Jeeez...this story desreves more traction than it has generated. At the very least, the connections between these analysts and the Pentagon or defense industry should have been divulged, on-screen or on-air, each time one of them made an appearance. This failure to reveal bias or partisanship has done nothing but exacerbate a cynicism towards not only the media but our own government and leaves the public with a sense of not knowing the true facts about our problematic military adventures. That is not a healthy situation and trust is not easily restored.

 

DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS appearing on television, under the guise of being "military analysts", commenting upon Iraq (and for that matter, probably "al qaeda" too) and yet no one ever mentions on-air that these guys are making money from the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The title of David Barstow's New York Times article is "Behind Military Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand"... but as you read the article, you're struck by the fact that these "military analysts", in what seems to be most cases, are DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS... that even seems like what the title of the Barstow article should truly have been:

"Behind Military Analysts, DEFENSE LOBBY'S Hidden Hand".

 

Above, on MMFA's list of these "military analysts", sorted by number of appearances, at the top is David L. Grange.

David L. Grange is founder of ViaGlobal Solutions, who according to their own Press Release of April 21, 2008, less than 3 weeks ago, "ViaGlobal Group, LLC is pleased to announce that it has been awarded a contract to conduct an Advanced Urban Combat Course.  With a deadline of less than two weeks, ViaGlobal has designed and will execute this highly elite training for an exclusive unit within the Department of Defense."

So David L. Grange makes money (perhaps millions of dollars) on the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

 

Next on MMFA's list, with second most appearances as a "military analyst", is Donald W. Shepperd.

Donald W. Shepperd is president of The Shepperd Group, "a defense consulting firm that he founded" (and "defense consulting" means DEFENSE LOBBYING). In addition, Donald W. Shepperd is on the board of directors of The NORDAM Group, and in their Press Release announcing his appointment to their board, they siad he "will provide invaluable insight and leadership to allow NORDAM to best serve the needs of its military and defense customers"

So Donald W. Shepperd makes money (perhaps millions of dollars) on the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

 

Third on MMFA's list of those "military analysts" who made the most appearances on television, is Barry R. McCaffrey.

Barry R. McCaffrey is mentioned in Barstow's article, along with Wayne A. Downing (who is sixth on MMFA's list of most "military analyst" appearances), and it is stated "Both men also had their own consulting firms, and sat on the boards of major miltary contractors" (and again, where you read the word "consulting" in the business of defense contracting, that's what they also call LOBBYING).

 

But of speacial note in Barstow's article, is the fourth name on MMFA's list of most appearances as a "military analyst", James Marks.

David Barstow concludes his article by informing us of James Marks, and this conclusion (and Mr. Marks himself) summarize this business of DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS disguised on television as "military analysts", and this is Barstow's conclusion to his article:

"CNN ...said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.

General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts.

As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies.

But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.

“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.

In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts.

“I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said.

CNN, however, said it did not know the nature of McNeil’s military business or what General Marks did for the company.

If he was bidding on Pentagon contracts, CNN said, that should have disqualified him from being a military analyst for the network.

 

But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq.

In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.

 

General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN.

“I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.

But CNN said it had no idea about his role in the contract until July 2007, when it reviewed his most recent disclosure form, submitted months earlier, and finally made inquiries about his new job.

“We saw the extent of his dealings and determined at that time we should end our relationship with him,” CNN said."

 

Yet again, good work Dem.

We'll all be waiting for Wesley's wiggle words in response to your post. A post that directly undermines his assertions that no war profiteering has transpired.

Thanks for your dilligence.

 

I appreciate it RH, thanks... but there's hardly any original thought of mine in my post ...more than half of it is simply lifted from David Barstow's article, and most of the rest is simply facts and information gathered from the Internet Wire, about the businesses these "military analysts" were really in, while they went on television selling the American People the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

There's only one thing though that I'd point at myself about, because it seems like it's near everything important in this matter, and it's the crux of the thing to me, but I see too many folks (not you RH) kind of missing the point, or maybe just seeming to.

It's the fact that these guys went on television as "military analysts", but were in fact DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS... that's the flesh and the blood and the bone buried in the backyard in this matter... that's everything!

That these men may be considered "agents" of some sort, of the Department of Defense, is really nothing... it's not about that... it's no crime, or even anything improper, to be a spokesperson for the DOD... it's no crime to even be a cheerleader for the invasion and occupation of Iraq (for if it were, our prisons would be bursting at the seams with Congressional Republicans and all the members of the Bush administration, and most of the hacks in the media and all of them at Fox News Channell).

"Propaganda" is not what it's about... it's about DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS going on television, and selling the American People Iraq, and making millions and millions of dollars the whole time, while 4,000 U.S. Troops die, and hundreds of billions of dollars are siphoned off from the U.S. Treasury... that's what it's about...

That's what David Barstow's article is about, and what he writes about James Marks in the conclusion to his article... a conclusion I put in my post, and that says it all.

It takes no original thought, or hardly any thought at all, to know and appreciate all these things... as Mr. Barstow's article is so well written, that all it takes is to read it, in order to get it.

 

And I will conclude here myself what I think may be, if not an original thought, then at least one outside the box: This term you're hearing of late, to describe all this... the term "Pentagon Propaganda Program"?

That itself is propaganda... that's what that term is, it's spin and distraction and persuasion and smokescreen... it's meant to draw your mind away from the truth, and keep thinking (by repeating the term) that this is about "propaganda"... again, it's not... and we are seeing it being spun that way though, with the repitition of the term "Pentagon Propaganda Program"

 

I suggest a different, more true description:

THE DEFENSE LOBBYIST AND MILITARY CONTRACTOR DISGUISED AS A "MILITARY ANALYST" PROGRAM... TO SELL, ON THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AN INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, AND SIPHON HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OUT OF THE U.S. TREASURY IN SO DOING

It's harder to say, and takes more words, but it's the truth... and I personally find it to be that way often, that it takes many words to speak the truth, and they are hard to find sometime.

David Barstow did a fine job of it, I say.

 

In the instance of Armstrong Williams' I think I heard it called advocacy journalism (still falls short of and puts into neutral terms the nefarious deeds perpetrated on the public).

We have war bloggers, how about war lobbyists? How about death pimping?

Preemptive War Crime.

Let's call them what they really are - war profiteers.  Didn't we used to prosecute war profiteers?  Didn't Truman open investigations into war profiteering?  Is war profiteering now legal?

 

Not last year, but the year before I think... in the First Session of the 109th Congress I think... Senate Democrats attempted to bring back the "Truman Commision", to oversee and audit defense spending and contracts, and to investigate waste fraud and abuse in that spending...

It was defeated on strict party lines: every Democrat who voted, voted to bring back such a Commission; and every Republican who voted, voted against it... and Republicans had the Senate in the 109th, as you all remember.

 

And then again, despite the record busting filibuster rate of the 110th radical Republican minority, why hasn't the Democratic majority pushed for trials and prosecutions?

Some feistier activists at the grassroots level backing our intrepid few solid justice seeking, public-trust-affirming liberals would be welcome. Those crooked profiteering merchants of death and war all have their hands on all the levers of power in our democratic government and in our public institutions. They have demonstrated no compunction over squashing any life out of the liberal movement with that power. That's our opposition in the debate over our future. That's who the ultraconservatives have allowed themselves to become; snivelling but powerful con artists afraid to meet progressives on neutral ground.

It would be swell if we could utilize alternatives to the corporate media to present our people first, bottom up, populist values to the public. But what would that look like? What outlets, what other methods do we have to move our story beyond the choir here and at so many other liberal blogs?

Think small. A thirty second ad here and there about the common good or community values on Limbaugh radio stations could do the trick. It can be done the progressive way too; pool the resources of the grassroots, buy ad time in small markets ( I hear it's pretty cheap and easy enough since radio station operators love money enough to sell their grandma) on Limbaugh stations and riff on shared American values.

Gotta take the longview, though. It took a well funded, highly organized conservative movement 30 years to persuade hearts and minds to buy the conservative worldview. The Republicans have done such a bang up job of selling the left as all things contemptible that it's going to take some time communicate with red state righties.

Anyway. Pipe dreamin'.

 

I've heard them say "media activism", and by them I mean the media hacks themselves, they say that term when they're pointing the finger at others, at the "liberal media": "Media Activism", and I guess "Media Activists"...

What a nice bullchit word for it... it paints it like the person is actively participating in our Democracy, like a Political Activist... instead of a liar... or instead of a DEFENSE LOBBYIST disguised as a "military analyst".

 

Excellent post, Dem.

Thinkprogress has also been dissecting the Barstow release, and has found this lovely little gem of an internal e-mail between Pentagon public affairs officials:

From: Gordon, Jeffrey D LCDR OSD PA
To: Ruff, Eric, SES, OSD; Bryan Mr OSD PA; Keck, Gary L Col OSD PA; [Redacted] AFIS-HQ/PIA
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: articles on detainees

Gentlemen,

As requested, attached document contains four thoughtful articles/columns about Guantanamo, from Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin. I have a call out to OGC and DoJ to provide some inputs as well. I Envision that I will have more material tomorrow a.m.

Excellent work, DEM.

You filled in whatever blanks there were for me. Did you read all the comments on the Barstow piece in the Times?

yeah media matters would give much more accurate analysis of military matters than those on the inside..

Strawman.  These military leaders were being touted by the news organizations as independent analysts, but the Whitehouse and DOD have described the leaders as their "surrogates".  The viewers were not informed that these guys were largely carrying the Administration's water.  They should have been or other independent analysts without a potential (or in this case demonstrated) conflict of interests should have been found.

I have no problem with the administration putting out their argument, but they need to do it without the deceptive "trojan horse" tactics.

 

Maybe you saw and clicked the link on MMFA's front page, to the video of Mr. Moran (D-VA) speaking on the House floor, about this matter... here's what he said:

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. "Mr. Speaker, a report released today by the nonprofit research organization Media Matters has found that military analysts secretly cultivated by the Pentagon's communications apparatus appeared over 4,500 times on major TV and radio networks since 2002 in segments covering the Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and other foreign policy and national security issues.

   The New York Times exposed this extensive, coordinated campaign by the Pentagon and the Bush administration to influence the commentary of what viewers rightfully believed were independent television military analysts. It is an unethical, possibly illegal propaganda machine, a media Trojan horse designed to shape war coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

   It was also apparent that the motivation on the part of many was the extraordinary access they were granted to the Pentagon for their defense contractor employers.

   One particularly disturbing example is when troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues, ``I think our analysts ..... can push back in that arena.'' The analysts, of course, were 75 retired military officers.

   This is conduct unbefitting of our military officers and our Nation, Mr. Speaker."

 

I'm glad Mr. Moran didn't neglect to mention that these "military analysts" were in truth DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS (although his mention was a bit oblique), because that's crucial... and the only thing I'd add to what Mr. Moran said, is the name of David Barstow, because his name is crucial also, to discussing something that seems to have it's genesis, in good Journalism, and a good Journalist.

The New York Times isn't a person... it's a collection of people, and some are good Journalists (like David Barstow), some not good Journalists (like carl hulse and adam nagourney and sheryl gay stolberg), and some aren't Journalists at all (like william kristol)... it's good policy to invoke the name of the author of a good article, like the one that ran in The New York Times.

David Barstow.

 

It’s a conspiracy involving ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR.

 You Media Matters Fools of America really blew the lid off of this one!  You take a conspiracy theory article by David Barstow, run a nexus search on the names, count the times they come up, and that’s your expose?  And every news organization is in on the conspiracy? 

 This Bush derangement circle-jerk is out of control.

Brutus, every time you saw one of these military analysts spouting an opinion did you know he had connections to the Pentagon or to the military industry? I don't regard this as a conspiracy, but rather an indication of the laziness and incompetence of the media in general. The disturbing feeling is that one cannot trust the media to consistently present facts and/or analysis in a competent and unbiased fashion.

Yes, Irony, in most cases I know that the analysts have connections to the Pentagon or military contractors.  And in the cases where I don’t know, I assume such a connection.  That’s who they hire. 

As far as the laziness and incompetence of the media goes, I realized that when I was about ten years old and read my dad’s Time magazine and watched Walter Cronkite on the evening news.  And now examples abound everyday on CNN, ABC, MMFA, etc.

I noticed that you neglected to include FOX News in your list of unreliable media outlets. Of course, FOX gets it right all the time in a fair and balanced way.  ;>)

Cronkite was probably one of the last decent journalists.  You were lucky to have seen him.

it's what a true soldier warned us about in his farewell address to the nation in 1961.  eisenhower warned us of the power of the military-industrial complex. 

Don't you also find it sad that the war needs to be propagandized in such a way? As for Bush "derangement," I've never witnesses an administration that needs more oversight, but gets very little, despite its obsession with information control.

Exactly. It's the kind of "derangement" that Jefferson, Madison and Franklin displayed regarding their king George.

What I think the rightwingers fail to notice is that diseases are named after the people who have it.  Bush derangement syndrome can only refer to George W. Bush himself and his own followers.

BDS can only really refer to the deranged 20% or so that continue to believe in the integrity and effectiveness of President Bush and his Administration.

And your wingnut love of propaganda is just so cute. I hope you're pleased with the deadly results of the lies your Republican war pigs fed us.

Gee ... isn't "lexus-nexus" one of the usual tools that the righties always use too?  For far more stretching and reaching reasons and logic than this ...

This Bush derangement circle-jerk is out of control.

By your statement above is it safe to assume that you approve of the incompetent and corrupt machinations of the Bush administration? If so, I am sorry I even wasted the time responding to such hoplessly clueless remarks.

GLUTEUSMAXIMUS, maybe you can explain why nobody ... NOBODY... is even addressing this story? You'd think the networks would at least try to debunk it if there's no "there" there, as you seem to believe.

Any thoughts? We can wait until you get your daily talking points.

Hey, what about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, huh? Will Barack Obama survive this scandal? Now, THAT'S news!  ;>)

And, Obama had on a FLAG PIN this weekend!!!!!!!!!! That' gotta be worth a week of in-depth analysis.

"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. "

Will Rogers

I think someone is addressing it, not the media however...

Congress Takes Action: Congress has moved swiftly to examine the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon. On April 22, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates calling for an investigation into the Department of Defense’s program. Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) also called upon Gates to disclose the “extent” of what the Times article suggested was “an extensive, coordinated effort by the DOD and the Administration … to try to influence the commentary of independent television military analysts,” as well as a full report from the Inspector General, in an April 28 joint letter. That same day, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an investigation into, among other things, the “extent of the contact between Pentagon officials and the military analysts in question regarding what was said by the analysts over the public airwaves.” Additionally, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) called upon the GAO to determine whether the program “violated appropriations prohibitions on publicity or propaganda activities” in a May 1 letter to acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro.

Lorelei: “Congress has moved swiftly to examine the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon. On April 22…”

Was that April of this year?  The MMFA article claims that this fascinating and rare phenomenon goes back to January, 2002.  It doesn’t sound like congress has moved too swiftly.  What were these guys doing for the six years before that?  Perhaps trying to get defense contract money for their states?

Of course now that the money has been appropriated, and since this is an election year, they have decided that the matter needs to be investigated – in all haste.

If you remember correctly, republicans were running Congress back in 2002, and hence, no checks placed on the Bush administration.

Oh, I see, Magnolia.  Carl Levin, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Hillary, etc. were not allowed to speak out because the dems didn't have the majority.  It all makes sense now. 

Russ Feingold did speak out. There was a majority of Dems who opposed the , they couldn't overcome numbers of sellout Dems and lockstep Repubs who gave Bush authority to use force. The rest of 'em? Well, they can go become Republicans for all I care. There's no shortage of Progressive Democrats out here to replace them.

I'll also remind your ignorant behind of the nuclear option your candy asses were threatening. I'll remind you that no hearings were allowed under your cowardly Republican reign.

When any of them did speak out, the right-wing media trumpeted them as unpatriotic or basically, not right in the head to be against such a grand and worthy escapade as the Iraq war.

80% of this country has seen the light.  What's taking you so long?

 

I remember this Bush administration being so paranoid they even render the constitution invalid, substitute with the Patriot act and spy on every american living in this country. They are ver capable of exercising their commander in chief powers and order these generals to obfuscate the truth. they are all afraid of what happened toi Shinseki will also befall them.

There's a lot of blame to spread around, Wolf...and, consequently, a lot of CYA. I just hope that the real story is correctly recorded for posterity to serve as a warning to future generations.

 -- You...really blew the lid off of this one! -- brutus

That was my first thought. They assigned at least 10 staffers to research this story and the best they can come up with is a nexus search...citing frequency rather than content.

 -- In conducting this study, Media Matters did not assess whether individual instances of commentary -- or the analysts themselves -- were supportive of administration policy. -- mmfa

There is the meat of the coconut on this "expose"...and at this point...it's damned little. Me and my staff of one found the following "cheerleading" in a couple of minutes:

 -- "Clearly the presence of more combat forces on the ground would have been needed." -- Gen. James Marks

 -- “It doesn’t look like there is light at the end of the tunnel.” -- Gen. Donald Shepperd

 -- I don’t think they can sustain the rotations the way they are right now without really starting to have severe readiness issues in the Army much more than another year -- Gen. David Grange

 --  the Army will unravel. -- Gen Barry McCaffrey

I don't have any problem with the fact that mmfa thinks this is a great conspiracy...but until they bring more to the party than a census survey...pretty weak. 

 

 

 

I don't have any problem with the fact that mmfa thinks this is a great conspiracy...but until they bring more to the party than a census survey...pretty weak.

 

I think you mean that you have no problem with the fact that you think mmfa thinks this is a great conspiracy. 

I agree that a more detailed analysis of what these gentlemen have been saying is in order. However, even the few random quotes you cite are suggestive of a position that the U.S. needed to escalate its involvement, and spend more money, in the Iraq war. The real issue is that underlying connections between these analysts and the war machine were kept secret.

Lots of things are kept secret in the course of prosecuting a war.

mmfa seems to think that this conspiracy proved detrimental to the war effort...without citing much evidence to the contrary.

Or maybe they think that the secrecy proves some damning evidence of a great "conspiracy plot"...perpetrated by Pres. Bush and his media allies.

In either case, I don't believe they have provided anything more than political pandering. And that could be the reason for mmfa's howls of disgust that the media will not follow them down the rabbit hole.

 

Lots of things are kept secret in the course of prosecuting a war.

I was unaware that it was the duty of the media to keep secrets. I thought the job of the media was to provide accurate information and unbiased analysis.

 -- I thought the job of the media was to provide accurate information and unbiased analysis. -- irony

hahaha...if only that were really the case. 

actually, that is really the case.  Just because our corporate-owned media fails miserably at that one task every day does not mean it's not how it is supposed to be.

At one time our press corps was the envy of the world.  Objective analysis is a wholly American idea, one that we pioneered and, in recent years, have given up on.  It's a large part of what made this country great to begin with...a properly informed electorate is a cornerstone of any democratic society.

The media in Europe is arranged completely different from what our American media should be.  There, each town has six or seven papers, each with it's own viewpoint, all wholly un-objective sources of news. 

"mmfa seems to think that this conspiracy proved detrimental to the war effort"

MMFA seems to think, like a great many people who take the time to really familiarize themselves with this story, that this conspiracy proved detrimental to the truth's ability to reach the American people through the "liberal" media.

When the president wants to sell us his propaganda, he has every right to access the media, either personally or through his known surrogates, but I refuse to be apathetic like you when war propaganda is sold to us under the label of objective military analysis. 

 -- propaganda is sold to us under the label of objective military analysis -- pete

I don't disagree with your position...if it's true. I'm not apathetic to the situation...I just haven't seen much meat on this bone that mmfa is picking. 

This clip shows just a handful of examples of administration propaganda being absorbed and repeated almost verbatim by "objective military analysts."

I hope that MMFA digs deeper now that they have their search results, because I think what's shown in this clip is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sorry, dude. There better be a damn good life or death reason to send our mother's sons to die. Secrecy and lies from our government is unexcusable in the prosecution of the most important decision our society is called upon to consider.

You might recall Bush at the March 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner, with those “funny” slides he showed to his media friends, one a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there."  Remember?  Jokes told to the press, which were met with nothing but laughter.  This was no secret.  The war crime that’s still being committed, our government’s willful campaign to mislead and kill people and our media’s ineptness will continue to come to light.  Our esteemed members of the media saw it fit to laugh out loud at was an accepted joke in March 2004.  It was not funny then and it’s not funny now.

I disagree. No one is suggesting that the media follow anyone down the rabbit hole.

We're already there. The media has been led there by these very people. Many of these men profited by using their expertise to sell the war to a gullible nation. They shilled for the administration and for their employers, the defense contractors.

IO don't recall seeing many of the the former military men who had reservations about the war being given a pulpit by the media.

We're now in the sixth year of a war that should have never been waged. A war that we've charged on our grandchildren's credit card. A war that has squandered our reputation and the lives of untold thousands of our citizens, whose lives will never be whole again.

 -- Many of these men profited -- king

That is an opinion...not a proven fact.

I'm not here to support the efforts of Pres.Bush and these military meetings. I'm also not here to support any illegal gains by retired military people with ties to defense contractors.

My point is simply that mmfa has provided little in the way of facts to support their claim. Until they can make their case...this is little more than partisan electioneering by mmfa. 

 

Check out Dem's poston the first page of this thread.

In your view, what is MMFA's claim?

OK. So you have no problem with the conflict of interests inherent in mouthpieces for military contractors being given airtime to comment on the neccesity of military action?

Big suprise.

Oh come on. You and the rest of the country witnessed all the war mongering and cheerleading in all the television leading up to and during the invasion, buttressed by all those generals. None of them, NONE, disclosed that they were being given talking points by Rumsfeld and had ties to military contractors. I'm glad that at least a few of them had enough of a conscience to speak their own mind eventually.

 -- had ties to military contractors -- mary

Do you or mmfa have any evidence that these ties produced unlawful or unethical outcomes?

If you do...I'll support your position. Until then, it's guilt by association. If you feel that association is a reason for proclaiming their guilt...fair enough...but that also means that Obama's guilt by association with Rev.Wright is fair game...sans any evidence. 

It was unethical, in a sense of journalism, because they never said that they were tied to defense contractors, OR the Pentagon. Responsible journalism exposes these things when people are writing a story, or reporting on something if they might have a conflict of interest, or if they might have some bias in there.

Assuming it, as you guys have been saying is what the rest of us should have been doing, is stupid.

 -- the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts -- mmfa

The point of this thread is stated clearly...a partisan dig at Pres. Bush...not the efforts of the media.

If mmfa has evidence that these retired military people benefited illegally or unethically...get a rope. However, mmfa has provided nothing more than innuendo at this point.

Is the media, in general, unethical...damn skippy. 

I don't believe, and I believe that the others don't believe, that anything illegal was done here, but highly unethical on the face of it. If something illegal was done, then Congress is investigating this, and looking into it, and indictments could get handed down.

It's not about illegality, it's about lying to the American people, and selling a bill of goods that was not there. It's about credibility of what we have coming from the media, and this story IS about the media. It's not a dig at Bush at all, it's about how the media used these analysts, and how the Bush administration got them placed into our media to give us false and misleading information AND propaganda.

Wow... You fail to see that. How am I not surprised?

Excellent commentary, Mag...

The Republicans are the ones who have complained for quite some time about media bias...the so-called liberal media. If the shoe was on the other foot here they would be screaming bloody murder. The simple fact that the interests of the military analysts were concealed casts suspicion on everything they said. No further proof is necessary. Sometimes even the appearance of bias or imropriety is sufficient to undermine trust in public institutions...and the media are a public institution established on trust. The Republicans don't see it that way. They regard the media as simply another tool in manipulating the public. THAT is the bottom line...

It's the failure to disclose the association, when disclosure is a key element of the standard for unbiased analysis, that is at issue. One has to ask why the media failed to disclose the connections. That is what is disturbing. As for guilt by association if Barack Obama is somehow guilty by way of his association with Rev. Wright then what about John McCain's 28 year association with a drug-addicted thief who used political connections to escape prosecution for her criminal activity?

 -- what about John McCain's 28 year association with a drug-addicted thief -- irony

It is fair game...if you have evidence that he influenced McCain's decisions.

I'm not a fan of the media in any way, shape or form and there are lots of arguments that can be made about the performance of the media in this case.

However, mmfa has provided nothing tangible to support their theory...other than guilt by association. 

He was talking about McCain's wife. SHE was the one who was the drug addicted thief, and I'm pretty sure that she has some influence over her husband no doubt.

It's not guilt by association.  It's guilt by false pretense.

It may not be a violation of written law, but it most definitely is a violation of the public trust. 

Why do you guys even bother trying to pursuade an authoritarian like wesley?  It's a waste of your time.

People like him automatically trust authority simply because they ARE the authority.  They always trust authority implicitly and will always give it every benefit of any doubt.  They will work actively to avoid any situation or knowledge that will upset this relationship.  They will actively refuse to connect A to B to C, if these connections will cast a bad light on beloved authority.

They will always dismiss stories like this as "conspiracy theory" and will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence proving the story.

They will never, ever get it. 

He must be among the 28% who still support Bush. BTW, is it 28% or 28 people who still support Bush?  ;>)

 -- He must be among the 28% who still support Bush -- irony

I clearly stated that I am not here to support the meetings conducted by Pres.Bush.

But it's pretty shallow of you to adopt a McAuliffe/Dean tactic of stretching the truth. However, no offense taken...even if it was intended. 

So you're not here to support the meetings, and yet you're defending the administration against what MMFA has printed on here? It makes the head spin. So by not defending, you're defending?

You seem to keep defending these analysts, and arguing for them, and things like that.

 -- You seem to keep defending these analysts -- magnolia

Nope. I'm not defending any analyst that illegally made money with defense contractors during this time of war.

Nowhere have I supported the meetings the president conducted with the retired military.

I also concur with most of the posts here that the media does a damn poor job of reporting ethically and without bias.

Read slowly in order to understand...I don't think mmfa has proven anything with their nexus search and trying to pin guilt or blame by association. It is pandering to the nth degree.

If mmfa's assertions are founded...I'll be right with them...in fact I'll pick out the tree. Until then...I'll keep a sharp eye on the developments and see if mmfa is all hat...or do they really own cattle. 

If mmfa's assertions are founded...I'll be right with them...

 

As Pete asked you prior, in your view, what is MMFA's claim?

Wesley,

I think that is a fair postion.  Personally, I am most disturbed by the media not disclosing likely conflicts of interest.  Secondly, I believe the Bush Administration likely broke the law in coordinating their message/propaganda through (supposedly independent) surrogates.  As I understand it, it is illegal to run psy-ops on the American public.  This is not the only example of breaking that law IMO.  Of course, that is merely my opinion at this point and not a point of fact.  I would like to see the results of an investigation into these allegations - assuming it is ever done on a satisfactory level.

Our government manipulated and lied its way into a lost and endless war that was made possible by our incompetent media.  This will ultimately be judged as a very high crime against humanity.

Governor, what kills me is how the Bush apologists seem oblivious to the seriousness of the consequences of the actions of the Bush administration and a complicit media with regards to the Iraq war. Americans have died by the score; lives have been ruined by this fiasco. It's not just plotics as usual. IMO, it's criminal.

"politics"... <Sorry for the typo>

Agreed.  If this disastrous war culminates in a failure to reach even a modicum of accountability in this absolute fiasco, this young century may very well mark the collapse of American Democracy.

It ain't all that bad is it?

No, it remains a good time to be an ostridge.

the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse

The mere fact that all the media outlets were duped in this mess only solidifies my belief that Dubya & his lot had all the bases covered---SPECIFICALLY this aspect of their propaganda war effort.

How gullible the media has been....maybe some of the media bretheren with not continue down the corporate yellow brick road in future news pursuits.

Me....., I'll stick to the Mother Jones & Nation's of the media world.....with a questionable eye of course.

If Republicans haven't started saying it already, you can bet a good deal of them will take this moment to point out that this is another example of government is the problem, not the solution.

I often wonder why when Republicans are critical of the government they are not accused of hating America. Just wondering...

My guess? Because their respect for authority, their willingness to fall in line, seperates them from the concept that government belongs to us. In that way they only need to blame, not get involved for change, when government goes bad.

If Obama happens to win in November, I can't wait to see how the Jingofascists like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly handle that little conundrum. I think all three have said, in one way or another, that criticizing the Commander in Chief when we have boots on the ground is tantamount to treason. How many minutes will it take them to do a one-eighty if a Democrat becomes Commander in Chief?

We underestimate their short memories and willful ignorance. It will take only a blink of an eye for those guys to forget past arguments and fall in line with whatever they are told to believe.

They will adopt the liberal position that dissent is patriotic and claim that they have never said otherwise. I wouldn't be suprised if they try to argue that it's been liberals all along who have been calling dissenters traitors.

It won't take them long that's for sure. They will be able to come to some type of egocentric rationalization masqueraded as bona fide concern for the country. You have to expect that type of disingeniousness from chickenhawks. IMO it's all about them compensating for the fact they were cowards. The Narcissism of the idiots you mentioned allows them to justify anything they do.  

Per a recent Pew pole, the most informed veiwers are those who watch the Daily Show. Ironic at too many levels.

I have talked to few people about this program. One response was, "Well yes, but thats expected from this administration." Some hearing is coming up. Wonder if the media will mention it. I'm doubtful.

I'm sure someone on here saw it, but Jon Stewart last night drilled Douglas Feith last night.

"Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke. "

Will Rogers

I saw Feith on c-span promoting his book.  There were about 5 panelists who all spoke glowingly of his work in Washington.

It about made me want to puke.  He's the #2 warmonger, second only to Cheney.

Given the scope of this deception and the apparent cover-up by the LapDog Press, maybe those 9-11 conspiracy theories aren't so far fetched after all......

And maybe, just maybe, Petraeus did betray us with propaganda?

It wouldn't surprise me at all.

This article saddens me.  Of course we are going to have our apologists come around and name call and criticize this study and those of us who comment on it, but they refuse to even analyze the issue.  The Bush Administration has enlisted these men to hide connections and compromise the lives of our troops by waging a, for lack of better term, propaganda war on the American people.

We have given the Bush administration everything they could possibly want in this war.  My generation, not his, will pay its bill.  There have been no military reporters embedded in the field.  There is almost no coverage of the military funerals and when one family wanted theirs televised, Bush refused.  There is little to no footage of disabled American soldiers and even less coverage of the depleted and devastated American military.  The GI Bill should be passed with 100% approval and there is one major politician who to this point, isn't on board, John McCain.  People who oppose these wars are labelled "unpatriotic" at best "traitors" at worst.  The memory of a man the Pentagon at one point lionized, Pat Tillman, is disgustingly discarded as quickly as he was canonized.  His poor mother will never know why his uniform and journal were burned.  Do we get any kind of investigation? Of course not! 

None of the Bush defending folks can explain how to maintain the "success" of the surge tactics.  None of them even dares brings up the word "draft" which will become inevitable if we "deal" with Iran like so many of them want to.  Unless we stand up this November, how are these problems going to get any better? 

It has to go beyond November. We have to keep the pressure on.

Speaking of Iran, apparently the Bush Administration has been unable to come up with any evidence of its charges that Iran is "arming extremists." Will we bomb Iran anyway?

Will we bomb Iran anyway?

Ha...when was the last time Bush let the facts get in the way of a good bombing? Reminds of when Bush told the Israeli Prime Minister that he didn't subscribe to our own National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran. Yea, Dick Cheney has a proven track record of superior intelligence gathering and analysis than our own intelligence agancies. We can trust him, too...  ;>)

First, who is Dick Cheney? Aren't we paying him to do some work around here?

Second, all you hear from the Righties, concerning others, is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY.  Many in this phony administration have stated that they take full responsibility for their failed actions concerning the various strategies of this occupation. GREAT...but what price has been paid for these DEATH INDUCING screw-ups? Generals and on up the chain should resign immediately if involved in major gaffes. 

I am the Prince and I approve of the above post. 

 

What I particularly enjoy are the apologists who come on here and yack about he we should have all just assumed that these guys giving allegedly independent analysis of military situations as it pertained to Iraq on news channels were of course tied to defense contractors and the Pentagon. I mean, jeesh. We must all be pretty stupid to think that someone touted as say, "ABC Military Analyst" wasn't thinking for themselves in this case

What I particularly enjoy are the apologists who come on here and yack about he we should have all just assumed that these guys giving allegedly independent analysis of military situations as it pertained to Iraq on news channels were of course tied to defense contractors and the Pentagon. I mean, jeesh. We must all be pretty stupid to think that someone touted as say, "ABC Military Analyst" wasn't thinking for themselves in this case and or

What I particularly enjoy are the apologists who come on here and yack about he we should have all just assumed that these guys giving allegedly independent analysis of military situations as it pertained to Iraq on news channels were of course tied to defense contractors and the Pentagon. I mean, jeesh. We must all be pretty stupid to think that someone touted as say, "ABC Military Analyst" wasn't thinking for themselves in this case and or using

What I particularly enjoy are the apologists who come on here and yack about he we should have all just assumed that these guys giving allegedly independent analysis of military situations as it pertained to Iraq on news channels were of course tied to defense contractors and the Pentagon. I mean, jeesh. We must all be pretty stupid to think that someone touted as say, "ABC Military Analyst" wasn't thinking for themselves in this case and or using their

I wonder how the Shiite extremists in Sadr's army obtained Iranian made weapons? Did Santa Clause bring them?

Achrisage wrote:

>>I wonder how the Shiite extremists in Sadr's army obtained Iranian made weapons? Did Santa Clause bring them?

The Pentagon cancelled a press conference in which it was going to display the Iranian made weapons found in Iraq. Is this what you are talking about?

Beyond that, I would say that the Iraqis got the weapons the same way the Vietnamese got the Soviet made and *American* made weapons, the way all guerilla forces get them in war: through the black market.  

Excellent point. I certainly hope the United States is not held responsible for all the atrocities committed with weapons that we've sold to various customers. In fact, I wonder how many U.S.-supplied weapons the Taliban used against us in our invasion of Afghanistan....

Second, all you hear from the Righties, concerning others, is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY.  Many in this phony administration have stated that they take full responsibility for their failed actions concerning the various strategies of this occupation. GREAT...but what price has been paid for these DEATH INDUCING screw-ups? Generals and on up the chain should resign immediately if involved in major gaffes.

 

and just what does FULL RESPONSIBILITY mean anyway? They continue in their jobs as if nothing was amiss.  Full responsibility means absolutely nothing because nothing, and I mean nothing happens to these people that take full responsibility.  

 Might as well say, yeah, I did it, SO WHAT.

Oh right, I forgot, the vice-Dick already said "So What"!

I believe his exact quote was, "So"?

Homeboy was too arrogant to give even a two word answer.

The condescending bastard didn't even want to waste another breath on the question.

The Bush Apologist Toadies seem eager to convince us that there's nothing to see here. Maybe they're right, but isn't it even worth a few stories in the MSM? Isn't this at least half as important as Reverend Wright's rants? Maybe a tenth? So far, the coverage isn't even registering on the scale.

Is it even one hundredth as important as Monica Lewinsky giving Bill a hummer? I guess not.

Why is this important? Because the same LIARS who insisted that Iraq was about to bomb us into oblivion and eat our pets are now telling us suspiciously similar stories about Iran, with little or no evidence to back it up. Before we jump head first into another pile of sh*t, shouldn't we at least reconsider the credibility of those urging us on?

Nerz, you've probably touched on the most important point that some are missing. There is a presently a steady drum beat for an invasion of Iran. And, just like in the case with Iraq, sufficient evidentiary justification for another war is lacking. If we were fooled by Bush and a complicit media with regards to Iraq we must be extra diligent to prevent that from happening again. Shine a light on all this crap and let the cockroaches scramble...

And, what is doubly insulting is the media spend such an inordinate amount of time on stories that lack the importance of this.

Irony,

I truly fear that Bush will attack Iran on false pretenses before he leaves office.  You're right, we need to make sure that they CANNOT lie about Iran the way they lied about Iraq.

By the way, I blame the Democrats in Congress as much as I blame the media for this obscenity. If they'd start throwing subpeonas around like they should, the Press would almost have to cover it. Of course, if the corruption of the Press is as deep as I suspect, they might find a way to ignore it after all. Maybe they could find another sex slave dungeon story...

...or they could exhume Ana Nicole Smith.  ;>)

 COLUMBUS

   You were asking for proof of this last week, where are you?

My own pet theory on the deafening Media silence is that all the Network honchos don't want to admit any complicity in the shameful peddling of Dick Cheney's Oil War. Their only recourse is to ignore the story altogether. Once they acknowledge that there actually may be a story, they might not be able to control its trajectory, and that could be bad for their boy Grampy McSame in November.

Looks like MMFA is really irked that most people are yawning about the "news" that military analysts attended briefings and got some tours of Iraq sponsored by the Pentagon.

 

Yawn...