Talk radio: do you have the stones to admit you were punked?
Can right-wing tools like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Dori Monson, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck even acknowledge that their so-called war coverage and commentary has been so severely compromised?
What are we talking about?
Sunday's New York Times took a little of the complex out of the military-industrial complex with David Barstow's lengthy, detailed exposure of how Bush and Rumsfeld's Pentagon used retired generals to serve as "objective" media military analysts while actually carrying administration's rosy interpretations of a failing war effort to talk radio, cable blab-shows and thenews outlets they work for.
(For an interactive overview, click here. Read the whole piece here.)
Even more despicable is how these alleged military heroes we've seen every day since 9-11 on teevee or on the radio have used the influence and access gained by playing in this farce.
These are the fat-assed militarists who accused the rest of us of dispatriotism, cut-and-run mentality, and not supporting the troops. In these documents we see all that patriotically correct self-righteousness is actually a collection of bullet-points they picked up from a Secretary of the Defense losing a war he never should have got into.
Their unethical and immoral collaboration enhanced their own consulting and other businesses dealing with the Pentagon and their clients looking to do wartime business with the military.
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, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. 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.
Known to the Pentagon as "message force multipliers” or “surrogates” they were taken to Iraq and Guantánamo where they were spoon-fed government bullshit to disseminate parrot-like to the media posing as honorable, authoritative, objective, retired military men.
Despite some individual's doubts, they carried the administration's fake intelligence leading up to the war; made lemonade as the war disintegrated; tried to marginalize critics, and profited by the influence they got for the effort.
If they didn't fall into line, or if they vocalized doubts, they were punished by firing and/or loss of the Pentagon access their contracting businesses depended upon.
It is typical of the way right-wing media has been used by the Bush administration.
In a document, one of these advisers tells Rumsfeld: "You go on O'Reilly and you've got him eating out of your hand because you're smart and of course the rest of them are afraid to go near him.
When you take the tough ones on like that, and quite frankly it's
because I think you have to, the world starts seeing you -- you're on
the offensive."
(photo: O'Reilly -- not as smart as Donald Rumsfeld)
Obviously, to this crowd, going on O'Reilly is only the appearance of facing someone tough. This unidentified general speaking knows that O'Reilly was already in the bag and his craving for the validation and credibility inherent with a big interview like Rumsfeld was so great, it'd really be a blowjob in the sweet grass on a sunny day.
Will O'Reilly and other talk hosts even acknowledge this tremendous hit on their credibility? Or will they continue to just talk about Barack Obama's preacher; or Hillary Clinton's mean streak; or the cold Spring that proves global warming is an evil socialist plot steal your freedom?
We wouldn't make book on any acknowledgment whatsoever.
Will these generals do the honorable soldier thing and commit seppuku in their pool house with a WWII bayonet? We wouldn't bet on that either.
Hell no...I doubt if it makes the national evening news either. And all this time, those of us who have doubted the veracity of all the attempts at brainwashing were told we hated America.
I would like to think this would put the myth of the "liberal" media to rest for good, but I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: sparky | April 20, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Is anyone surprised? When I read it, I thought so what else is new?
Posted by: joanie hussein for obama | April 20, 2008 at 08:33 PM
CBC news just reporting on Clinton campaigning in Pennsylvania and talking about Hershey's decision to move its peppermint patty-making plant to Mexico. Nafta is Clinton's burden and the reporter said Pennsylvanians are mad.
I think things look better and better for Obama.
Posted by: joanie hussein for obama | April 20, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Don't tell Hillary Duffman, he'll flip out in fake rage.
Posted by: The Boxer ears | April 20, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Hillary is a dead man walking. Did you see McCain on ABC today? He reminds us that Obama is a punk-ass, stumble bum big city law professor with a ultra-left voting record, a lot of pretty speeches, weird, hippy friends, a thin resume and no touch with regular people. How could the Democrats have done it again??? Lose the election, I mean. HA HA HA HA
Posted by: binky | April 21, 2008 at 02:10 AM
So, binky, this thread is about how the administration got military personnel who had ties to the military industrial complex and had a financial interest in pumping up the war...waiting to hear what your thoughts are on that.
And what do you think of John McCain owning 8 very very large homes? That certainly makes him a man of the people, doesn't it? Or the 109 million that Hill and Bill brought in last year? Why, I feel they are just like me!!
Funny, you conveniently left out the part where the Obamas were only able to pay off their student loans with the sale of his first book. Or their two little girls. Naww, nobody I know of has a family like that! Do you think that if Michelle Obama had plagerized those recipes off the Food Network like Cindy McCain did, that the media would have ignored it?
Posted by: RedmondDem | April 21, 2008 at 07:39 AM
Which only adds to the evidence that this war was perpetuated to benefit Halliburton and it's subsidiaries i.e. Brown & Root, etc., et al. Companies that 'surprisingly' employ these so called retired experts (either directly or indirectly thru lobby and/or 'consultant' fees). Simply more of the George Bush smoke and mirrors show. Wow; what a legacy.
'Hillary is a dead man walking.'
...wrong in so many ways...far from dead, not a 'man', and certainly not 'walking' but 'charging' with full energy like the Everready bunny.
Posted by: Duffman | April 21, 2008 at 08:03 AM
Speaking of punked, it looks like the authorities who invaded that Mormon compound were fooled by some prank caller. That's the whole reason they went in, based on a prank phone call! Jesus Christ, wouldn't you at least expect them to make sure the original distress call was actually coming from the compound, and not a couple of states away?
Posted by: DT | April 21, 2008 at 08:19 AM
The Times article is just grist for the mill, but really interesting. It's cool to check out the interactive site, with the actual documents in which the talking points are discussed and distributed.
I seem to remember back in the day the TV "military analysts" being ridiculed on The Daily Show with excerpts of each saying some Orwellian phrase like "long war," over and over. So it was clear already that this stuff was happening, but here you can see the smoking guns and a peek behind the curtain at the psyops in progress.
Would have been nice to have seen this in 2006, or sooner, but apparently the Pentagon wouldn't release many of the documents, even after they lost in federal court.
Posted by: YellowPup | April 21, 2008 at 08:43 AM
Presidents don't get elected on thoughtful arguments by libs. Obama is a stumble bum, he is a bad candidate. He i too far out for tis country. He will be crushed. HA HA HA HA
Posted by: binky | April 21, 2008 at 09:46 AM
it'd really be a blowjob in the sweet grass on a sunny day.
Remember: For Orally, this would also require a Falafel & a Loofa (both middle-eastern products).
Will these generals do the honorable soldier thing and commit seppuku in their pool house with a WWII bayonet
Who wouldn't love to see Rummy forced to Seppuku on his ranch - standing up, of course. Then again, Duffman didn't have to after wasting all that milk. Hope springs eternal - an "unknown unknown"
Posted by: mercifurious | April 21, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Thanks for pointing out that you are unable to carry on a conversation like an adult, binky.
Posted by: RedmondDem | April 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Duffman, you had better meet up with Hillary's people...
http://uk.youtube.com/
watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell praises FARRAKHAN...
Rev. Wright must have brainwashed him, ya think??
Posted by: sparky | April 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Pile on all you want...I still have faith in Mrs Clinton and I think you'all will be surprised at tomorrow's outcome of the Penn vote.
Posted by: Duffman | April 21, 2008 at 01:55 PM
Just curious Duffman...
So with the Delegate math and the popular vote well out of reach for Hillary (we've shown this multiple times already), how does she come-from-behind?
As you've mentioned, you're idea is that she'll scoop up the super-delegates, AGAINST the will of the people.
Do you not understand how disastrous this would be for the Democratic party? Do you care?
Or perhaps you don't, and are playing Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" game
Joanie Sparks: my suspicion is the later.
Posted by: mercifurious | April 21, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Yes merci I am relying on the super delegates. I think a case will be made (& supported) that she would be a better candidate against Sen McCain. I believe that there are more super delegates that 'owe her' and will be in pay back mode. Believe me I'm no fan of Limbaugh and I'm not even familar with his game, as I never tune in. But think as you wish. I will sink or swim with Mrs Clinton, thank you.
Posted by: Duffman | April 21, 2008 at 02:04 PM
Oh, and I don't think that would be disastrous because I beleive she would ask Sen Obama to partner with her as VP.
Posted by: Duffman | April 21, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Once again:
You're idea is that she'll scoop up the super-delegates, AGAINST the will of the people.
Do you not understand how disastrous this would be for the Democratic party? Do you care?
2 direct questions, 2 direct answers, no dodging.
Posted by: mercifurious | April 21, 2008 at 02:13 PM
What is the point of having super delegates if they're supposed to parrot caucuses and opinion polls?
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | April 21, 2008 at 02:16 PM
Mrs Clinton and Sen Obama would be (as they say) the dream ticket and would do more for the Democratic Party than any other scenario.
Posted by: Duffman | April 21, 2008 at 02:18 PM
So Nate
Is what you are saying with Duff is that he should abandon principal for the sake of the party? Wrong as he is, at least he is standing with his own principals. If we all did that, we would not be where we are today.
He has said on numerous occasions that he will vote for jug ears if that is who in nominated. Hang in there Duffy. If jug ears wins the nomination, he will lose the general and you can "I told you so" the whole lot of them.
Posted by: chucks | April 21, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Is what you are saying with Duff is that he should abandon principal for the sake of the party
Nice try. Actually Chucks, as mentioned before, I believe that the principles ARE the party. In other words, the DNC platform best fits my own principles - that's how I vote.
Duffman's in it for the personality contest (ie he says: "I just Like her")
At this point, it's become her ego vs. the math/delegates/popular vote. It's time for Chairman Dean to put her in check.
Note: Math for Chucks: McPain's 100 year war + no economic policy + no conservative base support + no social conservative support = win in November?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Das a goot wun
Posted by: mercifurious | April 21, 2008 at 03:27 PM
Duff - Just read this, and read it carefully:
Clinton Needs Record Margins, Turnout to Catch Obama (Update1)
Not just the headline. Read the whole thing and report back.
Posted by: mercifurious | April 21, 2008 at 03:49 PM
Thanks merci. I agree that the numbers make it look tough and THAT's why I'm relying on the super-delegates. If it's really close and the super-dels vote for Mrs Clinton against the 'will' of the people (so to speak) I think she can still make the case for support by asking Sen Obama to team up with her for the good of the Party and thus be virtually 'unbeatable'. If he's wise - he'll accept, knowing full well that with him as the VP, the Dems would rule for many years.
Think about it. I'm sure Mr Dean (and the super-dels have).
That's my report and I'm stickin to it. Get ready for a super ass-kickin tomorrow and then we'll see where the mood of the nation is.
Posted by: Duffman | April 21, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Y'up sez: Would have been nice to have seen this in 2006, or sooner, but apparently the Pentagon wouldn't release many of the documents, even after they lost in federal court." Yep, Y'up...it took two years. Barstow said in his Q&A "Last week, the judge overseeing our lawsuit threatened the Defense Department with sanctions if it continues to defy his deadlines for producing additional records." SCUM, THEY'RE ALL SCUM!
(Don't mess with MF, Duh-f...his numbers have you outnumbered!)
Posted by: Fremont | April 21, 2008 at 05:25 PM