest of the NAACP.
The difference in the problems of racial discrimination in the continental United States and their solution as contrasted with the problems of the Territory makes difficult the applicability of techniques and methods used by branches and the national office to effect the policy of the association in the Territory.
SALIENT FEATURES OF BACKGROUND:
1. Berman's Perspective: Berman was white, joined the NAACP the previous year, and claimed there was NO segregation in Hawaii. While Berman may have been acting in good faith, his denial of segregation in Hawaii is refuted by empirical evidence:
a. The personal experiences of author James Michener (excluded from Kahala property due to Japanese wife ), and Frank Marshall Davis  reflect discrimination in Hawaii.
b. The Honolulu Advertiser outlined part of Hawaii's racial history in a 2006 article ("Hypocrisy, Prejudice part of Hawai'i History" ), which concluded "The list of example of prejudice and discrimination is much longer than I have presented. Today our record of "getting along" is far better than on the Mainland. But the difference between Hawai'i and the Mainland is that we tend to ignore or deny our history of prejudice, discrimination and racism, while much of the nation readily acknowledges its own" .
c. Edward Berman's claim ("no segregation"), considered along with his ethnicity (white) and NAACP status (rookie board member), strongly suggest bias in his observations. Nevertheless, Berman's distorted vision of Hawaii's racial harmony was further misrepresented by a series of AIM reports [3,4,5,6].
2. Pre-Existing Power Struggle: Berman was involved in an NAACP power struggle with “left-wing” members who had once controlled HACU. Both groups were trying to bring in people to offset each other. As a result, the acting president did not hold elections.
3. Berman's Letter to NAACP's Roy Wilkins: Berman wrote a letter to Wilkins, which claimed that:
- Berman was at an election meeting at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii.” “He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii.”
- Davis was SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who “recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.
4. Evidence of Bias: As further evidence of Berman’s bias, please note that he claimed Davis “had just sneaked here on a boat.” Reality disagrees:
a. “In December 1948, several articles in the Honolulu Star- Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser announced the Davis's imminent arrival, then their delay, and finally their belated arrival. Several were accompanied by photos of the two. The press presented Davis as a successful journalist, and as a poet and 1937 Julius Rosenwald Fellow. There were contradictory reports on the purpose of their trip. "Executive Editor of ANP Is Due Tonight" says that Davis is in Honolulu for a visit that will combine a vacation with business . . . [that he] is planning a story on racial groups in the Islands . . . [and that] Davis also plans to visit army and navy posts" (December 8, 1948). "Negro Press Executive Here" says that Davis "is here on an inspection and vacation tour of the islands . . . [and] will tour army and navy installations and other territorial institutions" (December 14, 1948, 10). "Davis Considers Hawai`i Advanced in Democracy" says the Davises are in Hawai`i "for a visit of not less than four months. Davis will write a series of articles on his observations of the island scene and also will work on a book of poetry which he hopes will capture the spirit of the islands in verse," although the photo caption accompanying the article says the Davises are "in Honolulu for an indefinite visit" (10). Davis's wife was presented as an artist, writer, and executive editor of a national press agency, who planned "to do watercolors of the islands during her stay" (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, December 10, 1948).” 
b. Please note that the above reference is from Dr. Takara, and cited in AIM’s initial attack against Davis in Feb 2008. Please note that Honolulu newspapers published articles anticipating and reporting Davis's arrival. This is not “sneaking” here on a boat,” as misrepresented by Edward Berman.
c. Because Berman misrepresented the racial situation in Hawaii, and he misrepresented Davis’s arrival in Hawaii, Berman likely misrepresented Davis's appearance at the NAACP meeting. Berman's claim that Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii” may also be an exaggeration.
5. As a journalist, Davis attended the Honolulu NAACP meeting. From this kernel of truth, three distinct webs of lies were built:
a. Berman exaggerated Davis’s actual actions to implicate Davis.
b. AIM exaggerated Berman’s testimony to further implicate Davis.
c. AIM exaggerated Davis “actions” to implicate Obama.
6. Although AIM’s misrepresentation is built on Berman’s misrepresentation, Berman did not accuse Davis of sneaking into meetings, trying to take over meetings, or having the “avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” Berman accused Davis of propagandizing the membership about “racial problems,” which is probably an exaggeration itself.
6. The NAACP revoked the Honolulu branch charter because they refused to hold elections, not to keep them from being dominated by communists.
A.I.M. SPECIFIC MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING 1949 NAACP:
Fabricated Version #1: In his report “Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army,” AIM’s Cliff Kincaid claimed: “The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) took testimony in 1950 from a member of the Honolulu branch of the NAACP, Edward Berman, who referred to "Comrade Davis" as someone who "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." In this version, Berman criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the “avowed intent” of converting the same meetings.
a. Contrary to Kincaid’s claims, Berman’s testimony did NOT claim:
i. Davis “sneaked” into any meeting
ii. Davis attended more than this one meeting
iii. Davis had “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”
b. Kincaid’s claim is inherently absurd. If a person has “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line,” they could hardly “sneak” into a meeting.
c. Berman’s letter stated that Davis WAS SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who RECENTLY "sneaked" into meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line. In a rhetorical slight of hand, Kincaid misrepresented the others’ alleged purpose as Davis’s purpose.
Fabricated Version #2 In his report “Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign,” Kincaid makes a slightly different claim. In this version, he states “We already knew Davis was a Stalinist. NAACP member Edward Berman testified that "comrade Davis" tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." Note that in this version, Davis did not “sneak” into meetings. Instead he allegedly tried to take over meetings.
a. We do not know that Davis was a "Stalinist." He actually criticized Stalin, by name, in his writing. 
b. In this version, Kincaid changes his misrepresentation of Berman’s letter from saying that Davis “sneaked” into meetings, to saying that Davis “tried to take over meetings.” In fact, Berman’s letter did not say either of these.
c. Berman did NOT testify that Davis tried to take over meetings at all, much less taking over meetings "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."
d. Berman mentioned Davis at only one meeting, not “meetings,”
e. In Berman's words, the only action Davis took was when he "suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our `racial problems' here in Hawaii." Berman does NOT connect Davis with trying to convert “it into a front for the Stalinist line.”
f. Romerstein's research reveals that Berman said that at ONE meeting, Davis was SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who recently "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line. Kincaid therefore misrepresents the Berman testimony in at least four ways:
i. Berman testified about Davis's presence at one meeting, not "meetings" as falsely claimed by Kincaid.
ii. According to Berman, Davis did not try to "take over" this or any other meeting, as falsely claimed by Kincaid. He only "appeared on the scene to propagandize" about racial problems.
iii. Kincaid completely misrepresents Berman’s assessment of Davis’s purpose. Davis’s purpose, according to Berman, was to propagandize about racial problems. According to Berman, Davis did NOT attend the meeting "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” Davis was only supported by OTHERS who had RECENTLY sneaked into meetings (not this meeting) with the "avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." In changing the subject from “others” to Davis, Kincaid also changes “avowed intent and purpose” into just “purpose.” With this change, Kincaid completely misrepresents Berman’s assessment of Davis’s purpose.
iv. Further, Kincaid failed to mention the context of Berman's remarks, including the fact that Berman was a rookie member of the Board, and a Caucasian who believed there was NO segregation in Hawaii. Even decades later, some landlords refused to rent to people of certain ethnic groups.
Fabricated Version #3 (“Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists”): The most outrageous version comes from AIM guest columnist Paul Kengor: “Finally, if that doesn't concern liberals, they should understand how communists, including Frank Marshall Davis, used the civil-rights movement, and again and again exploited and undermined the NAACP. Romerstein lays this out at length in his report. He quotes Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, who rightly noted of Davis and his comrades: "they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP." They would do so after having destroyed another good civil-rights organization. "Comrade Davis," wrote Wilkins, "was supported by others who recently ‘sneaked' into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." Wilkins knew well that this was a standard "tactic" by the communists; it was known by everyone involved in the NAACP at the time. Wilkins, like many civil-rights leaders of his time, refused to be duped by Davis and his comrades.” Note that in this version, Roy Wilkins, instead of Berman, allegedly criticized Davis.
FACTS: The letter was written TO Roy Wilkins, not BY Roy Wilkins. Wilkins had a reputation of denouncing communists within the civil rights movement. Falsely attributing these remarks to Wilkins greatly enhanced their credibility. I can find no evidence in this report that Wilkins had any opinion of Davis.
Fabricated Version #4: In his report “AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor,” Kincaid give a fourth version: “AP doesn’t note the evidence that Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line". In this account Davis allegedly tried to take over the NAACP itself!
FACTS: In fact, there is no such evidence. Kincaid is AGAIN misrepresenting the testimony of Edward Berman, rookie board member of the Honolulu NAACP! Romerstein’s research only indicates that Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. According to Romerstein’s research, Davis did NOTHING to take over the NAACP or any of its branches to transform it into a front for the Stalinist line.
#1: http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf (NOTE: Now a dead link. Kincaid seems to have canned the entire post! Has he also scrubbed mention of it in his other posts??)