April 20th, 2008
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.”
President Eisenhower, Farewell Address,
Jan. 17, 1961
These are some of the generals that the Pentagon and Bush administration deployed into our living rooms, courtesy of CNN, ABC, Fox News, NBC, CBS and the other usual suspects that make up our traditional media — yes, that unrepentant bastion of America-hating liberalism.
The New York Times reports on just how well the Pentagon and the Bush administration coordinated their efforts to manipulate the American Public as they duped us into the invasion of Iraq:
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden 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, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror.
[...]
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
[...]
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
[...]
The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.
Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts. One report, assessing the impact of several trips to Iraq in 2005, offered example after example of analysts echoing Pentagon themes on all the networks.
Of course, as the New York Times goes on to point out, the manipulation of the American public by these very sources and tactics, continues:
Two weeks ago General Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts.
Mr. Garrett, the Fox analyst and Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told General Petraeus during the call to “keep up the great work.”
“Hey,” Mr. Garrett said in an interview, “anything we can do to help.”
April 20th, 2008
Jon Perr, of Perrspectives Blog, has prepared ten more questions for Sen. McCain, after Perr’s first ten questions were so well received around the blogsphere. Here’s a taste of the ten new questions for Sen. McCain:
12. Given your support for virtually the entire Bush foreign and domestic agenda, aren’t the American people correct in viewing a John McCain victory in November as a third term for George W. Bush?
Two weeks ago, you told the American people “I’m not running on the Bush presidency.” But on almost every issue, your positions are identical to those of President Bush. You reversed course to support making permanent the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed. Like President Bush, you opposed the expansion of the SCHIP program for children’s health care, while similarly calling for the wildly unpopular privatization of Social Security. You’ve called for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights while reaffirming your support for conservative Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. You and the President are in lockstep when its comes to Iran and Iraq, so much so that when you were told President Bush wants to stay in Iraq for 50 years, you said, “Make it a hundred.” Isn’t it fair for Americans to ask where Bush ends and you begin? Don’t those who call you “John McSame” have grounds for doing so? When over 80% of the American people think the country is on the wrong track, isn’t it fair for the American people to fear that President John McCain means a third term for George W. Bush?
[...]
14. Don’t you owe Barack Obama an apology for attacking as “confused leadership” his proposal for unilateral strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, a strategy which is now the policy of the Bush administration?
On August 1, 2007, Barack Obama announced that as President, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” On February 19th, you attacked – and misrepresented – his position during a primary night victory speech by asking “will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan?” As it turns out, President Bush endorsed the use of unilateral American strikes against Al Qaeda targets within Pakistan, including the January 29 covert Predator drone attack that killed Al Qaeda leader Abu Laith Al-Libi. Do you disagree with President Bush’s new policy of attacking Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan without the permission of the government in Islamabad? If not, don’t you owe Barack Obama an apology?
[...]
17. Given that you’ve reversed yourself on so many long-held positions, why shouldn’t the American people view you as an opportunistic flip-flopper?
You have something of a reputation as a political maverick. Yet in your 2008 quest for the White House, you repeatedly reversed long-held positions and compromised core principles to seemingly curry favor with both the leading lights of the conservative movement and right-wing Republican primary voters. You’ve changed your positions on the Bush tax cuts, Jerry Falwell and the Christian right, immigration reform, overturning Roe v. Wade, whether Justice Samuel Alito is a model for the Supreme Court, France-bashing, just to name a few. What happened to the “courage of our convictions?” Did you read your own book, Why Courage Matters? After what happened to John Kerry in 2004, why shouldn’t the American people view you as an opportunistic flip-flopper?
April 19th, 2008
As has been reported, conservative hack Sean Hannity of f(au)x news hand fed George Stephanopoulos a loaded question for Sen. Obama:
HANNITY: There are two questions that I don’t think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don’t know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is – the only time he’s ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground who on 9/11 of all days in the New York Times was saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I don’t think we did enough.” When asked about it by the Politico, David Axelrod said that they have a friendly relationship, and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I’m taking notes right now.
And here’s the question that Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Obama:
STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?
Well, since Stephanopoulos is so amenable to repeating questions that others put in his mouth, I’m sure he won’t mind much as another puppeteer’s hand slips up his back. It’s with that in mind that Keith Olbermann offers this question (and other questions) for Stephanopoulos to ask Sen. McCain, when he’s scheduled to appear on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this Sunday:
After first calling Jerry Falwell an “agent of intolerance,” you took that back and began praising the man, despite the fact that he blamed America for 9/11.
Why in six years have you not repudiated Mr. Falwell’s damning of this country? Why do you still symbolically share the same pew?
UPDATE: Here are some additional questions for Sen. McCain, via PERRspectives:
1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were “very proud” to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam “America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed”, your “spiritual guide.” Do you believe America’s mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about “bomb bomb Iran?” If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?
