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.”

James Baker III’s Conflict of Interests

Though, technically Mr. Baker’s law-firm can represent whom they like, there’s a principle at stake. On principle, I believe that the man whom advices and represents the president, should not simultaneously represent a client with apparent ties to one of the worst terrorists attacks against our nation. Note that when one speaks of Saudi Arabia in any fashion, one is in fact speaking of the Saudi Royal family; because, as an institution, the royal family exerts total control over the kingdom.

At the moment, there are some reports linking Saudi Intelligence Agencies and the Al Queda cells that attacked us on 9-11. I’ve only performed a very cursory search to document and support what I’ve written here; however, for anyone that’s interested, I would urge you to do same. Moreover, like many I’m sure, I’ll be reading the 911 Commission Report, where much of this is documented.

Again, for me the problem with Mr. Baker’s law firm representing the Saudi Family and Mr. Bush at the same time, is one of an apparent conflict of interests; and, too, the fact that this situation is the very thing that General Eisenhower warned us we should be vigilant against: The confluence of, 1. BIG TIME money (Mr. Baker’s firm is defending the Saudi Family in a 1 TRILLION DOLLAR suit), 2. Politics (Mr. Baker’s firm is representing and advising our nation’s leading political office holder), and 3. The industries that gain from the nation’s war-enterprise (Mr. Baker is a sitting member of the Carlyle Group).

To me, these are sufficient reasons for Mr. Baker to, at the very least, recuse himself from advising and representing Mr. Bush.

Eisenhower’s Warning

Technically, lawyers can represent whom they like. However, as a citizen, Mr. Baker’s apparent “conflict of interests,” in representing Mr. Bush, while his name-sake law firm defends the Sauidi Royal family against the 9-11 familes, concerns me and reminds me of General Eisenhower’s (Republican president, 1953-1961) warning to the nation in his farewell speech:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” [ Text of Farewell Speech ]

It seems to me that far too many of us, Americans all, have neglected our solemn duty to remain vigilant against the danger that General Eisenhower warned us about.

There are some things that do transcend partisanship.