Busted, Yet FoxNews Continues Pentagon's Covert Propaganda »
Posted by: DiffeeOnline 2 months, 3 weeks ago168 CommentsReflectReport this Story
On Sunday, a week after the Times story broke, Fox was still airing -- without disclosure -- exposed pundit Thomas McInerney. Last Wednesday, they aired another pundit, Robert H. Scales. See them for yourself:
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 168
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
hyperbola
April 29, 2008, 7:41 a.m.The same old lies are being spread all over again by these traitors. Imagine selling your country out for cash.
The neoconning of a nation
Do No Evil â;; The Pentagon has duped Americans by organizing a bunch of retired U.S. generals -- mislabelled "independent military experts" -- to shill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Watch these rent-a-generals again prostitute themselves on TV by promoting the administration's party line about the great Syrian nuclear menace.
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/04/28/...
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Teech
April 29, 2008, 2:15 p.m.As far as a turd of an opinion piece (below), that goes for the entire FOX news network. Lies interspersed with opinion laced with Bush admin. propaganda.
BANO - Spanish for toilet - Bush Admin. News Organization.
..."The same old lies are being spread all over again by these traitors. Imagine selling your country out for cash...The neoconning of a nation..."
Yup, just imagine. And they continue to fleece America for billions with that profit-making smirk on their faces. But don't you understand that to these Cons, selling your country and slaughtering our kids for cash is patriotic! Disagreeing with it is being a traitor.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 29, 2008, 4:22 p.m."The New York Times publishes an exposé on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon that most likely violate federal "covert propaganda" laws."
Is this the 3rd or 4th version of this NON-Story?
"covert propaganda" laws? That's a new one on me. However I think when one of these retired Gen. says something like "My sources at the Pentagon tell me"
Kinda sorta blows any "covert" claim out of the water ya think?
IMO for "covert propaganda", would be true IF these Gen were not ID as retired military, just some Joe Sixpact man on the street and/or they had no connection to the military what so ever.
Short of that what idiot doesn't know or think that Military officers would be giving their opinion on military matters based on their military experience?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
hyperbola
April 29, 2008, 5:19 p.m.Well injest, it has long been clear that you are an israel-firster who doesn't know much about America or American democracy. Government propaganda directed at Americans has been banned under our law for almost a century. The direct instruction of "retired" generals by the Pentagon in what to say certainly qualifies as lawbreaking.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 5:37 p.m.Apparently, anti-Jewish propaganda isn't.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
svensun
April 29, 2008, 9:35 p.m.hyperbole, what in the world are you talking about? If 'government propaganda' was 'banned', then it would be illegal for ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL to open his or her mouth!!!
Let's face it, any public statement by ANY government official constitutes 'government propaganda', if it veers from a sheer statement of facts to include opinions or analyses. Everytime the White House holds a press conference, every time Pelosi or Reid stand in the halls of Congress and pontificate in front of a group of reporters , EVERY TIME a senator or congressman gets the floor and makes a speech, they are engaging in 'government propaganda.'
Your comments are nonsensical.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 29, 2008, 10:35 p.m."If 'government propaganda' was 'banned', then it would be illegal for ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL to open his or her mouth!!!"
Okay I vote this as the truest statement in a long long time here on Propeller
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
hyperbola
April 30, 2008, 8:55 a.m.Well Sven, ignorance about americaqn democracy is once of the big problems in our times. The first laws against this kind of government propaganda were passed by Congress at the time of WWI. Impressed by the ability of Nazi propaganda to mislead Germans, Congress reiterated this during and after WWI. Instead of supporting Nazi-style propaganda, I suggest you begin to educate yourself. Here is a good article from a conservative.
Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law
The Pentagon military analyst program unveiled in last week's exposé by David Barstow in the New York Times was not just unethical but illegal. It violates, for starters, specific restrictions that Congress has been placing in its annual appropriation bills every year since 1951. According to those restrictions, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the US not heretofore authorized by the Congress."
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
hyperbola
April 30, 2008, 8:55 a.m.....
In case anyone disagrees with the GAO on this point, here's what the White House's own Office of Legal Council had to say, in a memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the Armstrong Williams scandal (when it was discovered that the Bush administration had actually paid him to publicly endorse its No Child Left Behind Law):
Over the years, GAO has interpreted "publicity or propaganda" restrictions to preclude use of appropriated funds for, among other things, so-called "covert propaganda." ... Consistent with that view, OLC determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for "publicity or propaganda" precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties" would run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds for "propaganda." (emphasis added)
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
hyperbola
April 30, 2008, 8:57 a.m.The key passage here is the phrase, "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties." As the Times report documented in detail, the Pentagon's military analyst program did exactly that.
1. It was covert. As Barstow's piece states, the 75 retired military officers who were recruited by Donald Rumsfeld and given talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC were given extraordinary access to White House and Pentagon officials. However, "The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon."
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
hyperbola
April 30, 2008, 8:58 a.m.2. It was an attempt to mold opinion. According to the Pentagon's own internal documents (which can be downloaded and viewed from the New York Times website), the military analysts were considered "message force multipliers" or "surrogates" who would deliver administration "themes and messages" to millions of Americans "in the form of their own opinions." According to one participating military analyst, it was "psyops on steroids."
3. It was done "through the undisclosed use of third parties." In their television appearances, the military analysts did not disclose their ties to the White House, let alone that they were its surrogates. The military analysts were used as puppets for the Pentagon. In the words of Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and for Fox News military analyst, "It was them saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you."
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
hyperbola
April 30, 2008, 8:59 a.m.Additional evidence of the illegality of the Pentagon pundits operation can be found in the February 1, 1988 memorandum mentioned above by the White House Office of Legal Council. That memorandum, titled "Legal Constraints on Lobbying Efforts in Support of Contra Aid and Ratification of the INF Treaty," was written for the Reagan administration by the well-known conservative lawyer Charles Cooper (then head of the OLC), explaining the limits of what the White House was allowed to do ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 29, 2008, 11:20 p.m.Hyper boy ya really shouldn't try and "wing it" your not bright enough.
"Government propaganda directed at Americans has been banned under our law for almost a century"
Uhm wrong hyper boy.
"covert propaganda" is a new term and it falls under these below acts.
If ya notice the dates there like 7 to 5 years ago not 100 years ago!
Do you really believe 7 years is "almost a century"?
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, div. F, title VI, 624, 118Stat. 3, 356 (Jan. 23, 2004) (fiscal year 2004);
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Pub.L. No. 108-7, div.J, title VI, 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (Feb.20, 2003) (fiscal year 2003)
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2002, Pub. L. No.107-67, 626, 115 Stat. 514, 552 (Nov. 12, 2001) (fiscal year 2002).
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 29, 2008, 11:20 p.m.The direct instruction of "retired" generals by the Pentagon in what to say certainly qualifies as lawbreaking."
The fact that their "retired" means the Pentagon does not "directly instruct" what the Gen. say.
However the fact that their retired and they tell you their source is the Pentagon gives most people the impression that their info comes from the Pentagon.
Just because you're an idiot does not mean the worlds corrupt.
"qualifies as lawbreaking"
Show me the part where the Pentagon is covered.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
hyperbola
April 30, 2008, 9:01 a.m.Once again injest you revel that you know little about american democracy and are an israel-first traitor to our democracy. Educate yourself and start living according to the precepts of american democracy or move to your country of first loyalty. I suggest you read this article in full (abstracted above).
Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
loverman
April 29, 2008, 8:45 p.m.injest,
Nice try, yet it lacks some logical perspective.
When a "reporter", in this case a military commander who's still on the payroll with the Pentagon, uses the term, "My sources at the Pentagon tell me", it's not inconceivable to assume that he's speaking for his employer and in turn speaking for the policy which is owned by the chain of command, hence the administration.
Not all military "pundits" are retired, especially those that have appeared on FOX. And since FOX has the reputation of being an overt propagandist for this administration, it is inconceivable that it would be "fair and balanced" in any case.
As for the Covert Propaganda Law, this a link that defines the law and its history.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 29, 2008, 11:41 p.m."When a "reporter", in this case a military commander who's still on the payroll with the Pentagon, uses the term, "My sources at the Pentagon tell me", it's not inconceivable to assume that he's speaking for his employer and in turn speaking for the policy which is owned by the chain of command, hence the administration."
What?
The "story" here is that somehow when the retire Gen says "My sources at the Pentagon tell me" that this is "covert propaganda". Do you know what covert means?
It can't be covert if their telling you the info comes from the Pentagon, that is known as OVERT
"Not all military "pundits" are retired, especially those that have appeared on FOX."
If the person is "active duty" then that person CAN NOT give their own opinion, it a violation of the UCMJ. Who doesn't know this?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
loverman
April 30, 2008, 12:13 a.m.injest,
"If the person is "active duty" then that person CAN NOT give their own opinion, it a violation of the UCMJ. Who doesn't know this?"
The answer to your question is you.
The covert in this overt act is that the "pundit" is telling us what he's being told to say from his superiors. That's called Covert Propaganda.
The fact that FOX doesn't do its due diligence by querying the "pundit" AND verifying the "story" is because FOX doesn't want to. It could care less. And their asses are covered because the source is not verifiable.
Fair and balanced my a$$!
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Klarissa
April 29, 2008, 7:12 p.m.hy - but you all cheered when the retired military came out against Iraq.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
donald51
April 29, 2008, 7:49 p.m....totally different generals Klarris... but you wouldn't know the difference or care as long as it fits your bigotted view of life!
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 8:39 a.m.This is the usual baseless partisan hack job from H.R. Huffinpuff. Yeah, the last thing you want in a military affairs pundit is someone connected to the military. Sink this turd of an opinion piece.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
quackpot
April 29, 2008, 9:13 a.m.midlett, is the name calling really necessary?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 29, 2008, 9:54 a.m.We still have 17 years of name calling Neocons remaining, to be even for the hate lies and the screaming of "libtard," coward, etc. we have had to endure.
I, personally did not like being called a traitor by Conservatives when I tried to discuss global warming, REPEATEDLY, right here on propeller.
Also citizen midleft is not inaccurate in the assessment.
Mid is commenting to an as*hole named "DropkickaLib" who has BUILT-IN NAME CALLING right in the avatar name.
Until THAT ENDS midleft is only being fair.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 10:36 a.m.crespi kreme, you are the ultimate douchebag, goose-stepping, Libbot. You are a traitor, but not because of global warming. That merely makes you delusional.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 29, 2008, 11:08 a.m.Are you name calling again?
Let me ask you something-
What "liberal" are you planning to dropkick?
If you dropkick Obama the secret service will put twenty slugs in you till you are dead.
Maybe the nice old liberal couple down the street whose son was in the National Guard but now home all is messed up? HE says if you try to drop kick his nice old parents he will bash your brains onto the sidewalk with his rifle butt the way he had to do in Iraq.
Or are you talking about dropkicking my little niece who wants to send her lemonade stand money in to help the rain forest?
If you dropkick HER I will break your fingers and hands and crush your larynx so the only way to transmit your hate will be blinking your eyes or stomping your foot like a trained horse.
WHAT LIBERAL ARE YOU PLANNING TO DROPKICK, SIR?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 11:09 a.m.Threatening me now ricecrespi? The only thing that you are going to beat is a certain part of your own anatomy so spare me your Libtard hissy fit.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 29, 2008, 11:16 a.m.YOU are the one with the violent name.
How do you justify it?
I merely extrapolated based on your hateful avatar.
Don't get all defensive, try to maintain.
I LOVE haters like you. **Kissy kiss**
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 11:17 a.m.A name isn't violent. Your threats are. I'd suggest that you refrain from calling me a "hater" after you threaten me with violence.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 29, 2008, 11:19 a.m.If you live up to your name and dropkick my niece, DAMN RIGHT I'll "return the favor."
You chose your name, NOW LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES LIKE A MAN!
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 11:30 a.m.You are the one who suggested that, candy a$$. I'm not too worried about my chances of seeing you act like a man.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 11:58 a.m....and we all know how much you love gay inuendo. Makes me wonder about you and what you put inuendo.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
April 29, 2008, 12:25 p.m.Hey...you're kinda cute...and those lips!
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
UnusualSuspect
April 29, 2008, 5:07 p.m.Drop has said that before...that his name is not violent. If not violent, what is it?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 5:45 p.m.An expression of freedom of speech, a concept unknown to Libs.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
bill smith
April 30, 2008, 12:41 a.m.--If not violent, what is it?
Stupid? Moronic? Childish? Sophomoric? I think any or all of those fit.
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 29, 2008, 11:38 a.m.Droppy-
Your one of the last big haters left on propeller.
And I'm one of the last hate-eaters...
We're headed for the hopper, Pal.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 29, 2008, 11:41 a.m.But until then we ALL HAVE TO STAND UP TO you and your Neocon hate buddies' INCESSANT, OBFUSCATING, BS DESIGNED ONLY TO STOP HUMAN CONSENSUS LIKE SOME KIND OF F*CKIN EVIL ALIEN.
Where did you lose your humanity?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
newbie0420
April 29, 2008, 11:45 a.m.Wow, so anybody who disagrees with you is an evil alien and lacks humanity.
How humane of you....
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 12:48 p.m.Humanity = Liberalism.
"BS DESIGNED ONLY TO STOP HUMAN CONSENSUS LIKE SOME KIND OF F*CKIN EVIL ALIEN" = Apparently, I stand in the way of Liberal groupthink.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 29, 2008, 5:03 p.m."INCESSANT, OBFUSCATING, BS DESIGNED ONLY TO STOP HUMAN CONSENSUS LIKE SOME KIND OF F*CKIN EVIL ALIEN"
You really should get a dictionary.
