We conservatives have never had a problem with the military. Only you liberals have.

Lesson for ya: the military is run by civilians. Oh! Didn't you know that? Well, it is a learning experience here, huh Hal?

You liberals crack me up!

Apparently, you're in need of a refresher on journalistic ethics wrt disclosure as well.

Really, guys. It's quite simple. Just put yourself in the position where this is a hated liberal administration doing this. What would be your response? Luckily, we have all of the nineties in the Clinton administration as historic record, so we already know and don't need to listen to any theoretical promises.

One thing that will be extremely sweet, though, is watching the glass shatter from all your high pitched screams come November 8th.

If an analyst is hired by a news agency and doesn't disclose his relationships that is a problem between them and only if they asked for disclosure. I suspect they didn't care as long as they got something newsworthy.

The problem is that there is a serious ethical breach here. It's not simply the case, as James is trying to assert, that there are ex military folk with a natural bias towards the military. I can't imagine anyone who thinks that they would have otherwise - it's a banal explanation. It's not that they are spouting the DOD spin. That's also common enough for ex military. The problem is that they are *presented* as untethered, objective analysts when they are, in fact, part and parcel of the DOD war effort. This creates a serious conflict of interest in the vital process of informing the public such that they can come to valid conclusions about what is going on - that's how we run the USA.

Again, it isn't about the pentagon lying. It's about the analysts and consultants lying about their conflicts of interests with the pentagon. Again, you people really should read the article in question instead of arguing about straw men you imagine the article is constructing.

Now, if James is down with that, then I think he should likely take a refresher course in ethics. I'd really love to hear why that is something to shrug off and claim is simply a normal matter of course.

It isn't.

I freely admit that this article is not conclusive evidence. But it's the first step in getting just that. If more people with inside knowledge come forth and substantiate the accusations here, then we need to have some trials.

I'm lied to every day by school board, city council, and state legislature. I have seen no evidence of Pentagon lies here so why would I move to Russia? In my country accusations need to be backed up stronger than we see here before I see a problem.

I still say this is selective outrage. People need to get some perspective.

a)There's a big difference between trying to convince the citizens to support a course of action and actively lying to the citizens to keep them from being pissed off about the actual results of those courses.

Now there's a charge you'll have to prove. Yes, you're being called out.

Something a lot of you people who aren't upset about this seem to be forgetting - This is tantamount to the US military being used against the US populace.

That would aonly be true if you can show us where the military is taking a false position.

The Pentagon has an interest and a right to use those sympathetic to their mission as proxies in the media battle.

Ummm.... no. No they do not.

The US government has a right to sell its positions & convince the citizenry to support them. But the US military is one particular part of the government, and has a very specific mission - defend the US from physical threats. And there are two major issues here as a result:

a)There's a big difference between trying to convince the citizens to support a course of action and actively lying to the citizens to keep them from being pissed off about the actual results of those courses. The former is a legitimate governmental interest; the latter is evidence of a failed and illegitimate government.

b)Something a lot of you people who aren't upset about this seem to be forgetting - This is tantamount to the US military being used against the US populace. If the charges & implications of this article are true, the military's propaganda functions are being used, not against our enemies, but against the possibility that our own citizens will decide that the current administration's policies are failing.

If you think that's OK, you're in the wrong country - go move to China or Russia.

You reprint in your own comment the fact that the NYT published Judy Miller. Are you pretending to be unaware of her breathless boosterism for the government's claims of WMD's in Iraq?

Maybe... just maybe she was telling te truth?
Nah, I don't suppose that to be something you could ever accept.

No one here has proposed "silencing" anyone.

That is the end result of what you propose.
Did you think that point would get by without comment? I note also you ignored the question. So, being a nice guy, I'll gve you a second chance to answer it. Should we be reining in Murtha? Or is he immune, since he's a LEFTIST member of the government?

And if you want Judeth Millar as the token centrist, shall we examine the lion's share of the paper's output as well? Or does that not support your position?

Bithead, why are you acting stupid? or ill?

You reprint in your own comment the fact that the NYT published Judy Miller. Are you pretending to be unaware of her breathless boosterism for the government's claims of WMD's in Iraq?

There is such a disconnection between what you write and the facts at hand that I wonder what on earth is wrong with you.

Take your latest:

Should we silence Jack Murtha, since he's part of the government, when he starts speaking of matters military?

No one here has proposed "silencing" anyone. The idea is simply that if the Pentagon is going to disseminate its views, it should do so openly, through its own public representatives, rather than surreptitiously, through ostensibly independent figures who in fact are secretly repeating talking points handed to them by the Pentagon. If nonetheless it does the latter, then it shouldn't do it *secretly*. DISCLOSURE, not SILENCING. That is easy to understand.

You make no sense at all, and it's embarrassing to watch.

As the saying goes, "there you go again". Never said it. Never implied it. It's only your paranoid ravings and twisted world view which made it up out of whole cloth. Cute.

Really? Explain to me how having only the anti-military speaking,doesn't amount to that.

Really. You mean the newspaper that published Judith Miller? In any event, again for that single bit brain of yours: THEY AREN'T THE GOVERNMENT. I don't know why that is so hard for you to figure out. They're a newspaper.

A leftist newspaper with a history of printing naught but, where military matters are concerned, anti-military screeds.

Let's test your position, though, because I think this will be amusing; Should we silence Jack Murtha, since he's part of the government, when he starts speaking of matters military?