2. Doesn’t your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?
Your anger, even toward friends and allies, is legendary. You purportedly dropped the F-Bomb on your own GOP colleagues John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley. In the book, The Real McCain, author Cliff Schechter claims you got into a fist-fight with your fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi. Allegedly, you even publicly used a crude term, one which decorum and the FCC prohibit us from even saying on the air, to describe your own wife. Which if any of these episodes is untrue? Don’t your anger management problems make you too dangerously unstable to be president of the United States?
3. Doesn’t your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?
On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan “unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn’t your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America’s national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?
4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?
You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called “family values.” Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?
5. Doesn’t your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an “agent of intolerance” show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?
In 2000, you famously called the late Jerry Falwell “an agent of intolerance,” a statement which may have cost you the decisive South Carolina primary. But as you ramped up your next presidential run in 2006, you embraced Falwell and gave the commencement address at his Liberty University. When Tim Russert asked that spring if you still considered him an agent of intolerance, you said, “‘no, I don’t.” Why shouldn’t the American people consider you a flip-flopping opportunist who cynically courted the religious right to further your 2008 presidential ambitions?
6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren’t you – and not Barack Obama – the elitist?
You have called Barack Obama an elitist. Yet you recently returned to your exclusive private high school, one which now costs over $38,000 a year to attend. Your wife is the heiress to a beer distribution company, reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your children all attended private schools, academies which also happened to be the primary beneficiaries of funds from your supposed charitable foundation. Shouldn’t the American people in fact view you as the elitist, and a hypocritical one at that?
7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?
I want to ask about your seemingly ever-changing religious beliefs. In June 2007, McClatchy reported, “McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian.” In August 2007, as ABC reported, your campaign staff identified you as “Episcopalian” in a questionnaire prepared for ABC News’ August 5 debate. But as the primary in evangelical-rich South Carolina neared, in September 2007 you said of your religious faith, “It plays a role in my life. By the way, I’m not Episcopalian. I’m Baptist.” But in March 2008, Pastor Dan Yeary of your North Phoenix Baptist Church refused to comment on why you have refused to finally undergo a baptism ceremony. Congressional directories still list you as an Episcopalian. In the past, you’ve said, “When I’m asked about it, I’ll be glad to discuss it.” So what is your religion? And couldn’t Americans be forgiven for assuming your changing faith is tied to your changing political needs?
8. Didn’t President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren’t you a hypocrite for voting “no” on the Senate waterboaring ban?
You’ve said that “we can’t torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured”. And in December 2005, you famously reached a compromise with President Bush on the Detainee Torture Act banning cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. But just two weeks later, President Bush issued a signing statement making it clear he would ignore the compromise you just reached. Then in February 2007, you voted “no” on a Senate bill banning waterboarding. Isn’t it fair to say President Bush betrayed you with his December 30, 2005 signing statement? And isn’t it fair to say you caved to the right-wing of your party on the issue in order to win the Republican nomination?
9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?
You twice voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you support making them permanent. In 2001, you said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” Now, according to the Center for American Progress, your tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade and “would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.” Isn’t it true that you flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts? Isn’t it fair to say that you now favor a massive expansion of the federal budget deficit in order to fund a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans who need it least?
10. With the economy tanking, shouldn’t Americans be concerned over your past statements that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should?”
Americans consistently report that the economy is the issue that concerns them most. Yet more than once, you proclaimed your ignorance when it comes to the economy. In November 2005, you told the Wall Street Journal, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” Then in December 2007, you admitted, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” Shouldn’t the American be worried about President McCain’s ability to lead the United States out of recession? Given your past statements, shouldn’t the American reject out of hand your claim that “I know the economy better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do?”
April 19th, 2008
I‘m not as pessimistic as Bob Herbert, of the New York Times, but I do share some of his concerns about the harm that the Democrats are inflicting on each other with, of course, the always reliable help the Harpies in our traditional media.
Mr. Herbert reminds of the “gift” that Democrats have displayed at blowing their chances at winning the presidency:
Jimmy Carter managed to win the White House in 1976 by looking pious and riding a wave of anti-Watergate revulsion. After four hapless years, he dutifully handed the keys back to the G.O.P.
Bill Clinton tried hard to lose, with sex scandals and whatnot, during the 1992 campaign. But Ross Perot wouldn’t let him. Mr. Clinton won with a piddling 43 percent of the vote. For eight years, Mr. Clinton tried to throw the presidency away (with sex scandals and whatnot), but he was never able to succeed.
That’s been it for the party for the past 40 years. The Democrats have become so psychologically battered by these many decades in the leadership wilderness that they consider the Clinton years, during which the president was impeached and they lost control of both houses of Congress, to have been a period of triumph.
The only detail that’s missing from Mr. Herbert’s retelling of the Democrats “gift” is the willing role that so-called journalists have played in handing the presidency to republicans over those 40 years.
April 19th, 2008
This is exactly the sort of crap that the CNNs, ABCs and other traditional media outlets do that simply drives me nuts: the so called journalists in these propaganda factories go out of their way to portray republicans as average Americans in comparison to Democratic politicians.
Media Matters documents the latest bamboozlement from CNN:
