But the best part of the Time's investigation is the exploration of the links between these retired military officers and defense contractors. From the article...
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. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
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.
To the people out there who still support the war....do you understand what is going on here and why we are really in Iraq? Or is this just another traitorous article from the Times?
If you answered yes to the last question, put down your cup of Kool Aid and please report to your local neurosurgeon for your annual checkup on the lobotomy you received in November of 2000.
15 comments:
I read that today too. This war has been about one thing from day one: money. To think otherwise is pure folly.
How do you suppose people are going to feel now that we can truly see how much control this administration has had over the media? How they sold this war?
God, this article made me ill. And conservatives bitch about government control? What do you call this?
The print version of today's Times has documentation to back up all of Barstow's claims.
Yeah, pride, I read the print version as well. Stunning. I really can't wait to see the spin from the right on this one.
I just updated the post to include a link to those documents that were in the print version
Just when I thought people on this blog were moving back into the realm of rational thought, this comes out.
This isn't news, people. If you are still clinging to the idea that this sort of stuff doesn't happen in the world, indeed in our country, every day, then you are the one who needs to put down your Kool Aid. If you are still pushing the dream of a leader who doesn't participate in a significant amount of this sort of stuff then you are the one spinning reality.
But, as usual, Markadelphia draws an overly dramatic conclusion and makes grandiose comparisons to Nazi Germany and so many of you are quick to cream yourself because it supports your nicely-packaged perception that GWB is evil, and that "they" (or perhaps "They") are the ones responsible for ruining this country.
You and your party are the people I'm supposed to listen to as far as what's best for this country? If you want an answer to why more people don't support Obama and Dems, just re-read this last posting.
Actually, PL, many supporters of the Iraq War believe that we are there to defend ourselves and stuff like this doesn't happen in our country. They tell me time and again that the media did not help sell the war and the defense and oil industry are not making any money in Iraq. Did you read the link to the DOD memos?
I'm not quite certain what your point is but I have been berated to offer hard evidence proving that our country went to war to make money for the defense industry and the oil industry. Period. End of Discussion.
Well, here is your proof. Giving the fact that I know you to be of high moral character, I would hope that your disgust would not be as misplaced as it is.
The point (which I've failed to communicate before, and apparently am failing to communicate again) is that there is a dramatic difference between these two points:
a) the media did not help sell the war and the defense and oil industry are not making any money in Iraq
b) our country went to war to make money for the defense industry and the oil industry
The sources you cite support one and not the other. You can be morally opposed to a) all you want...you and I will have to continue to agree to disagree on that. But your Period. End of Discussion. assertion is the sort of leap in logic that is typical of the anger and, frankly, arrogance that is spewing forth from the far left these days. Your proof is yet again something that is undeniably true, but doesn't actually prove the position you are attempting to take.
As has been discussed before, it's the difference between causation and correlation. I know that you know the difference...I'm just suggesting you should apply that knowledge.
You're angry that fat cats somewhere get rich off the war? Great. I appreciate that quality in you. You believe that the war was started with the intent of making money for those people? Great. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I happen to believe the facts support otherwise. But you and I, and in a larger sense those that we choose to represent us, will never have productive conversations if "belief" is constantly represented as fact. You ding conservatives all the time on their attempts to interject their beliefs (i.e. creationism) into a forum that is fact-based (i.e. science class). I see no difference between that and what you just attempted to sell to us.
"I happen to believe the facts support otherwise."
In light of these newly released documents, how do these facts jibe with yours and what exactly are these facts? I certainly can be dense at times but I think I really need to understand exactly what you agree with me on and what you don't agree with me on again in light of these documents.
These documents and the article as a whole prove that Rumsfeld/Cheney had a plan from the beginning and they knew that the media had to be dealt with so they wouldn't have a repeat of Vietnam. The military experts, all of whom worked for defense contractors and stood to gain billions of taxpayer's money from the war, went on TV and sold it like it was the Home Shopping Network.
They abused American's honesty and patriotism and led them to believe that this war was about containing Saddam Hussein when in reality it was about re-setting the table so they could get back their bigger piece of the pie.
Whoa, it's the Thread Assassin!
In the (cyber)flesh, baby!
Well perhaps it boils down to a matter of interpretation of intent, and that's something about which I know you will not give GWB and entourage the benefit of the doubt. The fact that Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., "had a plan" and "knew that the media had to be dealt with" is not evidence that the war was started with the intent of executing said plan. Another perfectly viable explanation is that "the plan" was created in anticipation of the eventuality of war...something that frankly I would expect out of the leadership of this country. (Wouldn't you? If they didn't have a plan for war and a plan to deal with the media to avoid another Vietnam, you'd tear them a new a-hole for failing in both those areas.)
The only "proof" of the accusations you level that I read in the documentation you've cited here and in the posts from previous few years invariably begin "Gen Suchandsuch believes...". Now, I grant you that Gen Suchandsuch has much more information than I do. I also grant you that it's possible (although unlikely) that the conclusions you've drawn from Gen Suchandsuch's statements are accurate. And, as before, I grant you that information was botched and misused in the run-up to the war as well as in the subsequent years. But I emphatically reject the notion that these documents, or any other you've cited over the years (can you say "Downing St Memo"), are the smoking gun for which you've so desperately been searching these past few years. Again, from what I'm reading, they are just the latest in your history of attempts to use perception and inference to "prove" your perceived reality that the war was started with the express purpose of making some people rich.
I don't know pl but you are tryig hard to defend a simple act of lie and deceit on the part of the Bush-Chaney-Rumy. They may not have prdicted all the details but they had a plan to make a lot of money out of this and have done so. I knew most of this long before the recent article, just read a newspaper printed outside the US!
Stop everything - Hillary, Barack and McCain are going to make a taped appearance on Monday night Raw tonight. 3 hour show that starts at 7:00 central.
Which one will be put in the flying butt pliers?? (Ren and Stimpy reference there)
It's all about the GRAPEFRUITS!
Oh, well, elahe, obviously I stand corrected. If only I had been able to divine the truth as you have. My apologies.
Loose sidecars:
War on crime, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on global warming, war on terror...yet still called the Department of Defense...used to be the War Department til 1949...
Great op/ed quote in Oregonian...it takes the US military 12 weeks to take a raw recruit and create a fighting machine...how come it takes more than 5 years to train the Iraqi military to do the same?
...because someone must 'lead' said recruit. Building experienced leaders takes a wee bit longer.
So it’s the offseason (for football anyway, God’s gift to sporting) and I’m left to pine away that I don’t have my dream job, sports commentator. I’d make a great sports commentator; I love sports, know a fair bit about it and am very opinionated. But alas, those jobs are generally reserved for those with a great deal of sports background & experience, like ex-ballplayers. This is not unlike lobbyists or political/military analysts…jobs which frequently go to those with inside knowledge of both their industry & the inter-workings of gov’t…as opposed to coffee house philosophers. I can see that this is a shock to you.
And here’s another whopper…the Department of Defense is actually tasked with planning for wars. Can you believe that? Actually planning, before the war, for a war, just in case there is a war. Jumpin’ Jehosaphat!, let me sit down a sec… Here’s another revelation, there are all sorts of jobs in the military that don’t involve carrying a weapon; like cook, supply, PR, intelligence, truck driver… They too plan their jobs just like any other reasonably employed individual. This might be a stretch for you all, but if one’s job is PR, it might even make sense to plan out your message so that you know what you’re talking about and organize your team’s efforts. I for one, utilize this method before nearly every presentation so that my comments are orderly and effective. Crazy, isn’t it?
And just when you thought there wasn’t another stunner left in the bag, here’s another…people with all sorts of different careers partake in this thing called “networking”. They actually talk to people who talk to people who talk to people…it’s a great way to get ahead in life, because you see, people like to work with people they know a little more about than just looking at a resume. Can you believe that they even write books on the very topic? Now you’re a special lot, but this is not foreign to everyone. Take for instance, the Clintons; they didn’t care much for the travel agent they were provided upon taking office so they fired them and brought in some people they were more comfortable with. Contacts…networking…diabolical, isn’t it?
Post a Comment