A shocking story got lost in the media frenzy on the Pennsylvania primary this weekend. The New York Times had an explosive report finding that most of the retired brass and senior experts that you see on television are merely reciting Pentagon talking points. A massive Pentagon PR effort, started years ago to ensure that the most senior retired military officials get the party line, is paying dividends. The airwaves are now flooded with men who have "retired General," "former Green Beret," and "Colonel (Ret.)" attached to their name telling you what the Pentagon wants you to hear.
Reports the Times :
Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon's dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called "information dominance." In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent.
And so even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit "key influentials" -- movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities.The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration's neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war.
It's eerie how in unison the voices were. You can see that in the Times interactive feature, which lays out the evidence for their story.
Of course, not all the retired Generals marched in lockstep. General Anthony Zinni took to NBC to call for then Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. Major Generals Paul Eaton and John Batiste also called for Rumsfeld to step down, and, as many here know, appeared in ads from VoteVets.org, highly critical of the administration. And yet, after he came out to criticize the Pentagon, CBS fired Batiste as an analyst, rather than invite him on the air even more, to counter-balance the Pentagon spin machine.
Likewise, when you listen to those who are not part of the Pentagon spin machine, you get the blunt, honest truth. In the leadup to the war, retired General Wesley Clark offered strong testimony to the Senate, predicting, almost to a T, what the aftermath of an invasion would be.
Certainly, General Clark wasn't the only military expert with that opinion, but you didn't see too many people who attested to that on TV at the time.
The scarier point is how those retired military brass and defense consultants appear much more frequently to explain Iraq, than the troops who fought in the war. Note the names in the Times article, and think about how many times you have seen them on television. Then think about how many times you've seen the veterans who fought in this war on those same shows to offer a different point of view.
That's a problem. As far as too many networks are concerned, retired senior officials with no experience in the current conflicts are more credible than the troops who actually fought in the wars. Even if those retired men simply parrot the lines the Pentagon feeds them.
There are exceptions. Hardball has been excellent at giving Iraq and Afghanistan veterans a voice. Countdown with Keith Olbermann has given veterans of the wars so many opportunities to talk about what they saw. CNN has offered some opportunities, as well, but could do even more.
But those are the exceptions, not the rule. I sincerely hope that network and cable news takes a much more critical look at who they are putting on the air, and what their angle is. To this point, I'm sad to say, the news has been so infected with Pentagon mouthpieces that the war has been largely analyzed through a rose-colored camera lens.
The media still has a chance to make amends. One easy and quick way would be to put those on air to analyze the war, who actually served in the war. This is the entire reason that VoteVets.org exists - to give voice to America's 21st Century Patriots - those who fought in the wars and agree with the majority of troops and veterans, who consistently say in poll after poll that we are on the wrong track in Iraq.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Back to original topic...I would be very interested to hear the unvarnished views of (ret?) Admiral William Fallon. I suspect he could blow quite a few lids of the cauldrons of the Pentagon.
Jon, while you do make it clear that there are retired senior officers you do like, namely those with whom you agree, you don't make it really clear who else you'd like to see. When you praise one network for having the men and women who served there, you clearly state that they talk about what they saw. But, are they qualified to speak about strategy? How about tactics? The average Corporal, Sergeant, Lieutenant, or Captain, is unqualified to speak of the larger issues.
The networks want to hear from people who have the inside sources. If the Pentagon chooses to whom it will release that information, how can you demand that uninformed people be the spokesmen for those networks?
Semper fi
Berettasskeeter, I think think the important thing to look at is how people who have risen through
the ranks to become field officers could have such 180% view on reality. They seem pretty well
split on the war in Iraq. Meanwhile the war against the taliban is on the back burner as they regroup in the Hindu Kush. Wish I could have a beer with you and talk about this stuff. Take care
Marine..................... Dogman, U.S.Army, 44th Scout Dogs, 25th Infantry Division, Vn 1967/68
You make a terrific point, but one which I think is immaterial. People have differing views. I think that sums up your point. And I think the fact that the Pentagon gives more information to those who agree with the administration is a natural. Why would they open the door to those opposed? Well, perhaps they might try to win them over, but...
I second the beer!
Semper fi
The MSM think some polygamists in Texas and their hairdo's are more important than the fact that they (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) failed us miserably in informing the public with unbiased reporting about the war in Iraq. They are afraid to admit their mistakes and bring attention to it. They are greedy cowards.
Shocking story? The shock would be if you didn't already know this.
Interesting that these men, apparently without security clearances, were able to access material that Congress, the press and all other Americans were denied on the grounds of "National Security" and "Presidential Privilege." Any laws broken there?? Shouldn"t they at least be made to pay the taxpayers back the money they earned lying to us and freebee travel, etc.
"It's eerie how in unison the voices were." There's the clue. Its been blatantly there since at least as far back as Nixon and Johnson - and actually back to the Eisenhower administration's Red Scare propaganda. It was Eisenhower who warned us to beware of the Military Industrial Complex, but he named no names, and the press continued to spew their lies.
So why has it taken all you other experts so long to notice the obvious?! Eisenhower warned us in the late 1950's it 2008. Where have the truth tellers been? Napping with Rip Van Winkle presumably!
Aren"t there rules and laws that forbid military and retired military from using their military positions to be involved in politics, and politicizing. It is obscene for the military to promote its war.
Certainly if there are no laws as such, Congress should create civil penalties for ranking military officers who encourage war making and who are involved in the political aspects of prowar propaganda. That is Congress"s and the President"s power. The military are supposed to obey lawful orders, say "Yes, Sir." and otherwise keep their mouths shut.
It really did not get lost to some of us, I assure you.
I am sorry that it seems to be getting drowned out by the the primary battle.
But I understand that the first step is to clear the White House of this disgusting corruption and find a viable alternative. Until that happens there is little we can do to ensure it never happens again.
This is not over, many of us commented and we are not finished yet!
I and I hope others have written to every Media outlet mentioned in the story castigating them for their failure to apply their own standards. I am also writing to every company mentioned in this expose and to every retired Gen. I can get a list on.
These war-for-profit whores need to be held accountable.
I hope someone more skilled than I at setting up a site will create a rogues gallery so that their betrayal of Americans and those serving in a war built on lies are never forgotten!
I am available as an analyst for any major or cable TV channel. I would enjoy the pay. I am not very concerned about what I say. I'll slant it anyway I'm asked. Just pay me. I'd like an advance of $4000. for wardrobe.
P.S. In lieu of a resume. I'm smarter than Jerry Rivers ( I mean Geraldo Rivera).
Why is it that the MSM feeds off of those old guys or some who never have served in war time? I wonder that when I see the same dudes over and over saying the same crap. Is there any of those generals who "retired" early or who left because they were tossed out who can give us real knowledge about what they think and where they were? I can now see clearly the points made about the chosen ones to speak on camera. I just thought (?) they agreed of stuff not that they were spoonfed and we heard the feed. MSM should look at the way this has worked and we should look long and hard at how MSM played a part in this. I want to believe we have a free and open press but at times like this when I have been manipulated by the government it makes me too mad for words I want to write.
Why is this a surprise? The revolving door is nothing new; why did it take so long for a major media outlet to break this story? We knew most of these guys were 'consultants'. I took it for granted all along that most of these guys were full of it. The big story here is the shameful state of the media-industrial complex.
Let us not forget who is perhaps the most culpable in this whole enterprise: the networks who continually invite these lobbyists to spew Administration talking points. I wonder if enough people would boycott CNN and other mainstream media stations? Some of the comments have been about taking action -- well, Americans do not seem to be in agreement on what is ailing our country and consequently, we cannot form a consensus, so boycotts and protests and other forms of civil disobedience have not been successful.
The one point I found particularly disturbing in the NY Times article was that these retired generals who are now lobbyists, were given unprecedented access to classified information. DISTURBING
You may also want to get some opinions from the largest Afghanistan - Iraq veterans organization, VetsForFreedom.org
Jon, that Times story nearly knocked me out of my chair when I read it. How COULD they? (The generals, that is.) We all deserve to know more about which DOD contracts may have been approved because these retired brass hats took on p.r. for Rumsfeld & Co., instead of standing up for the men under fire in Iraq. I was tremendously impressed, on the other hand, by the force and vigor and backbone of the retired generals (Eaton, Batiste et al) who spoke against the powers-that-be and on behalf of groups like yours. All of you need to keep up the good work. You cannot afford to stop letting us know what is really going on until every one of our military personnel is back home safely and getting the care and benefits they were promised. By the way, were Batiste and Eaton aware of the special arrangements with some of their retired colleagues? What did they think of the Times story?
Excellenty point.
These officers have betrayed their Commands and the enlisted men who have to rely on their military "expertise."
Just like, Collin Powel they are in it for the money.
How many dead are equal to one seat on a board of directors?
Some geniuses at the times finally got it right.
The media Trojan Horse is a both a filter and an amplifier. Countering critics is done by drowning their message out and substituting the themes and messages desired. It has always amazed me that military officers are given so much credibility with the public. After the experience in Vietnam, I am always reluctant to accept the word of military brass on any issue because of the political and financial issues involved. Judith Miller of the NYT did her share. having access to sources inside the Pentagon and other government offices allows politicians to hand out the garbage with the desired spin. The symbiotic relationship between the media and Pentagon has destroyed the independence of the press and media in our democracy. The conservative brain trust spoon feeds the willing participants in the media. The "analysts" are only "surrogates" and "message force multipliers."
Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Rice made a focused push for war and then claimed that there was faulty intelligence. The effort to connect the attacks of 9-11 with Iraq started on 9-12, according to Rumsfeld's notes. "9-11 ---SH" (for Saddam Hussein). Now these people push for demonization of Iran as a clear and present danger, echoing the administration's "talking points."
The military has gotten a free past on their role in starting wars-for-profit based on the presumed heroic service to our country while in the military. Thank you for pointed out that their palms are too often crossed with silver.
Carl Bernstein published a great article outlining the manipulation of the media in Rolling Stone, 1977.
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
The difference bewteen us and Russia is that the Russians knew their news was not independent. Americans, on the other hand, are told we are free. We assume our media is too, contrary to reality. All is not what it seems. Our representatives aren't in control either. They put on a good show, but underneath it all, they are doing someone else's bidding. Do they represent us or the corporation called the United States of America? Google and research the difference, because there is a difference. So if it's the latter, their allegiance is not to us but to some fuzzy bank who's ownership and control is well hidden so the average Joe has no clue as to who is really running our country. You are right on about this matter. As are most issues that revolve around our government, everything is compartmentalized, thus the right hand is not aware of what the left hand is doing (at a certain level). That is why it is hard to put the soldiers on TV. They don't get all the information and may not know the true reason why they are doing x, y or z. What must they think when a van full of "crazy Muslims" turns out to be Brtiish special forces dressed like Arabs with bomb making equipment on board?
I tend to agree with you. I tried to get a job with CBS as a military commentator but was ignored.
CornellRedneck, PFC E-3 (Ret.)
E-3, eh... that was your first mistake... working for a living before applying for the consulting job!
Lockheed Martin,
Boeing,
Northrup Grumman,
Raytheon,
General Dynamics,
L-3 Communications (formed from 10 former business units of Lockheed Martin),
United Technologies,
KBR Inc. (aka Kellogg Brown & Root, spun off from Halliburton),
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation),
General Electric,
Honeywell,
ITT,
Computer Sciences Corp.,
ATK (Alliant Techsystems),
DRS Technologies,
Booz Allen Hamilton,
Textron,
Rockwell Collins,
EDS (Electronic Data Systems),
URS Corporation (which contains EG&G as a division),
and Goodrich.
Just some of the U.S. defense contractors who are dipping their bread into the gravy of Iraq, listed here in order of their 2006 defense revenues, from most (Lockheed Martin at more than $36 billion) to least [source: Defense News].
I figured maybe you could use some of the specific names, which are behind this vaguely named thing called "The Pentagon" (which seems largely to be a central clearing house, for defense contracts drawing money out of the U.S. Treasury, specifically in the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom; a clearing house run mostly by the defense contractors themselves).
I figured you might want to know specifically who it is that employs these "military experts", and who pays them their small slice of that money, drawn from the U.S. Treasury in the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom (paid as a sort of "brokers fee" I guess).
Beyond Words
I have asked this question many times to all of you, "What would you do if you knew beyond any doubt, that your Nations leaders where running a criminal enterprise in and with your government for the benefit of a handful of Power drunk Robber Barons"?
The answer is clear. NOTHING. All of you share in the responsibility for these atrocities. Every person that knows the truth and has done nothing, has a share in the blood of the innocent, has a share in the loss of our Nation. What will you tell your children and your grandchildren when they ask what happened to our Country, to our Freedom.
If all you have done these last seven years is complain, know this, your words fall on ears stopped up full of the money from the masses, drained from them via the schemes cleverly concealed in broad daylight.
And you did nothing, hold on to your asses you masses, your about to reap the whirlwind of your inaction.
Well Pierre,
What have you done? What have you risked to stop this war? Unless the public is backing your actions protest is a waste of time. We had less than 100 show up for an antiwar rally near here. Less than a hundred in a population of 250,000.
No one gave us the finger. They honked and gave us thumbs up. The media was great.
I had a good time, met some nice patriotic Americans, but we accomplished nothing.
I was on active duty from '03 through '07 and thought long and hard about resigning my commission. It would make me feel good for about a day. Then the realization of how it would affect my family set in. No job. No security clearance. Worse no one who would care. Look at the young captain in the Army who refused to deploy. Do you even remember his name? He's a hero, already forgotten.
In a few years we'll all forget another hero Pat Tillman. Do people even remember he has a brother who served?
Unless you're consumed by this war you barely pay it any notice and certainly not enough to discern fact from fiction. You could probably still find nearly half Americans believe Hussein was behind 9-11.
Thank you for your service brother, the job is not yet complete, your oath and mine was to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
For me it started when I stood 12 feet behind King George when he bull horned about "these buildings" on ground zero. I am and will always be, a person of ACTIONS and I have not yet begun to fight!
Somewhat off-topic but Wolf Biltzer is retelling the story that "convicted felons" are serving in the military.
I wonder if his point is the echo of Tom DeLay's, "I wanted to serve but the military didn't have any space for me." Does Blitzer want to (finally) serve but a pick-pocket has his beloved mortar team MOS?
Men with criminal records have served in every war. Why should an invasion and occupation be fought by only "pure as the driven snow" Americans? I think ex-cons wishing to turn their lives around (regardless the immorality of the war) via military service and an honorable discharge is a good thing.
Besides, men with no prior criminal records and a distinguished military record are now sitting in prison: example Randy Cunningham.
Pierre: Your fervor is commendable but you also do not propose any solutions. What are the five top actions items you believe should be taken?
please review some of what I write and some of what I do and continue to do. both below and in my past comments.
It sure was quiet in front of Independence Hall in Philly at 9am on the 19th this past Saturday.
Just one in a long line of journey's taken on behalf of a Nation of vegetables.
Assuming what you imply is true -- that there is a hidden cabal of corporate Svengali types running the Pentagon and federal government as a facade -- what the hell good will ANY anti-war rally do? Or are you proposing something more, um, proactive?
This ain't 1776, PierreLeClerke. Given the Goebbels-like efficiency of the neo-cons, my guess is even the faintest whiff of rebellion would be met with "gotta fight the terr'ists." They will NOT allow the 60's all over again. Next stop: Internment camps in Kansas for "re-patriotization" training of the poor misguided bastards who get caught doing or saying anything even laughably deemed "threatening."
You're right that this is serious and a mortal threat to democracy itself... But unless you're sitting on a pile of radically advanced alien military hardware, I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. You're angry, sure; we all are. And you scorn the posts of others here -- if I have to be a vegetable, I'm going with the rutabaga -- but you STILL haven't suggested anything useful. So you were at Independence Hall on the 19th? BFD. Is that going to shatter the choke hold the military industrial complex has on America?
Please. Everyone who has been paying attention since that Oedipal nightmare took office in 2001 KNOWS we're in trouble. I have yet to hear or read, anywhere, a reasonable plan for getting out of this mess. Any concrete suggestions would be welcome.
epu
Pierre: I appreciate the response but it didn't address my question. To repeat, what are the top five actions you recommend be taken against the "robber barons?" It is ok if you don't have any action items, just say so.
Jon, we know several retired Generals who have tried to give analysis other than Pentagon spin..most did serve in this war or tried to pass on experience prior to it. Their services are no longer required. The blind spots will continue if the only Vet running for President is elected. The same mentality that believes education will spoil retention will continue to shade the American public from the truth in Iraq. The title "President", "General", "Secretary of ....", or POW does not mean automatically the best.
Keep it up,you're up against entrenched interests,I always enjoy your analysis on tv.
Iraq is on the backburner Jon which is why the excellent article by the NY Times is getting little attention. Ditto for the meetings where they officially approved torture. The question is why.
It's because with bare majorities in both houses Congress is IMPOTENT. We will stay the course through January because Bush has the power. And if McCain wins more of the same. The only hope we have is for Republicans to break ranks and to date they have not done so.
I said it before but Hitler's folks had nothing on the Bush propoganda machine. Not only is the military hierarchy filled with neocon evangelicals former officers are too beholden to the defense industry to do anything but parrot the administration's lies.
Hitler only had radio... television is much more powerful.
There are some very talented Americans out there. Take a listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ojuupmnvmw
Posted April 21, 2008 | 11:43 AM (EST)