Another day, another rivet out of this great airplane that is democracy...

Traitors every damn one of them. They took an oath to protect the country; not their corporate masters or the Bush bots.

In a fair world they would be dragged through the streets and punished.

Now what exactly is America suppose to do with this mouthful of bitter bile? Swallow or spit?

Military-industrial complex 2.0

And this is interesting how?

Why this continuing American belief that truth is the basis for what they are told?

At some point, as Americans finally learn to accommodate themselves to the system they live in, they will be able to finally understand other cultures at other times - say, the Russia of the 1930s, or the Germany of the 1930s, or the Italy of the 1930s. Or if those examples are a bit too dramatic, then the Hungary of the 1960s, the Czechoslovakia of the 1970s, or the Chile of the 1980s. All places where the will of the people lost, and life went on.

Truly, at some point, the excuse 'who could have known' will simply be seen as proof of complicity - because honestly, who couldn't have know, if they were paying any attention at all?

Paul Vallely - what a fucking monster. He describes the whole effort as "psyops" against the American public, without a hint of conscience. Even Rumsfeld's conscience pinged enough to prompt a half-joke about Vallely being a nut who hates the Constitution.

Truly a political twilight zone when this kind of expose pours into newsgrinder almost daily, criminality, torture, and what spews out is flap about lapel pins, and astonishment that a black preacher could bear some anger about what his country has done and is doing. My my, how do we live with ourselves.

Over eight years ago, I noticed Republicans repeating almost verbatim the same propaganda over and over again on cable news outlets. This was several years before someone mentioned "Republican talking points" and how a large number of goose-stepping Republican hacks were receiving their marching orders daily from the RNC and twisted individuals like Karl Rove. Result? I stopped watching cable news programming, and instead turned more and more to the internet for information.

Today, I get my information mainly off the internet, checking out one liberal website after another, looking for the truth. I watch Keith Olbermann on weeknights on MSNBC, and have begun to catch some of Dan Abram's news shows afterward. Plus, of course, I check out Stewart and Colbert for their incisive and humorous take on politics in general.

Anyway, we should not be surprised that the Bush administration has corrupted our nation's officer corp, whether currently active or retired. The culture of corruption and deceit Republicans have corrupted our federal government from one end to the other, from the Justice Department to the FDA, from the EPA to the FAA. And if John McStain is elected president, this right-wing corruption of the hallowed halls of our federal government will continue.

Electing a Democrat president, as well as electing as many Democrats as possible to Congress, I believe, is essential to preserving our democracy. Only after enough Democrats are elected to office can we possibly begin to treat this Republican cancer that is eating away at the fabric of our great nation, either arresting and prosecuting the war criminals in the Bush administration (or any of the Republican criminals in our federal government, top to bottom) or passing laws honoring our nation's democratic principles in an attempt to stop any further Republicancer from spreading.

To be honest, I'm not so sure any more that party politics will matter. Only about half of the electorate will participate, and most of them will remain shockingly poorly informed, the system is grotesquely money infested (how many millionaires there are in the Congress?), the media is increasingly a seamless part of the corporate power elite. I don't see president Obama or the Democratic majority really changing any of the basics here. The problems are structural, and personalities and outcomes of elite politics will probably not matter that much. The political system is increasingly dysfunctional, I think 2004 already proved that - even now in the most central issues the Republicans have a solid 30-35% support. Those are almost incomprehensibly grim figures as the situation hardly could be any worse for them. Sure, such support will not win them the White House of the Congress in the fall, but that is easily enough, much more than enough, to sabotage any meaningful reform.

And how is this news to anyone to paid any attention to the last eight years? Honestly Kevin, I can't tell if you're just trolling for responses or if you're really that gullible.

Quite the concerted effort. Which private contractor was tasked with going through the garbage of the dissidents?

And after Bush is gone the government will still be filled with the people willing to work for him. This stuff will last a long time.

It has been apparent for many years now that the upper ranks of the Army and Air Force are overwhelmingly Republican. And this has been enforced with a "carrots and sticks" approach.

The carrots are corporate jobs or consulting gigs that pay huge amounts of money compared to the military pay scale. And of course the upper ranks of those corporations are again overwhelmingly Republican. Of course it isn't written down, but it is well understood that if you carry water for the Republicans, a favorable position will magically open up sometime in the future. This is something that Democrats can't deliver on in a similar fashion because Democrats are really rare in corporate power circles.

The sticks come into play when anyone dares go against the party line. At best you are ignored, but increasingly they are canned outright, like General Taguba, whos lost his career when he didn't do the white wash in the Abu Graib torture scandal.

And of course, if a Democrat gets into the White House, the military will resort to the Clinton rules and do their best to undermine every move. There will be plenty of Colin Powells who suddenly see the need for at least two divisions to do the tiniest little thing.

Democrats run things from the Democratic party, but Republicans have a gigantic power base of political operatives spanning all large corporations, the military, the media, Wall Street, and (increasingly) the judicial system.

For the Bush administration to be effective in setting up the propaganda machine described in the article, they needed a critical mass of willing participants in place.

It was a very good article. It raised but never addressed the very obvious question as to why CBS, ABC, NBC etc allowed this situation to occur. I think the answer is pretty clear.
The same carrots and sticks approach is operated on a much bigger scale to ensure compliance by the large networks and news organizations. Since almost all are owned by large corporations that can't be that hard.

I used to wonder why the Bushies pushed so hard for No Child Left Behind. It doesn't fit in with ANY other priorities that the Bushies have pushed over the last seven years. I think they needed it to ensure that they had a nice big pot of federal money to dole out to Kaplan depending on how favorablly the Washington Post would cover the Bush adminisitration.

$500-$1000 per appearance? Where have I seen those rates before?

Fairness doctine anyone? It's time to revisit that little piece of policy history....

Yep, and the whole process precedes the follow up protocol of keeping the press "embedded" during the invasion and occupation. Media and communications professor, Mark C. Miller wrote extensively about this (and other propaganda techniques used) in a few of his early books about this administration...that were published as this was unfolding. Miller had it figured out before it manifested.

The basis of an honor code is honesty? Whatevery happened to honesty?

"Returning honor and integrity to the Oval Office."

What a bitter joke that has become.

So I assume the argument goes more or less like this: A key lesson of Viet Nam was that losing the public means losing the war. Keeping the public "morale" up and favorable to the war is as important as the production of materiel for troops on the ground. The military would be irresponsible if it did not have its "messaging" together and as unified and on-target as any other weapon in its arsenal. The fact that this makes the interests of the US military entirely congruent with the interests of the CinC's political party is not a problem; that's just how it goes.

It's all very neat, logical, self-consistent. Not to mention sickening and probably completely irreversible. 8 years of this unremitting corruption with zero accountability has pretty well locked in all this stuff as the norm. Worst for me is idiot comments like "No duh, whaddya think, this is supposed to be surprising???" Of course it's not surprising. But if we're so inured to it that one side yawns cuz they know it all already and the other yawns because, hey, they're doing what they're sposedta what's the big deal, then we are truly f***ed. Which I increasingly believe we are.

Where does the genuine national repudiation of this stuff come from? The Villagers? Pelosi or Reid? Electing a Dem who will face a shitstorm of Meeeeedia protest if they presume to "look backward" and investigate any of the monstrous pile of mistakes--when the Congress couldn't muster the ability to enforce its own subpoenas, let alone hold a single member of the most corrupt admin in history accountable, while it was all going on?

/despair
/cynicism
goto:: Sunday Crossword....

We knew the media had become big business, we just didn't realize how big.

Print media puts a few of the military guys on the op-ed pages. TV hires them as "experts commentators." These guys could reasonably be the subject of interviews by other professionally trained reporters. Then their opinions would have been in the proper perspective. But by paying the military retirees, the networks compromised ethical standards and gave them a credibility they didn't deserve.

The difference in the media now from the 60s is that now the media suits want to be liked by the Pentagon. They are afraid of the meanies in Pentagon PR because they worry more about ratings and less about what Americans really need to know.

What do we need to know? Oh, things like is the existence of secret prisons and the practice of torture constitutional? Is our current Iraq policy ever going to work? Where is Osama bin Laden? Where was HUD as the housing crisis worsened?

Instead we get military "experts" on Iraq and kerfluffles over flag lapel pins.

Note to media moguls: I have not watched one minute of network news in the last two weeks. That means I'm not seeing the ads you run during the news and I'm not buying your sponsors' products. Suck on that.

I don't know why everyone is treating this news as if it is some sort of revelation. They are military analysts, on the payroll of the pentagon by virtue of being military retirees. Common sense suggests that only a very small fraction of them would be heroic enough to speak the truth if it was likely to tar the image of the military, even if they are not given special treatment by the DOD.

Most people, despite all their claims of being principled and above their personal self interests for matters large and small, always act in ways to maximize their personal gain.

These are same group of retired military/right wing think tank experts that shilled the war in Iraq in the first place. And the media gobbled it up. And still do. We get official pentagon "news" on China, Iran, Iraq --you name it. I once asked NPR why they peddled such one-sided presentations and their ombudsman said they would push the anti-war side if only the Democratic Party did if first.

What a shameless, sordid fourth branch of government our media are.

Seems to me a number of commenters here think Republicans control everything so we should just throw up our hands and give up. To hell with that. How many times have you seen Youtubes or John Stewart do a montage of ex generals spewing the same DoD talking points over the last 5 years? Of course this article isn't news to us, we've seen them catapulting the propaganda all this time. The most appalling aspect is the last few paragraphs where the teevee "news" outfits admit totally abrogating their responsibility to vet these shills.

Sure the Bush Administration has politicized every branch of government, Repubs have been doing that to the DoD since Vietnam.

But this is no time to quit, in case you haven't noticed we are winning this time. We are swamping the Repub fatcats in legitimate contributions to candidates at the Senate and House level. Obama has raised far more money than any presidential candidate in history and most of it is in small contributions. It'll take years to depoliticize government, but that's just another challenge to be met. If you don't have the guts or the patriotism to try then please sit down and shut up. There are plenty of us who will if we're not drowned out by demoralized crybabies.

the trip was viewed as a masterpiece in the management of perceptions, not least because it gave fuel to complaints that 'mainstream' journalists were ignoring the good news in Iraq."

Submit! Carry our contend and still be despised!

Sound familiar? Tolle et Lege:

There were the German Nazis and the Russian Communists. The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had done. And they imagined that they had learned from the mistakes of the past; they knew, at any rate, that one must not make martyrs. Before they exposed their victims to public trial, they deliberately set themselves to destroy their dignity. They wore them down by torture and solitude until they were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put into their mouths, covering themselves with abuse, accusing and sheltering behind one another, whimpering for mercy. And yet after only a few years the same thing had happened over again. The dead men had become martyrs and their degradation was forgotten. Once again, why was it? In the first place, because the confessions that they had made were obviously extorted and untrue. We do not make mistakes of that kind. All the confessions that are uttered here are true. We make them true.

1984 again.
.

I'm not going to read the article--I find this sort of piece too debilitating, too demanding, and too disheartening. The most interesting piece for me in today's NYT was the one about the Esmerian jewelry lawsuits.

Anyway, thank you for your précis. I think the ingenious Torie Clarke should hang her head in shame for her role in swindling and lying to the American people. But she undoubtedly lacks the decency. Perhaps, like me, you've seen her news-show appearances in the past--robotic, empty, wooden, devoid of personality and human empathy.

Of course, she'll go through the motions of "feeling" various things, as part of her performance, as part of her marketing strategy to make the garbage she peddles more marketable. Rather like Peggy Noonan, but without quite the same degree of phony, effusive charm, and without the aging, haggard, good looks.

The story made the front page of the Seattle Times/Post-Intelligencer combined Sunday edition. Good work on the part of the NYT.

Note the name of every shill in the article and remember them.

It's one thing to watch news and feel that all the military "analysts" are Pentagon hacks, getting rich from the war.

It's another thing to have it DOCUMENTED.

Kudos to the NYT for laying it all out, brick by brick.

I'm with DrBB. Sure, some of us understand that the bottom of this clusterfuck has not been plumbed. But it needs to be said. It needs to be told; you've been lied to. Again.

Dams rarely fail catastrophically. It's the little cracks that add up...

the military analysts were the ultimate "key influential" — authoritative, most of them decorated war heroes, all reaching mass audiences.

Kind of changes one's perspective on the word "hero" and the whole notion of courage, doesn't it? These guys must have demonstrated physical courage and high principles at some point, at least in someone's mind, but change the setting and context, and they turn into weasels.

Food for thought.

I wish the American public could put their minds around the VAST sums of money involved in our military complex. How much of the 600 billion military budget do you assume is involved in this disinformation campaign? How many billions are involved in spreading the pro-war spin? 1 or 2 billion? Spread that around and it supports quite a few think tanks, 527 operations and "training" for right wing operatives. Documented in David Brock's books by the way.

People think they are rich in this country if they have a apple phone, an ipod, or a pair of jet skis and a pickup truck. They have absolutely no idea of the obscene wealth gathered into a few hands, the "Superclass." Can't imagine what 9 trillion dollars in debt means. Don't even know what a trillion dollars is. The super-rich hide and cloak themselves from scrutiny very well.

Rumsfeld: "In Iraq, for example, the U.S. military command, working closely with the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy, has sought nontraditional means to provide accurate information to the Iraqi people in the face of an aggressive campaign of disinformation. Yet this has been portrayed as inappropriate: for example, the allegations of 'buying news.' The resulting explosion of critical media stories then causes all activity, all initiative, to stop. Apparently, it is -- was not stopped. It was put under review, and I don't have knowledge as to whether or not it's been stopped. I do have knowledge that it was put under review, and I was correctly informed, and I just misstated the facts.

"We need to consider the possibility of new organizations and programs that can serve a similarly valuable role in the war on terror. Although the enemy is increasingly skillful at manipulating the media and using the tools of communications to its advantage, it should be noted that we have an advantage as well. And that is, quite simply, that truth is on our side. Ultimately, the truth wins out. I believe with every bone in my body that free people, exposed to sufficient information, will, over time, find their way to the right decisions. We are fighting a battle in which the survival of our free way of life is at stake. It is a test of wills, and it will be won or lost with our public and the publics of free nations around the world. We need to do all we can to correct the lies being told, shatter the appeal of the enemy and attract supporters to our noble and necessary efforts to defeat violent extremism around the globe."

It's another thing to have it DOCUMENTED.

Towards what end? Just to make liberals make feel good? Recent documentations of many other things have not led anything useful.

It is upsetting, but I'm not surprised because I think people act in the way that is true. If I were ex-military, a decorated hero, why would I think that the organization that I had served was lying to me? My bias is already pro-military, and now I've been asked to serve in a new capacity.

I don't think anyone here didn't operate in a manner consistent with their own beliefs about what is true and real and honest.

I read all kinds of BS in the comments at blogs and in op-ed pieces and from the PR machines of liberal organizations by that I absolutely don't agree with and find to be not critical and based on a whole series of biased liberal assumptions about the way the world works.

We've been led to believe that people can just check their beliefs and biases at the door and be impartial (that they can even identify them) -- that's the real lie here. I could no more do it than the a military analyst could.

Ditto, Kevin, ditto.

Jan in Stone Mtn >"...The super-rich hide and cloak themselves from scrutiny very well."

So how do you think "they" got super-rich ? It has all been documented in many, many ways before. This is just one example.

Don Bacon >quoting Field Marshall Rumsfeld "...We are fighting a battle in which the survival of our free way of life is at stake. It is a test of wills..."

That rant is directly out of The Real War supposedly authored by Richard M. Nixon (I have always wondered who the "ghost" writer(s) were).

"...our free way of life is at stake..."

The Powers That Be seem to think their ages long corrupt game of "all benefits are private and all costs are public" is being taken away from them.

Their free ride is about over.

Tough

"...It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins..." - Benjamin Franklin

As mentioned above, the networks and print media did not have to be complicit in the propaganda campaign.

It was very easy to see happening: when people in the media make claims that you know they cannot independently verify, you know they are getting the info straight from government/military spokespeople. These retired military guys don't go to Baghadad, aren't doing independent research. Same with the media heads themselves: they should follow up every single transfer of government-obtained information with:

(1) this information was not independently verified, and was obtained from official Pentagon information-distribution points.
(2) further, this informational narrative is beneficial to the Administration's arguments (like the idea of al Qaeda in Iraq).
(3) these sources have previously been exposed as purveyors of false information on occasions X,Y,Z.

Every single time the media (networks or newspapers) says something like, "the bombing was carried out by al Qaeda in Iraq" or "group X claims responsibility for the bombing" or "country Z is doing A,B and C in Iraq" the above three points almost assuredly apply.

The think tanks are no better. It's perfectly fine to have an agenda, and lobby for it, but they are often given the imprimatur of objective observers. Their articles are given wide exposure on Op-ed pages.

The main problem is people believe this information. There is not nearly enough skepticism, and what doubt does exist is often just generalized cynicism, no-nothingism, or selective, *partisan* skepticism. Surveys show people do assimilate this information. Even people who should know better, like journalists and bloggers repeat and believe the propaganda.

"Manufacturing Consent", indeed.

All I can say is, Bush is an idiot. Doing this Iraq war is like walking up to someone who claimed you were stalking them and then saying, "Hi! Let's be friends!" It's about the stupidest thing you could do, and not going to help your life or your popularity in the world.

Let's get a leader who follows common sense, instead of insane dreams and bad advice.

"I wish the American public could put their minds around the VAST sums of money involved in our military complex" - Jan SM

Well, many also have their hands around that very money you mention, and I am not just talking about the upper echelon...I am speaking of the rank and file designers, engineers, electronics personal, materials fabricators, assemblers and several other categories of white and blue collar labor. There are more of these individuals within other labor related industries (mostly service industry) then one might imagine, and their livelihood is very dependent on an active and politically healthy military, a well funded military. Although both parties engage in these relationships (Dianne Feinstein comes to mind) It is no accident that Republicans are the most gung-ho "privatize" everything...it is a sure fire avenue of mutual economic and political gain, control within various regions of government, and it's controlling relationship over the constituency and the industries that provide opportunity and wealth for them...or, vise -versa, however you want to look at the situation. It is easy to show how all of this rapidly degenerates into crony capitalism/corruption, now simply business as usual, the mutually vested interest kind of business. As one famous Republican once said: "The business of this country is business"

Christopher's got it. Military people (I was one) think that they have been blessed almost religiously with being right about the things that they believe in. Everyone else is wrong and/or misguided, and so any means are justified for doing the "right" thing.

Which is similar to the way we think, except we are right and they are wrong.

The evidence this war was based on has turned out to be about as good as using one person's say-so that she saw a guy give her a funny look, to prove that the guy is insane. That's something to be ashamed of, not proud of and promoted. A look may not be innocent, but one person's say-so about a look should not destroy a life, or launch a thousand ships.

After the "embedded shills" during the invasion, this is really not at all surprising.

Our economy is on the brink of a meltdown, and this misguided debacle in the desert is very much a contributing factor to this state of affairs.

I'd say the Pentagon is basically a threat to our democracy.

Prove me wrong.

God Bush America!

It's funny isn't it that the same Republican President who said that is the one who warned us about the military industrial complex? & as you say benmerc, the deep deep imibrication of that complex, that it occupies alot of cultural/political muscle tissue too, is probably overlooked.

And there's no way that this story isn't important, so stop whining gregor.

If I were ex-military, a decorated hero, why would I think that the organization that I had served was lying to me?

If you were ex-military and at all honest with yourself, you would have experienced numerous instances throughout your service of the military lying to you or others -- just as is true of any large organization.

The point is that you can't just blame Bush and/or the Pentagon. The military is merely the agent for implementing the force component of American Exceptionalism. America is the best place on earth and Americans are the best people, and so what we say goes. We started with the Native Americans, then the Mexicans and the Spanish, the Central Americans and the Germans, then with assorted other 'lesser beings,' and now it's the turn of the Iraqis, Afghanis and Somalis. Hell, it's even in the bible somewhere. It must be, 'cuz the churches go along with the killing.

You know that in America today someone in government is unable to say: We are no better than anyone else in the world and so we should learn to get along with everyone. Anyone saying that would be out on his ear. America knows best and if you can't accept it then bear the consequences. Besides, there'$ good money in it, and lots of jobs too.

Those scabs in uniform 'R us and we just don't want to admit it.

What's surprising and incredibly sad about this NYT story is the extent of the administration's attempts to manipulate the war & terror messages. When the government and the military control the media -- when they don't trust the electorate to make up their own minds -- where is democracy?

What is particularly galling is all the effort early on to portray war dissenters as unpatriotic. Who can forget "If you don't support the troops you support the terrorists!" Was that all just Pentagon "psy-ops" or attempts by the military commentators to curry favor from the Pentagon for their employers?

The Bush Administration apparently thinks they have to lie to us for our own good. Whatever happened to truth and good judgment as a strategy for winning hearts and minds, not to mention as a strategy for strengthening democracy? Has our government come to the same point as Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men when he shouts at defense attorney Tom Cruise, "You can't handle the truth?" If so our country is in a lot deeper trouble then we realize.

There needs to be consequences for this blatant violation of the public trust. What about demanding more media accountability from the agencies who decide about broadcasting licenses? What about setting conflict of interest standards in the broadcast media and make the networks tell people how they meet these standards? At the very least allow the current resumes of the media's so-called experts to be downloaded from the network web sites. Make the failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest a firing and even a criminal offense.

After all, aren't financial commentators and writers required to disclose information about their holdings? Why not hold military analysts to comparable standards as financial analysts? Are investments more important than a soldier's life?

Who is really supporting the troops here???

There's a reality show for Fox in all this, The Biggest Shill.

Somewhere in the hereafter, Richard Milhous Nixon is having the last laugh.

It is upsetting, but I'm not surprised because I think people act in the way that is true. If I were ex-military, a decorated hero, why would I think that the organization that I had served was lying to me? My bias is already pro-military, and now I've been asked to serve in a new capacity.

First of all, who the hell in their right mind would sit there and consider themselves a "hero" or anything like that? A general that did that is probably a self-important martinent. Second of all, anyone who's ever served in any kind of unit knows there is bullshit flowing to and fro on a constant basis. In a single Army battalion, you have the S-3 against everyone else, trying to ram through operations that are unrealistic. You have the battalion commander and his sergeant major with their competing or similar agendas--God help you if they hate each other. You have the company commanders being manipulated by the XO. And you have all the different elements looking at each other as the competition for face time with the commander, for resources and for slots for people to get into schools or for deployments. Magnify that to the general officer level--where entire bureaucracies regularly fight each other for scraps. There are untold lies being perpetuated every single day, and anyone who rises to high rank is savvy about the politics. So you would never, ever accept what the organization is saying or doing at face value--you'd want to know who, behind the scenes, is advocating for what.

I don't think anyone here didn't operate in a manner consistent with their own beliefs about what is true and real and honest.

Go read their E-mails--they were blind, partisan supporters of the Bush Administration. They KNEW the war was going off the rails. They knew in the summer of 2003 that a massive insurgency was organizing itself. Fast forward to the destruction of Fallujah in 2004, the bombing of the Golden Mosque, the collapse of the Iraqi Army every time it tried to stand and fight, the incredible wave of violence that swept the country in 2006 and 2007 and then the false promise of "the Surge." These men knew the war was a disaster, to a man, and they were sent to lie about it.

I read all kinds of BS in the comments at blogs and in op-ed pieces and from the PR machines of liberal organizations by that I absolutely don't agree with and find to be not critical and based on a whole series of biased liberal assumptions about the way the world works.

What are they compared to the Department of Defense? You're equating the "liberal organizations" with the United States Department of Defense? There is a scale problem here. No liberal organization sends 140,000 men and women halfway around the world to fight a 5+ year war. No "liberal organization" spends a trillion fucking dollars of taxpayer money on a contractor boondoggle and uses men with stars on their fucking collars to go in front of the American people--who they once swore an oath to protect and defend from our enemies who would destroy our Constitution and our nation--to sell it like a product. No "liberal organization" gets anyone fucking killed, dude. I think you need to revisit that whole "scale" thing.

We've been led to believe that people can just check their beliefs and biases at the door and be impartial (that they can even identify them) -- that's the real lie here. I could no more do it than the a military analyst could.

Bull fucking shit. When you put on that uniform, you're an American. You don't just defend Texas and Arkansas and say, fuck it, New Jersey--you bitches are on your own. You don't act like that unless you are a gutless, pissy little coward. You check your bias at the fucking door and do your fucking job or you don't get to call yourself a professional.

Nice talking points. Got any more bullshit of your own to spread around?

What was always the most galling part of the spin leading to war--to me at least--was the lies. America would have supported a campaign to end the power of Hussein (the cost of maintaining a no-fly zone was onerous). But they still trotted out the whole WMD farce again. The war started again in 2002 anyway, to anyone who was actually paying attention. But the pundits here--and Kevin too--chose to be led and not ask tough questions. We deserve the government that we have now. The dysfunctional, utterly inept government led by the least gifted politician in history. Rather than pretending we were "misled," how about paying attention? How about agitating for change? How about shouting down McCain, Bush and Hillary? America must wake up and take stock. It is almost too late. We have given at least three horsemen of the apocalypse fresh horses.

dr sardonicus,

Nixon, Watergate . . . ah, the good old days. Back in the 60s and 70s the media had enough spine that the Pentagon blamed the networks & press for eroding support for the Vietnam war. Back then the media pretended to keep an arm's length relationship with the military. Not any more.

Nowadays the media scramble to become "embeds" and for exclusive interviews with Petraeus (who many people say has never met a camera he hasn't liked -- running in 2012??). Nowadays the media employ senior officers right out of active duty, even as they sit on the boards of the Pentagon's leading contractors. Heck, why not hire the President of Peabody Coal as an environmental commentator, or the Vice President of Merck as your health expert?

The fact that ABC News and Disney World are corporate cousins is no coincidence. They're both part of one big corporate theme park. Nixon would have approved.

This is really an old story. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber covered this almost five years ago, in their book, Weapons of Mass Deception. It is sad and unfortunate that the New York Times is only covering it now. In 2003, it might have been instrumental in Bush’s impeachment. Now it is clear that Bush and Cheney are not going to be held accountable for any of their misdeeds. None of them.

The whole article was a bitter pill, but a few things were just impossible to swallow, making me gag.

"The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon."

If they tell you not to talk about it, then it's probably wrong. How did they not learn this as children?

"When he told Bill O’Reilly that the United States was 'not on a good glide path right now' in Iraq, the repercussions were swift. Mr. Cowan said he was 'precipitously fired from the analysts group' for this appearance."

Thus it does not matter if the group was full of honest men or corrupt war profiteers. Since those in charge of the group were corrupt, they could assure that the group would be a propaganda arm.

"'The strategic target remains our population,' General Conway said."

Read that very carefully. That's a general of the United States armed forces declaring you and me as a strategic target of the United States military.

But why say "bypass traditional journalists" when quite enough of them (like the execrable Judith Miller) were quite willing to sell the war?

Doesn't it undermine our country's war effort to expose the misinformation?

Well, "Charlie Gibson", heh, "you" like to present your own economic misinformation, like in that execrable question in the debate a few days ago, implying that capital gains tax reductions actually increase revenue. The fraud lives on: This morning on the show moderated by George Staphylo-crock-a-puss, George Will started out by defending the conduct of that recent Hillary-Obama debate. Idiotically and shamelessly, he said that a very substantive question had been asked [by Charlie Gibson], namely why increase capital gains taxes when that reduces revenue! (That myth has been exposed here and elsewhere in postings and comments.) Will said Obama admitted that (!), but BO thought fairness was more important. The other dorks on the show, like Coki and Sam D., went right along with that fraudulent framing by the aristoprick Will. I don't know which is more disturbing, the misframing by obvious enemies of the public like Will, the play along by folks like George S. who should know better, or that Obama didn't challenge the claim embedded in the question. He should have smacked that right down, and it worries me he didn't.

Remember, we are living in the reality based community. Our benevolent government acts, thereby changing reality, and we are only left to watch in amazement.

/snark

Eric Gray

Wow pale rider, considering that I'm probably as liberal as they come. Although, I personally don't think the U.S. Department of Defense is evil incarnate. I don't believe there is such a thing as evil. Although, you do make me question that as I'm a little shocked at your anger. And no, I don't believe you can ever check your biases at the door. No matter what your job. Or your responsibility. And yes, I think you're kidding yourself if you think you can. You clearly haven't, so there's that.

One thing missing from the article: All of the names of the 75 or so "experts" who were involved. Mostly the names of those who were quoted appear in the Times' piece, I'd like to see a complete list of those who were selected by the administration to participate.

I'll bet a number of these folks are still on cable news, giving their unbiased "analysis" on a regular basis.

The business channels are required to list the connections of any analysts or guests who appear and have on-air comments about any financial entities. But hey, that involves money---this only involves lives.

Release the list of the names, all of them. Now.

Wow pale rider, considering that I'm probably as liberal as they come. Although, I personally don't think the U.S. Department of Defense is evil incarnate. I don't believe there is such a thing as evil. Although, you do make me question that as I'm a little shocked at your anger. And no, I don't believe you can ever check your biases at the door. No matter what your job. Or your responsibility. And yes, I think you're kidding yourself if you think you can. You clearly haven't, so there's that.

Are you a fucking child?

There is a massive, massive difference between a general officer going on various media outlets--viewed by millions of Americans--and lying about this war AND some idiot like me commenting on a fucking blog.

These men owe their careers to being able to leave partisanship, personal bias, etc. behind in order to serve this nation honorably.

That means, they serve Democrats or Republicans, they serve in times of war or peace, and they serve the best interests of their soldiers for the greater fucking good of the country.

They are not pissants, amateurs, shoe salesmen, clock watching cube rats, or middle managers. These are men who are highly educated and professional who know that trading bullshit commentary for procurement dollars is an unconscionable betrayal of everything they swore to protect.

You dismiss it like it's nothing? Wow, you really don't have the first fucking clue about ethics, do you? Or the military? Or what this country is supposed to be like?

Damn, the bar has dropped to the point where it's "who gives a fuck" in the face of this kind of thing.

Guess I missed that meeting...

Pale Rider,
You don't get it. These people think that they ARE serving their nation honorably, as previous generations have, by screwing foreigners, proving that Team USA is #1 and promoting their own (military) welfare.

PS: Your use of gutter language is sure proof of the paucity of your argument.

pj in jesusland: What is particularly galling is all the effort early on to portray war dissenters as unpatriotic. Who can forget "If you don't support the troops you support the terrorists!" Was that all just Pentagon "psy-ops" or attempts by the military commentators to curry favor from the Pentagon for their employers?

I forgot "If you don't support the troops you support the terrorists!"
Do you remember who said it? Where or when?

PS: Your use of gutter language is sure proof of the paucity of your argument.

Does my "bad language" frighten you?

Your flip dismissal of this frightens me. You want to talk foul language and semantics while everything goes to hell in a handbasket, be my guest. If YOU aren't outraged, then you didn't read the article. Be honest. Did you? All 11 pages and the supplement, where they show the actual E-mails of what these men were talking about while the war in Iraq was spinning out of control?

If we now live in a day and age when the elite of our retired military can go on television and tell the American people a fantasy concocted by the information wing of the Department of Defense that directly contradicts what was actually going on in the Iraq war for years on end for the sole purpose of stuffing money in their pants in a sort of quid pro quo, then this truly is a fascist state.

Can someone tell me when the Republic ended? I missed that meeting, too.

Pale Rider's naivete is what's really remarkable. Any anthropologist knows that group think not only explains but distorts reality. None of this is new. Yes, these people are "professional". Yes, they're disciplined and unbiased (in their fashion). But they're also part of a system that rewards conformity and punishes whistle-blowing.

In a sense, the career military officer corps reflects how tribalism even in the higher reaches of government is fundamentally irrational. Pale Rider must know this as well since his defense of this tribe is thoughtless and angry.

then this truly is a fascist state.

I think the truth is starting to sink in.

Feminists are the reason I can't get a man. They pushed us to have careers, be smart and educated, which has made us intimidating.

Doesn't pointing out the failure of Iraq undermine the war effort?

Pale Rider >"...this truly is a fascist state...."

Well DUH !

Bout time you woke up there hot-shot, how much else have you missed along the way ?

Professionalism is no protection against ignorance, greed nor stupidity.

"Eventually, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall." - Robert C. Byrd

Pale Rider: Thank You. You have expressed my sentiments better than I could. I have really been too pissed-off for words (and I can’t type very well).

The fact that these “soldiers� (and I use the term loosely) would help an administration manufacture consent for a war of aggression that they knew to be wrong, thus murdering and maiming thousands of their fellow soldiers for no better reason than monetary gain really does put one at a loss for words…

The K Street project infiltrates the news media.

Can someone tell me when the Republic ended?
Around the 30th of January, 2001. Arthur Clarke hit the date spot on,as well as the monolith.

The really sad thing is that when I talk to people about this, the most common response is a shrug and something like "no shit, sherlock." Our collective capacity to be shocked and/or outraged is burned out. Can any new president, from either party, do more than paste a smiley-face on this fucking travesty?

In one of those ironies in which history abounds, in the future it will be shown that the Republic ended under a Republican administration, with a Republican majority in both houses of congress.

And I want to second Baruch at 1:21 AM. Pale Rider's style is a bit abrasive at times, but his analysis is seldom wrong.

I'm the sole retired enlisted member of this military analyst group. I was on several trips to Gitmo, Iraq, etc., and met with the Attorney General. I attended countless briefings at the
Pentagon. I spoke with Mr. Barstow regarding this story and take no issue with what he has reported. I've provided (still do weekly) hundreds of pro-bono T.V. and radio interviews regarding our efforts in the WOT. Access to DOD and the Secretary has been instrumental in providing viewers and families with the most accurate commentary possible. I at no time felt the slightest pressure from DOD to sway my remarks. I have no contractual or financial intererest associated with the war effort. My intent, and that of many of the very professional retired officers I worked with in this group, was to support our men and women in the fight. The very troops we recently served along side of and had responsibility for training and preparing for the war. I can't say we got it right 100% of the time...we are human. I can say that our collective efforts were noble and well-intended. I can't imagine what the MSM would have done to the morale of our force had we not been so engaged. I have a great deal of respect for Secretary Rumsfeld which is not to say I agreed with everything DOD provided us. The analysts have hundreds of years of experience and are savvy enough to recognize talking points that don't quite jive with facts on the ground. By in large, all of us provided a good service to the American people and to our brave troops serving around the world.