Tom

Did you know that 90% of all statics are made up?

I don't think the main issue is with the poor sods who sell out of their integrity to earn a big buck for defence contractor firms. The main issue is the government's COVERT use of those guys. The gov't is not being frank in the way it tries to shape the information stream. So, basically, it is a case of the gov't deceiving its citizens. And remember, the gov't is a partisan player. Is that what voters want? We won't find out, because this gov't is not standing for the next election.

There's also the issue of the gov't paying off - in a not too subtle way - the analysts/contractors who followed the Defense Dept. talking points. Is that necessarily the best way to spend public money?

"Transparency" in the dealings of our elected officials and of the state agencies they administrate is of the utmost importance in a democracy.

No that is not what I said. I said that military personnel in uniform are bound by law to essentially support the administration's point of view. Out of uniform they are back to being private citizens and able to speak their minds. These guys are out of uniform and in the employ of various defense contractors who want access to inside information on no bid contracts which is contingent upon these guys dutifully repeating what the pentagon wants them to say while maintaining the illusion of independent military analysts with no financial interests in which way the war goes.

And did I not say in the first line of my post that everyone has an agenda? Therefore the media has an agenda.

You're not messing with me are ya? Because it seems as if you are not carefully reading what I have said.

SB

The end result is, that for a short time, due to its deft media-manipulation and 'information-dominance' efforts, the public opinion was hoodwinked into supporting baseless allegations, now, anything that has the government as a source has alleged, ' ' or so-called inserted before it.

Yes that is the undertow to the article and as others have pointed out the damage done to government credibility by these types of actions. There has not been this much at stake since Vietnam, and in a way this action once again brings us to another lowpoint in confidence regarding believing what our government is telling us. Thus we have the historically low ratings right now for the Bush administration. Whatever your feelings on the war (pro or against) no one should take comfort in having the government intentionally manipulate us. They could have put out the same information through a Pentagon Press Conference and it would have been an entirely different matter --- we would not have this controversy.

SB

Nope, sorry if it seems that way. I try to read carefully before I respond. If I screwed up here, than I apologize.

OK, everyone has an agenda. The media says it's unbiased, but it's not. These analysts apparently try to appear objective, but they're not.

Thank you for telling me how to think. I enjoy nothing more than a good paradox.

"Doesn't matter what you see,
Or into it what you read,
You can do it your own way,
If it's done just how I say."

You are free to do as we tell you...

Colt, go to Lockonfiles, there is a PM awaiting you there.

Are we now entering into metaphysics? If so I can offer up some Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon