If you thought the US media had hit a new low with last week's ABC Debate Debacle, read Sunday's New York Times's 10,000 (plus) word cover story, "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand."

Using 8000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records, accessed through suing the Pentagon, the NYT report exposes the Pentagon's propaganda machine, its control over access and information, and its selling of the "war on terror" --beginning with the buildup to the Iraq war. As someone posting here put it, Goebbels would be proud.

This was an all out effort at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, continuing to this day, to dupe, mislead and lie to the American people-- using propaganda dressed up and cherry-picked as independent military analysis. As one participant described it, " it was psyops on steroids."

In its rigorous documentation of the relationship between the government, the networks and retired military analysts, the lineaments of the corrosive structure and impact of a new military-media-industrial complex are exposed. This corrupt complex demands investigation by all relevant Congressional committees--from Intelligence to Armed Services. The networks must also be held accountable for their role in duping Americans. MoveOn, Media Matters, Free Press, FAIR and other media and democracy groups should demand that networks fire those analysts who concealed their links and then refuse to hire analysts, military or other, without full conflict of interest disclosures. (They should also open up the airwaves, which belong to the people, to a full range of views!) As for these military analysts-they should be hauled up before the judgment of the institution they claim to revere and represent. As one post put it, these corrupt men --all men, it seems--violated a sacred trust, putting their wallet, their access and the Pentagon above their duty and honor to the men and women they claim to revere.

Some of the key findings in the New York Times story:

*"Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they were asked to assess on air."

* "These business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves."

*"Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military officials, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters."

"They have been given access to classified intelligence." (This revelation demands immediate hearings by relevant Congressional committtees.)

* Members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated...One trip participant, General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly 'artificial' that he joked to another group member that they were 'on the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq,' a reference to Mr. Romney's infamous claim that American officials had 'brainwashed' him into supporting the Vietnam war during a tour there in 1965."

*"Again and again, records show the administration enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical coverage, some of it by the networks' own Pentagon correspondents."

*"Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans in the 'form of their own opinions.'"

* "Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon's dealings with analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called 'information dominance.' In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent."

* In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment--the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld's private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals of duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself."

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

* "Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN...Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways--either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, web sites, and newspapers."

"At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times."

* "Allard and other analysts said their network handlers raised no objections when the Defense Department began paying their commercial airfare for Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq- a clear ethical violation for most news organizations."

The selling of the war continues.

Just two weeks ago, General Petraeus, according to the story, took time out from testifying for a conference call with some of these analysts. Mr. Garrett, the FOX analysts and a Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told Petraeus during the call, "keep up the great work...anything we can do to help." Almost weekly, the Pentagon contunues to conduct briefings with selected military analysts.

Comments (48)

1. The first duty of an officer (commissioned and non-commissioned)is to the safety of their troops, not the mission not the service, to their troops. These officers violated the most sacred code for a leader, the put their loyalty to the Pentagon, their wallet and their access, above their honor and the men the purport to revere.

   Posted by lvdjgarcia at 04/20/2008 @ 3:26pm

2. Goebels would be proud. Ditto any Pravda editor. The People's Republic of China is also analogous. Information dominance. The US has arrived.

   If Billary are (re)elected, who thinks this will change?

   Obama offers hope, so we're told. So far, he pretty much reinforces that hope. Does make him unelectable?

   Posted by sloper at 04/20/2008 @ 4:12pm

3. Posted by LVDJGARCIA 04/20/2008 @ 3:26pm

   More leftist nonsense from KVH and bloggers like LVD.

   there is nothing wrong with promoting our armed forces as a force of good. that is unless you hate them the way Katrina and so many leftists likewise share in.

   As to LVD, your post is nonsense. The first duty of an officer is to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

   Second duty of an officer is to exercise command.

   ''I, (state your full name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

   Thank G-d for our wonderful military people, current and veterans. Despite the left's hate, they continue to serve with honor. Despite the false claims of support for veterans, we remain low on their ranking of honored citizens.

   Some leftists do honor our military and our vets. Unfortunately, there are few leftists who do so.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/20/2008 @ 5:00pm

4. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 5:00pm

   Why is the people who "hate" the military want fewer of them killed....while the people who "love" the military (like LVLIB) want more of them killed?!?!!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 04/20/2008 @ 7:55pm

5. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 5:00pm

   I think you lost the plot a bit here, LVL. Perhaps KVH doesn't feel she can link directly to the NYT article, so here you go:

   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html

   So, are we to include in our "wonderful military people" those that take handouts from the federal government to pose as "experts" offering their unbiased opinion that is propaganda designed to support the flawed policies of the current administration?

   Would you have been so artfully ignoring the issue here of "[h]idden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance" if that administration was not offering policies you support? Do not people like yourself use these people's words to justify torture, that the surge is "working" or whatever the right wing talking points of the day are?

   Oh, Lover of Liberty, any thoughts on what kind of precedent this sets and how it will destroy the liberty, you purport to love?

   I'd like you to address, directly, the article. Don't hedge about how it's the liberal media that doesn't want "victory" or some other such nonsense. Address the problem and state, point blank, whether this kind of interference with media is a problem or not without trying to hide behind empty rhetoric about "leftists".

   Posted by srjenkins at 04/20/2008 @ 8:00pm

6. "...read Sunday's New York Times's 10,000 (plus) word cover story,..."

   No one reads this rag, as the collapse continues, readership melts away and the irrational screaching contimues..

   More nonsense articles, as it might completely disappear altogether...hopefully...

   I don't know anyone who takes the bird cage liner seriously...except the cross word puzzle.

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/20/2008 @ 9:19pm

7. "As someone posting here put it, Goebbels would be proud."

   all right SLOPER!!!

   Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:19pm

8. 'message force multipliers'

   Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:23pm

9. there is nothing wrong with promoting our armed forces as a force of good. that is unless you hate them the way Katrina and so many leftists likewise share in.

   by PASTOR LARRY.

   c'mon, dude.

   Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:27pm

10. and the irrational screaching contimues..

    Posted by JOMAMMA 04/20/2008 @ 9:19pm

    once again, the irony is unstoppable.

    Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 9:30pm

11. Do not people like yourself use these people's words to justify torture, that the surge is "working" or whatever the right wing talking points of the day are?

    Oh, Lover of Liberty, any thoughts on what kind of precedent this sets and how it will destroy the liberty, you purport to love?

    I'd like you to address, directly, the article. Don't hedge about how it's the liberal media that doesn't want "victory" or some other such nonsense. Address the problem and state, point blank, whether this kind of interference with media is a problem or not without trying to hide behind empty rhetoric about "leftists".

    Posted by SRJENKINS 04/20/2008 @ 8:00pm

    1. I've said repeatedly that I don't condone or support torture so you are merely engaging in more dishonest debate.

    2. Of course the surge is working. That admission has also come from a number of Democrats in Congress that opposed the surge. And what is your military expertise to counter our Military's claims that it is working?

    3. Please enlighten us: how does utilizing former military officers to speak in the media as military experts destroy or even restrict our liberty?

    4. I addressed it from the beginning. What is wrong with promoting our military as a force of good?

    All Katrina and people like yourself are doing is more anti-military, anti-war ranting. It has nothing to do with Constitutional violations, or destroying liberty. You and Katrina are both guilty of hyperbole along with plain old fashioned bigotry against a constitutionally appointed branch of our government. Perhaps one of the most important branches, since without defense of the nation, there is no nation.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/20/2008 @ 9:44pm

12. 4. I addressed it from the beginning. What is wrong with promoting our military as a force of good?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 9:44pm

    i'm sure the iraqis feel real "good"..........

    Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 10:47pm

13. anti-war ranting.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 9:44pm

    GIMME A "W"

    GIMME AN "A"

    GIMME AN "R"

    WHADDA YA GOT?

    limbless children.

    Posted by frosted zoom at 04/20/2008 @ 10:49pm

14. Let the trials begin ... A plethora of court marshalls at the Pentagon would be a start.

    Posted by mmckinl at 04/20/2008 @ 11:24pm

15. The only thing about this that surprises me is that the NYT is reporting on it.

    Posted by Mandaliet at 04/20/2008 @ 11:44pm

16. Last night a blog entry by Katrina was entered concerning Saturday Night Live and its bias toward Hillary Clinton. I commented as did a few others. Looking for the entry today, it is nowhere to be found except as a blank page one finds if searching with "SNL". Will someone kindly explain what happen here, I'm mystified.

    Posted by john lowell at 04/21/2008 @ 01:33am

17. KVH: in this case, the Pentagon is the pimp, the networks are the cops on the shakedown take, the ex-officer mouthpieces are the whores ... & the US public the potential johns. Business as per usual. Don Corleone would approve.

    Posted by sloper at 04/21/2008 @ 04:39am

18. Military leaders answer to a higher authority but it is not their troops. Every member of the military takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Not any particular political party or administration. You are only required to obey lawful orders of those appointed over you. As such, these "leaders" and many of their contemporaries are derelict of their duty to their country first and foremost. The core values of the Marine Corps and Navy are honor, courage, and commitment. For the Army they are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. The Air Force's are integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do. The "officers" of these various services have displayed none of those. I question their judgement and frankly, their integrity. Their behavior was and is treacherous and traitorous. President Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex. It is a shame we (America) did not pay the warning the attention it deserved. America deserves true patriots in it's military and especially it's officer corps, not these greedy cowards. If the allegations are true, they have dishonored themselves, their respective branches, and their country.

    Posted by detroit_red at 04/21/2008 @ 06:32am

19. PS To promote the military and it's values is not itself a bad thing. But to attempt to sway public opinion and foreign policy to the benefit of corporations and a few individuals and to the possible detriment of long term US interest and the American people is in fact traitorous.

    Posted by detroit_red at 04/21/2008 @ 06:37am

20. Will someone kindly explain what happen here, I'm mystified.----Posted by JOHN LOWELL 04/21/2008 @ 01:33am

    The explanation is quite simple...

    Ms vanden Heuvel realized what an embarassing and meaningless bit of fluff that was...and promptly deleted it from the website.

    Posted by Mask at 04/21/2008 @ 08:54am

21. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2008 @ 9:44pm

    I'd like you to address, directly, the article.

    The article talks about conflicts of interest by military experts and how the Pentagon is using them as surrogates to manipulate public opinion. To your third point - which is as close as you got to addressing this issue - the problem is that they are providing a biased, paid for perspective and peddling it as an unbiased, "expert" perspective. The problems this poses to a democracy are obvious.

    Now, let's move to your other points.

    1. People like yourself isn't only limited to your personal positions. There are those that have used these people's paid for comments to support their positions for torture. I was using it in the same way you use "liberals" and whether a particular "liberal" supports the claim or not is irrelevant.

    2. Your arguing that the surge is working because some Democrats say so is absurd.

    3. See above.

    4. Militaries are not sources for good. Their function is to kill the "enemy". You might be able to argue that security, in the form of policing, is a good. However, this is not what the military does. Jesus talks about judging something by its fruit and loving our enemies. What fruit comes from the military - U.S. or otherwise? How is promoting the military consistent with Christ's message?

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/21/2008 @ 09:33am

22. Posted by MASK 04/21/2008

    Thanks Mask. Now if only I'd considered my comment an "embarassing and meaningless bit of fluff". :-)

    Posted by john lowell at 04/21/2008 @ 10:04am

23. I haven't heard anything about CIA involvement in the dissemination of propaganda. It's soooo easy to plant a story with a foreign source and have it picked up by the news wires for re-broadcast in the US.

    Because the print and video media in general have been cutting staff, particularly overseas, the wire services are where they get their stories. If it's discredited later, it's the foreign media's fault and few hear about it anyway. With the consolidation going on in the news media it's just toooo easy to pull off this kind of crap.

    NEVER TRUST A SINGLE NEWS SOURCE FOR YOUR INFORMATION!

    Every American should be mad about this . . . but then, it's hard to get mad about something you have no idea exists.

    Posted by HumptyDumpty at 04/21/2008 @ 11:33am

24. On cable, I recommend BBC America, and CNN international is pretty good if you can get it. I have a faint hope that "Your World Today will return after the election to CNN, but it is very faint hope, since CNN National is a corporate Shill. I like Lou Dobbs on economic issues. I particularly like his attacks on corporate malfeasance, and the Bush Administration' incompetence, but ,as a Hamiltonian protectionist, I find his call for fair trade rather timid. He is very weak on Defense and foreign policy. Al-Jazeera and the Israeli paper Haaretz are favorites. The Al-Jazeera English language should be available on cable news. You will also find a variety of opinion in Haaretz. It is more open , in that respect, than American Mainstream media.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 04/21/2008 @ 1:15pm

25. 2. Your arguing that the surge is working because some Democrats say so is absurd.

    I did not say that the surge is working because some Democrats say so. I said that even some anti-surge Democrats are objective enough to acknowledge that the surge is working. You are not objective.

    3. See above.

    You did not answer. the question remains;

    Please enlighten us: how does utilizing former military officers to speak in the media as military experts destroy or even restrict our liberty? And a second to it; who would be a better resource to address military action? An academic in the arts or biological sciences? Tell us who is better than a former military commander to address the success or failure of military efforts?

    4. Militaries are not sources for good. Their function is to kill the "enemy". You might be able to argue that security, in the form of policing, is a good. However, this is not what the military does. Jesus talks about judging something by its fruit and loving our enemies. What fruit comes from the military - U.S. or otherwise? How is promoting the military consistent with Christ's message?

    Do you acknowledge that Jesus is Maschiah, the Messiah? If so, do you agree with Jesus when He declared that the scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39)?

    So when Isaiah prophecies (Isaiah 11) that Messiah will come from the root of Jesse and not only will he be annointed, but he will execute wrath and conquer evil and those who practice it. This prophecy is also found in the conquering Messiah seen in Revelation 19:11-21) where John is shown a vision of the future where Jesus will lead the armies of heaven to conquer satan and those who serve him (both man and demon).

    Now you may disagree with those prophecies, but you have no evidence that Isaiah and John the Apostle were lying or deceived. You must discard them if you likely do so, solely based upon your personal view that is completely seperate even from Orthodox Judaism from which Jesus was teaching (reference again back to John 5:39).

    As we have previously discussed, Paul teaches that G-d has empowered governments to bear the sword against evil (Romans 13). You are left with calling Paul a liar when he claims he was taught by no man, but by Jesus Himself. Again, you have no evidence to prove Paul a liar or deceived.

    Now as to the military. The military is for war, not policing as a first priority. Secondly, are you claiming then that confronting and defeating fascism and Nazism in the Second World War was not a force for good? Do you believe that the Soviets should have had carte blanche to attack and take over Afghanistan? How about the Chinese along with North Korea trying to conquer South Korea? Is it not a force for good to attack those who commit mass genocide?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 04/21/2008 @ 09:33am

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/21/2008 @ 1:50pm

26. These retired military officers lied while over 4,000 American men and women died. Hundreds of thousands Iraqi men, women, and children dead. Four million refugees. These men shame their uniforms. They shame their flag. They shame their families. They shame their country.

    Posted by innovator at 04/21/2008 @ 2:48pm

27. THANKS: I thought that I was paranoid

    Posted by julien38 at 04/21/2008 @ 3:16pm

28. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/21/2008 @ 1:50pm

    Other than your repeated claims the surge is working, and the paid shilling by former military leaders, please feel free to establish on what criteria you are establishing the "surge" is "working". Then, feel free to provide the facts the show that this criteria is being met.

    I'll point out that the "surge" seems to be highly ineffective when faced with Sadr calling off the cease fire. Perhaps we should argue that the peace fire is "working".

    As for your claims about objectivity, they're laughable.

    Please enlighten us: how does utilizing former military officers to speak in the media as military experts destroy or even restrict our liberty? And a second to it; who would be a better resource to address military action?

    The issue is that they are instruments of propaganda. There is a difference between objective military opinion and military opinion that was bought and paid for by the DoD. It's why no one believes "research" about how safe a product is that is paid for by a company producing said product. And if you can't see the problem this poses to a democracy...I'll not bother to explain it to you. It's not much different than explaining the wetness of water, and if you don't get it, I can't help you.

    As we have previously discussed, Paul teaches that G-d has empowered governments to bear the sword against evil...

    Government also put Christ to death. Sub specie aeternitatis that was good, but I think it is a large leap to suggest that it is always or even frequently the case.

    Yes, you are correct. I don't consider Paul authoritative. I think it is obvious that his teachings about government resisting evil are counter to Christ's teaching to not resist evil. They are fundamentally in conflict, and by reductio, Paul's teachings are incorrect.

    Is it not a force for good to attack those who commit mass genocide?

    Is responding to genocide with genocide consistent with the gospel as you understand it? I'm saying that there are better methods for confronting Nazis than becoming one or using their tactics.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/21/2008 @ 3:22pm

29. An earlier post by LVLIBERTY1 to me is shocking; how some people don't see the gravity of this. Set aside Pro-War or Anit-War and think of this issue objectively....we are not hearing the truth about the war!

    Why not tell the truth? Answer me that.

    Is it because the truth would lead the public to the overwhelming decision not to support this war?

    Posted by askkeynes at 04/21/2008 @ 3:26pm

30. Posted by SRJENKINS 04/21/2008 @ 3:22pm

    I think in reading and re-reading your response, it appears there is little room for any real dialogue. We are so far apart in our understanding that in the subject of just wars, we simply have no area of agreement.

    And you continue to ignore the teachings of Jesus as to His own conduct in War. You just act like the questions are not even there.

    Just as you ignore the authority of Paul given to him by Christ and that his teachings are consistent with the teachings of Jesus since Jesus was his teacher.

    You are left with the argument that you don't agree because you don't agree. Not because of any legitimate argument that Jesus condemned war (because He didn't).

    On the Surge, you still haven't provided an answer as to who is qualified to comment on the success of military operations other than military commanders (current and past).

    Nor have you provided any reasoning why their speaking in the media destroys liberty.

    On government putting Christ to death, you really need to re-read the gospels.

    Jesus said "I lay down my life, and I take it back up again" He also said that Pilate would have no authority except that it was allowed to him.

    Furthermore, in John's gospel, Jesus clearly states:

    Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

    Clearly Jesus is saying that He finds an appropriate use of force, but not in this, the kingdom of Satan, whom he calls the god of this world. And that force He will use as prophecied in Isaiah Daniel, and Revelation at the appointed time.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/21/2008 @ 4:29pm

31. Soldiers swear to support the Constitution, and I guess, orders from the Commander-in-Chief. So when they are ordered to deliver bullshit to the open mouths of the MSM, I suppose they have to do it. The problem is not with the soldiers, it is with the Commander-in-Chief, who should have been impeached and removed from office months or years ago.

    Posted by jread_21205 at 04/21/2008 @ 4:56pm

32. SRJENKINS

    Thank you for your acknowledgement of the faults of Paul. His claims have always tainted the message of Jesus and subverted them into his messages of control and order instead of understanding and peace.

    As for LVLIBERTY

    Really? You haven't even responded to the content of the original article. Can we all move on and talk about this with intelligence?

    The moment I saw this article I was shocked and proud of the NYT. I have been fighting internally over their deference to the government, and have been able to determine some sense of their internal struggle over the current administration's consistent attempts to tamper with the free press. I was dismayed and concerned when the former editor of the NYT resigned a couple years ago, and could read in the subtext of the article his displeasure with 'towing the party line' and thus his resignation.

    Here we see blatant evidence of the propaganda machine we've been resisting for the past (at least) 7 years. Now we have it, and it is now unconscienceable for members of our government to continue to ignore. Either they act, or they force our hand...

    Posted by ryandunn at 04/21/2008 @ 5:02pm

33. LVLIBERTY ouotes the oath of office of every government employee from the President right down to the lowest buck private. The biggest violation of that oath by a military officer is using his rank or position to promote any party or corporation for personal gain. Not only should these officers be disciplined but the President, Vice president and any other government official should be run out of office.

    Posted by realsgts at 04/21/2008 @ 5:08pm

34. I knew I had a reason to justify my switch to BBC evening news over NBC Nightly and the article in the Times yesterday provided it. McCaffery always seemed OTL with his remarks, esp. to BrianW and I wondered why. He had seemed much more critical a few years back and I wondered why he changed. Now the old ancient reason--MONEY!! and power in business for the Industrial-military complex tell it all. I never did watch Fox but I sent the article to my brother to try and prove to my 92 year old father who believes every thing Fox says--"It's the News. It has to be true" according to him. I'm just his ignorant daughter, so nothing I say means anything to him. And to him Bush is right--he's the president!! And also a Republican. To him no Republican every did anything wrong. DUH!!! I just wish CONGRESS would wake up and smell the flowers of peace and prosperity with the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and/or a trial in the ICC for Crimes against humanity with the Iraq war. They still are too weak-kneed and spineless in their inactivity against Bush

    Posted by Patricia Wilson at 04/21/2008 @ 5:37pm

35. LVLIBERTY is like a broken record - the left hates America, the left hates the military, the left hates you. I'm pretty sick of foolish right wing pigs like LVLIBERTY accusing me (a proud F***ing leftist) of hating America because I don't support this occupation and share the same views. Basically the message is that unless you unabashedly and unquestionably support every aspect of our military campaign to dominate the world you are a lunatic lefty who hates all things American and you couldn't possibly honor our fighting men and women. Tell that to the thousands of wounded soldiers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan only to receive piss poor medical, mental and social support from our war mongering right wing politicians. These same politicians, that you clearly support, who are so eager to throw around billions of dollars (most of it to contractors) for this "war effort" to give the soldiers "whatever they need", yet can't even give them the support they need when they return. Another bang up job by the righties.

    Oh, and you must love The Jesus too or else you're a GODless leftist hater. Is it okay to say GOD or just whisper G-D, lest he strike me down?

    Posted by sirhcus at 04/21/2008 @ 7:02pm

36. and you don't love liberty. you love war.

    Posted by sirhcus at 04/21/2008 @ 7:06pm

37. Our founding fathers realized the importance of a "free" press as it would be a watchdog for the people against governmental policies and practices. Look at what has happened to our great country with a "bought and paid for" press. I am still amazed and aghast that members of the media were not allowed into Executive press conferences unless they agreed to ask certain questions and not ask others. Where was the Peoples's voice? It was silenced by the neo-cons and Bush's cronies. Where was the outrage? It was never aroused because we were constantly inundated with breaking news on Britanny Spears, Lindsey Lohan, et al. All who have been involved in using the "free" press to spread lies and dupe the American people need to be investigated, prosecuted, and punished. Please note that Bush will not be in office by the time you will be prosecuted so he can not commute your sentences. I pray that Justice will prevail.

    Posted by UTByrd at 04/21/2008 @ 8:44pm

38. The fact that this is happening is no big news at all--the fact that the TIMES is actually printing something about it IS breaking news--considering what they did in the run-up to the war--a little late I'd say, as in 6 YEARS...

    Posted by mad-as-hell at 04/21/2008 @ 10:09pm

39. After reading Luvvie's blatherings, I just have to ask:

    Is this a mythology blog?

    Posted by Balrog at 04/21/2008 @ 10:59pm

40. Now to address the subject at hand, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the next generation of commanders to "tell blunt truths" to their military and civilian leaders:

    "If as an officer you don't tell blunt truths -- or create an environment where candor is encouraged -- then you've done yourself and the institution a disservice," Mr. Gates said.

    Posted by Balrog at 04/21/2008 @ 11:28pm

41. It is embaressing and shameful for the American people to fully digest the lack of transparency and congressional oversight into federal war propaganda/official media information control policy. We must move forward with open conversation while encouraging relative transformational dialogue.

    Posted by Troy Kendal at 04/22/2008 @ 12:34am

42. I think we will find ourselves in the position of Spain, after the long years of Franco's despotic rule. we too have been ruled by a bunch of despots, ignoring any laws they pleased, supported by a greedy supine congress,noses firmly entrenched in the trough of lobbyists, and very big special interests.

    there will be some who will say for national reconciliation we should have a national forgetting.

    notsofast. what do we have this elaborate, merciless justice system, the bedrock of the democracy for if we can't use it, to misquote a former secretary of state. or is war crimes justice meted out only to the vanquished, such as Japan and Germany?

    only by treating crimes as crimes can we stop them from becoming the way things are done.they added a codicil to the constitution:void where and when prohibited, such as during war time, that trumps all the other ones.that has been their M.O. the media must become a truth commission instead of a triviality contest.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/22/2008 @ 01:54am

43. it used to be called muckraking.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/22/2008 @ 01:55am

44. I was in Spain while Franco was in power. Machine guns on many street corners. Snake dancing young Fascists winding through the streets of Madrid at night. And meanwhile, Livery One was sleeping of his PX beer, after he & his buddies had managed to make the girls cross the street and link arms for security the night before. I'm sure he wasn't quite sure of why he was there at the time, but now? "oh, what a web we weave..."

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/22/2008 @ 02:22am

45. Like an up-post contributor, I too am surprised the NYT covered this story, albeit 10K words dissuades most from investing the time necessary to even peruse, much less carefully interpret the text.

    Also, the high level of erudite opinion here, and due skepticism about our country's current plight, is greatly encouraging to we more informed and more intelligently self-controlled members of the polity, IMHO. Thanks sooooooo much again, Katrina.

    Posted by lewwelge at 04/22/2008 @ 09:40am

46. I am surprised. The nation/NYT and others are behind the ball on this one. Democracy Now and other sites reported this 5 years ago.

    In addition to embedded journalists, the embedded generals framed the run up to war and the war itself. The only real question is why at the time was anyone who criticized the war attacked.

    Posted by atlas0_6 at 04/22/2008 @ 09:44am

47. I fear my country is truly dead. There was a time where we would ,in a crisis, put aside our differences and work towards a common goal....that time is now over....

    I have tried in vain many times to talk to folks on the "conservative" side of things; time and again the conversation degrades in them calling me names and telling me what liberal slant I probably have.

    I think alot how these kinds of conversations go across our besieged country now.

    I imagine when a true threat befalls us, nothing will be done...

    Imagine if an asteroid was found en route to our planet?

    I can imagine the story will first go thru the folks who have the sense to still read and follow science...then a network or two will have to force aside the daily coverage of all things Britney to mention the story.....Then the pundits will begin...

    If anyone left of Hitler even begins to open their mouths about anything topical the hateful, petty, hyocritical racist masses of the right will begin their jaw flapping....

    As the asteroid approaches, all the right will do is begin calling everybody else non-patriotic, LIBERAL, tree hugging, gay, god hating communists..they will probably even get fools like Bill O'Reilly to deny the asteroid even exists and deem the whole story something cooked up by the VAST LIBERAL media..

    The bile will be repeated on all the rotting AM right wing echo chambers and arguing will be done for the sake of arguing. I can see the right in all their lockstep brown shirted glory working up strategies to discredit anyone not on their side. Carl Rove will have someone uncover documents proving the asteroid was created by Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton in between affairs....

    At some time somebody will have to believe again in working for......THE PEOPLE...you guys remember them? The ones who listened to your lies and put you ALL in office?

    At sometime, the petty, getting points for the team, rhetoric will have to give way to actual service..

    Unfortunately as the asteroid crashes into the earth's atmosphere I fear the last flash will illuminate the two sides sniping and arguing with each other until the violent end.....truly sad.

    I fear I wont see an end to this foolishness in my lifetime...ya don't live too long homess on the streets these days.

    (enter diety name here) help us all.

    Mystic13

    Posted by mystic13 at 04/22/2008 @ 4:39pm

48. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=mystic13

    is you ficticious asteroid a deus ex machina?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 10:57am