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
dunkirk
April 29, 2008, 4:56 p.m.ROFLMAO, of course ur not too worried about seeing him your ,much like Tangy and the rest of the rabid right, all gung ho to fight the war and uphold freedom as loing as it doesnt mean you have to do anything.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 5:44 p.m.Unlike the chicken sh*t Left, I'm not afraid of doing my part for our country.
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 5:43 p.m.Freedom of speech, a concept unknown to Libs.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
UnusualSuspect
April 29, 2008, 6:14 p.m.Nope...a violent name, plain and simple...
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 30, 2008, 8:36 a.m.Nope...a lie and an excuse to try and stifle my freedom of speech. You Libs love silencing dissent.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 29, 2008, 11:53 p.m.UnusualSuspect
"If not violent, what is it?"
How bout the Peace Corps? Or your countries equivalent, if they have one.
Did you know their still around?
Did you know their size was doubled shortly after 9/11?
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 29, 2008, 4:55 p.m.crespi said:
"I merely extrapolated based on your hateful avatar"
Uhmmm Crespi dude uhmmm your "avatar" and Dropkickalib "avatar" are basically the same. Yours just has a slightly darker frame.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/avatar
3.Computers. a graphical image that represents a person, as on the Internet.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 30, 2008, 1:42 a.m.You got me there.
I thought I had typed "avatar name."
Silly me.
Did you know my avatar can suck the sh*t out of people, no matter how much they ingest?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 30, 2008, 2:29 a.m.And that's NOT FRAME DARKENING.
It's faux-photographic lighting.
Lit like a 1920's matinee idol publicity still...
You know, painting with negative area contrast...
...
Have you no sense of the Arts?
(Hmmm, do we gotta "culture it up" around here or somethin'?) I'll start...
Uh, y'know that Picasso can really paint...
OK, now YOU-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
saintetienne
April 29, 2008, 1:26 p.m."If you dropkick Obama the secret service will put twenty slugs in you till you are dead."
Not if he's dropkicked at the polling stations by voters, which, by the way, is an inevitability.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
April 29, 2008, 2:24 p.m.Droppy's going down, se.
Don't let him drag you down with him...
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
dunkirk
April 29, 2008, 4:59 p.m.Just like the Republicans picked up all those seats oin the last election. Oh wait that didnt happen.....
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
UnusualSuspect
April 29, 2008, 5:25 p.m.saint...
You might be right about Obama, and then again, maybe not.
But one thing for sure...the next president of the US will not be a Republican.
And I will personally remind you of that every day for a week after November 4!
Keep an eye out for me...
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jordan11
April 29, 2008, 10:10 a.m.midlett, is the name calling really necessary?>>>>>
He's merely speaking the trolls language.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 10:33 a.m.He's merely lying, which explains why you love it.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Goppy
April 29, 2008, 5:05 p.m.MAN ALIVE, Droppy!
Do you hear yourself when you type out your hostile commentary?
I dont think Ive ever see an expression of such pain. Im really startin to worry bout you. Your invective and insults have been risin lately. Your participation seems designed to spew your bile. You have such rage inside you.
Remember, its not your fault.
Be well.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jordan11
May 3, 2008, 8:52 p.m.Is droopy being a bad boy again? I have him blocked.
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
TGrass3001
April 29, 2008, 12:59 p.m.I think that should be "DropkickaLib AND midlett, is the name calling really necessary?" It starts with name calling because it's an easy distraction. If you disagree with this comment, HEY look over there a shiny object.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
dunkirk
April 29, 2008, 4:54 p.m.Ummmm if u look at the names of hte rabid right they seem to have that built in, and htey wonder why when they call for libs ot be banned for name calling it goes no further then the ewaste basket. They are the biggest bunch of whiners and crybabies that exist on th eplanet who feel they and htey alone can determine who to name call and when its fiar play to do so. They have NO leg to stand on when they cry about being called names. Its almost as good as Alpha in the LumDaDork persona saying she never called people names, yet when caught doing it, it was because THEY made her do it.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 10:35 a.m.farleft, you are a coward and apparently, an anti-semite as well. Such a bigot, why should I bother arguing when your mindless Jew-hating proves me correct.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 11:10 a.m.Tess,
Since you neg'd me do you support Jew-hating? Why was it necessary for him to point out that Murdock was Jewish? Answer: He's a bigot.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 1:45 p.m.Apparently, JOEY EVANS and the other usual Lib suspects are cool with it.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
UnusualSuspect
April 29, 2008, 5:10 p.m.For the record, this UnusualSuspect is not cool with it.
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
tkyrchncs
April 29, 2008, 12:52 p.m.Wow! Guess I misunderstood. I know the cons don't have the fortitude(intestinal or otherwise) to drop-kick a Liberal.
I thought it was drop-kick a LIBERTY like they do all the time.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 3:55 p.m.Wrong again, old fart! Libs don't need kicked. They stay on their knees.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
injest
April 30, 2008, 12:03 a.m."tkyrchncs
Wow! Guess I misunderstood. I know the cons don't have the fortitude(intestinal or otherwise) to drop-kick a Liberal."
Well ya got a point there. In order to "drop kick" one would have to first "pick up"
By my self I can't pick up Mickie Moore
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
quackpot
April 29, 2008, 9:13 a.m.Drop, do you also want paid representatives of drug companies providing health advice on T.V. medical interviews?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Charlson
April 29, 2008, 10:10 a.m.I thought this was standard operating procedure for the pharmaceutical companies.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
saintetienne
April 29, 2008, 1:34 p.m."I thought this was standard operating procedure for the pharmaceutical companies."
It is. But what's even more alarming is the standard operating procedure for the witless, slack-jawed couch potatoes who sit, hour after hour, watching the pharmaceutical commercials on TV. They first waste their time with television, then waste their money on the pharmaceutical products they're so gullible enough to believe they need.
Welcome to American Idle.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
quackpot
April 29, 2008, 2:24 p.m.The difference, is that the Pharma blurbs are COMMERCIALS, not news clips.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
donald51
April 29, 2008, 6:46 p.m...so they sucomb to the repug/big business spin machine....can you really blame them when they have no other alternative?
Repugs, the terrorist party of America!
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 10:39 a.m.I want someone who knows what is going on with the military providing information on the military.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
djn3nunez3
April 29, 2008, 11:51 a.m.Bet you'd let the wolfe gaurd the henhouse then!
"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. "
"Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. "This was a coherent, active policy," he said"
"Pentagon has suspended a program that fed information about the Iraq war to retired military officers who appeared on U.S. television networks as independent analysts, the Defense Department said on Monday."
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
April 29, 2008, 1 p.m.>>Bet you'd let the wolfe gaurd the henhouse then!
Hey. I have no problems, whatsoever, with guarding anyone's hen house
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
doggammit
April 29, 2008, 1:37 p.m."Hey. I have no problems, whatsoever, with guarding anyone's hen house"
Sounds good to me... BTW just between dog and wolf, what's your take on the foxes at FOX? Those Bushy, Bushy tales... Is it true they wag the FOX just to distract us while neo-cons make off with all the hens and leave the treasury looking like a goose egg? Does that explain why old Rooster Petreus is such a big yolk? The entire animal kingdom wants to know!
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
April 29, 2008, 2:09 p.m.Another hound dog here...
Yeah. Some of those FOX foxes are definitely worth howling at. A few of them are definitely worth a tail wag or 2.
But listening to their bark can really raise my hackles.
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
quackpot
April 29, 2008, 12:03 p.m.What you want sounds good.
The problem is with what you get when you rely on people who are paid to give a carefully crafted and one-sided view of a complex issue.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DaneL
April 29, 2008, 4:23 p.m.Drop...are you insane? Retired military wouldn't know half as much as democraps think they do.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
UnusualSuspect
April 29, 2008, 5:11 p.m.Good luck finding someone, either here on Netscape or anywhere else...
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
saintetienne
April 29, 2008, 1:28 p.m."Drop, do you also want paid representatives of drug companies providing health advice on T.V. medical interviews?"
Why not? It's a free country. If you don't like it, change the channel. Better yet, turn the damn TV off and read a book. You know what books are, right, cracksnot?
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
disraeli
April 29, 2008, 9:21 a.m.Drop,
The underlying NYT story on military analysts is hardly opinion, it is hard fact. The Pentagon and the Defense department were categorically using retired high ranking military personnel to act as administration shills. Read that story before you declare that this is baseless and mere opinion.
After you read that piece I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Charlson
April 29, 2008, 10:15 a.m.C'mon disraeli, you don't really think DropkickaLib reading the story is going to change his mindset? He will continue to deny the truth and discount anything contrary to what he wants to hear. DropkickaLib's a fanatic Bushite.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
April 29, 2008, 10:41 a.m.Coming from a fanatical Bolshevik...I'm definitely not the biggest Bush supporter and have criticized his positions regarding such topics as massive spending and illegal im
-
-
-
