Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC refuse to come clean on use of Pentagon propaganda

As I previously posted, last week the NY Times reported that the Pentagon and Bush administration used domestic propaganda, in the form of so-called retired generals with direct ties to the Pentagon and to military contractors, to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public.

Since then, and it should come as no surprise, the networks have refused to come clean on their use of, and participation in the Pentagon’s domestic propaganda program during the lead up to the war. And when the subject is finally covered by a minor network, PBS, an apologists of domestic propaganda — with ties to the Pentagon and to corporate media — is prominently featured in the segment.

The take away of the segment for me is that the networks refuse to acknowledge their responsibility for the war, and that they will simply ignore the NY Time’s report all together. Thus, again, the vast majority of the public, which still gets their news from the networks, will remain in the dark about this on going manipulation of the public discourse by the Pentagon and by the Bush administration.

For the record, as Judy Woodruff mentions in the segment:

And for the record, we invited Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC to participate, but they declined our offer or did not respond. [Emphasis added.]

Let’s see how long the networks go on ignoring their complicity in this fiasco that’s the Iraq war. I bet it’ll be a long while before a word is uttered.

Bush’s Generals: How they led America to war

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.”

Ten more questions for John McCain

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?

Saudi Court Sentences Rape Victim to 200 Lashes

Yes, you read that correctly, a Saudi court has sentenced the victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and to 200 lashes:

The judge more than doubled the sentence against al-Lahim’s 19-year-old client because she spoke to the media about the case, a court source told Arab News, an English-language Middle Eastern daily newspaper.

The woman — who was initially sentenced in October 2006 to 90 lashes — had her sentenced increased to 200 lashes and was ordered to serve six months in prison under Saudi Arabia’s strict Islamic law.

And if that weren’t enough, the victim’s lawyer had his license revoked for doing his job and representing his client to his fullest ability:

The attorney, Abdulrahman al-Lahim, had his license revoked last week by a judge for speaking to the Saudi-controlled media about the case, al-Lahim told CNN.

It seems that Bush & Co. should’ve given democracy and human rights to Saudi Arabia, a staunch Bush ally in the region, rather than wasting such a precious gift on the ingrates of Iraq.

Christopher Morris’ “My America”

Some haunting images of Bush’s America, as captured in Christopher Morris’ “My America”:

From an interview with the photographer:

Nina Berman: The best description of your work came from a powerful introduction you wrote for an exhibition of your images in France. You excluded this from the book. Can you share with us what you wrote?

Christopher Morris: In the Name of God the Flag and Bush Almighty. This is my America, my New Republic. If the hijackers on September 11 accomplished anything, this is it. They have given us the divine Bush. A man who has said, “you’re either with us or against us.” A man who teaches our children that “they hate us because we love freedom”.

This is my America. An America with Homeland Security, a Patriot Act. An America with paranoia. An America with hatred and ignorance. An America that wraps itself in its President and its flag. This is my America.

Now when I see the eagle of freedom, I see an eagle of fascism. Now when I see the American flag, I’m afraid for my America. We have become an ugly nation. A nation that has wrapped its eyes so tightly in red, white and blue that it has gone blind. Blinded by nationalism. This is my America. And this is why they hate us, and its not because we love freedom. They hate us because we think like that.