Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - "I am Mad as Hell and I Can't Take it Anymore!

host · 05-02-2008, 09:43 AM

I've just taken a two week hiatus from this forum, and I am trying to put "the why", into words and examples:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 1976 Film, tilted; "Network"

All I know is that first you've got to get mad. (shouting) You've got to say, 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!'

The "whys", seem to be related to my reaction to long time "stuff" posted on this forum:
(I don't mean to single out these two posters....I see the "disconnect"....on the war, the media, US politics, energy consumption, <h5>to be nearly universal on this forum</h5>, in perception of one or more of the above four areas...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

01-22-2006, 10:34 PM

...If the Democrats want to win, they'll run someone like Joe Leiberman, who is a moderate and has obvious integrity.

More than two years later, this was posted just three days ago, and there was no reaction to it from ANY follow up post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.....Personally I'd love a McCain/Liberman ticket, it would be a true moderate ticket, but but it would never fly with the party faithful.

<h5>The "moderate", Joe Lieberman:</h5>

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...gee/print.html

....Most of this speaks for itself -- loudly -- but there are a few short observations worth making and questions worth asking: 

(1) There is a very sizable portion of our country -- including a critically important part of the GOP base -- that favors endless militarism in the Middle East, encompassing not just Iraq but Iran and many others, for entirely religious and theological (rather than strategic or geopolitical) reasons. Perhaps that might be worth some greater discussion in the media. 

(2) Could we at least all agree that it is long past time to dispense with the outrageous taboo which prohibits a discussion of the allegiance to Israel among right-wing neocon warmongers like Joe Lieberman and the influence that it has in their advocacy of endless wars against Israel's enemies such as Iran and Syria? Given that the likes of Joe Lieberman have formed common cause with the likes of John Hagee, and they all explicitly say that God demands that the U.S. defend Israel and wage war against its enemies, isn't it rather impossible to pretend any longer that no such relationship exists? 

(3) Is there anyone who can identify the specific views of Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul that are "crazier" and more "unserious" than the views expressed here by John Hagee and Joe Lieberman? 

 (4) What exactly is the difference between the view of "radical Islam" that God demands that jihad be waged against Islam's enemies and the views expressed here by Hagee and Lieberman? Or the views of Osama bin Laden that God willed Middle Eastern land to Muslims and therefore can never be negotiated and the Lieberman/Hagee view that God willed it to Israel and can never be negotiated even if it means war? 

 (5) Could someone ask Joe Lieberman what exactly are the differences "between Israel and other nations"? 

(6) For all of you throngs of media stars out there who spent much time condemning the Democratic Party for involving itself with such a wild, despicable radical like Michael Moore, do you have anything to say about Joe Lieberman's close association with, and drooling praise for, someone who believes that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment against the City of New Orleans for its wretched sins? 

 If it is perfectly permissible for Joe Lieberman to openly associate with someone like John Hagee and keep his membership in the Serious, Sober, Important, Respectable, Sane Mainstream Club, with whom can't he associate himself? Is there ever a way for someone on the Right to remove themselves from respectable, mainstream Seriousness? UPDATE: Just as I was about to post this -- literally seconds before -- someone e-mailed me this <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html">new video from Max Blumenthal</a> which shows the true face of the Christian Zionist movement of Rev. Hagee, the one Lieberman has embraced so enthusiastically. Coincidence? 

In the video, which Blumenthal filmed at the convention two weeks ago, Hagee proclaims to cheering throngs, who are waiving Israeli flags: <blockquote> Therefore it is time for America to embrace the words of Senator Joseph Lieberman and consider a military preemptive strike against Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel. . .</blockquote> Blumenthal notes that of all the speakers at the convention, Lieberman received the "by far the best reception," and showed Lieberman saying this: <blockquote> I want to take the liberty of describing Pastor Hagee in the words the Torah uses to describe Moses. . . and those words really fit him. Like Moses, he has become the leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the Promise Land.</blockquote><h3>Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are total wackos. MoveOn.org and DailyKos is filled with fringe extremists. Iran is led by warmongering religious fanatics. And Tim Russert and Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman are very serious and responsible and wise.<h3> UPDATE II: This is how Serious People talk about other Serious People -- <a href="http://thehill.com/josh-marshall/its-all-but-over-for-lieberman-in-connecticut-2006-02-16.html">Serious Person Joe Klein</a> said this in February, 2006 about Serious Person Joe Lieberman (h/t <a href="http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/26/lieberman_hagee/permalink/c109821d49b28b5ad90251a8ddebc2e1.html">Zack</a>): "I could never imagine myself voting against him. But he was profoundly wrong about the most important issue of the past five years [Iraq]." Just think about that for a second. 

Klein goes on to criticize Lieberman for failing to express regret and error over Lieberman's support for Bush's invasion of Iraq. But Klein himself supported that invasion, and rather than expressing regret or remorse himself, now <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/joe-klein-seeks-to-master_b_40479.html">falsely claims that he did not</a> (i.e., deceives everyone by claiming he opposed the war). Klein and Bill Kristol are two of the featured columnists in Time Magazine. And, like Lieberman, they are both very very Serious. UPDATE III: At Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/26/11554/6528">makes the case</a> that Beltway media elites have lost the ability to define "serious" and "mainstream." I agree with his essential point, and the trend is definitely in the direction he describes, but I think that he overstates the case. Many, many Americans still rely on establishment media figures as their principal source for political analysis. ...

<h5>The "democrat party" are "extreme left":</h5>

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...yer/index.html
Friday May 2, 2008 07:50 EDT
What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA?

(updated below)

Are House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and a small handful of "Blue Dog" Democrats working in secret to reverse one of the only worthwhile acts of Congressional Democrats since they were given control of Congress in 2006: namely, the refusal to vest the President with vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and bequeath lawbreaking telecoms with amnesty? It certainly appears that way.

Numerous reports -- both public and otherwise -- suggest that Hoyer is negotiating with Jay Rockefeller to write a new FISA bill that would be agreeable to the White House and the Senate. Their strategy is to craft a bill that they can pretend is something short of amnesty for telecoms but which, in every meaningful respect, ensures an end to the telecom lawsuits. It goes without saying that no "compromise" will be acceptable to Rockefeller or the White House unless there is a guaranteed end to those lawsuits, i.e., unless the bill grants amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms.

Even Capitol Hill insiders are baffled at the impetus for this new drive to capitulate. For the first times in years, the House Democratic caucus unified to take an actual stand on an issue relating to Terrorism -- all but five Blue Dogs voted for the House bill and rejected the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill. Even the GOP accepted that their fear-mongering campaign around the issue had failed, as there was no public outcry demanding that the President be allowed to spy on Americans without warrants or that telecoms be allowed to break the law with impunity. Key Blue Dogs have been making impressive public statements insisting that they will not reverse their position.

Hoyer's motives, then, appear to be two-pronged: (1) he and the House Democratic leadership simply want to grant amnesty to telecoms -- they favor it -- because they do not want the lawsuits relating to illegal spying to proceed to resolution; and (2) they are deferring to the tiny number of Blue Dogs who favor amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping. This article from The Hill this week specifically identifies freshman Rep. Chris Carney as demanding that the House comply with the President's demands:...

<h5>The Vietnam war was a "noble" war, and we must have "withdrawal with honor" if we are ever to have our military leave Iraq:</h5>

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...food-aid_N.htm

...The proposal would be combined with $178 billion that Bush wants for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The defense money is controversial in Congress, but there is growing consensus for increased food aid.....

<h5>The prominent "journalists" of the major media are "too liberal":</h5>

Quote:

http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/ar...28/953442.aspx
What Times is it?
Posted: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:20 PM by Barbara Raab
Filed Under: Brian Williams

By Brian Williams, Anchor and managing editor

....On the other hand, one sparkling piece of journalism (which touched on a lot of themes frequent readers of this space will recognize) was by <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120906741679842493.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc">Peggy Noonan in this weekend's Wall Street Journal.</a> Curl up with this one and give it the quality time it deserves. I'll say it again: Peggy is doing the work of her career and must be considered an early favorite for next cycle's Pulitzer for commentary......

http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/ar...30/955693.aspx
Different Times
Posted: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:41 PM by Barbara Raab
Filed Under: Brian Williams

By Brian Williams, Anchor and managing editor

....A few of you correctly noted I’ve yet to respond to the recent Times front-page article on the military analysts employed by the television networks, including this one.

I read the article with great interest. I've worked with two men since I've had this job -- both retired, heavily-decorated U.S. Army four-star Generals -- Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey. As I'm sure is obvious to even a casual viewer, I quickly entered into a close friendship with both men. I wish Wayne were alive today to respond to the article himself.

I made four trips to Iraq with Wayne. We were together, in close quarters, for over two months at the start of the war and survived at least one harrowing adventure. I won't attempt to respond on Wayne’s behalf, and I know Barry McCaffrey has his own response to the article.

All I can say is this: these two guys never gave what I considered to be the party line. They were tough, honest critics of the U.S. military effort in Iraq. If you've had any exposure to retired officers of that rank (and we've not had any five-star Generals in the modern era) then you know: these men are passionate patriots. In my dealings with them, they were also honest brokers. I knew full well whenever either man went on a fact-finding mission or went for high-level briefings. They never came back spun, and never attempted a conversion. They are warriors-turned-analysts, not lobbyists or politicians.

As far as Wayne was concerned, he was an NBC News employee, and while he would never do anything to diminish his decades of extraordinary service (nor would we expect him to), we all marveled at how quickly he took to the notion of being a journalist -- taking a good, hard, critical look at the Pentagon as an entity, the way "analysts" do.

And about General McCaffrey: I was among those who fielded complaint calls -- from the Pentagon, from the White House, from the highest levels of the Administration -- protesting his harsh criticism of the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the war effort. General Downing and I (during some unscheduled "down time" in the Iraqi desert at the height of the invasion) watched the U.S. military supply line in the distance, driving through the darkness, undefended. Because he viewed it as a result of fighting the "war on the cheap," he was infuriated by it, and said so. General McCaffrey's criticisms were too numerous to mention, but here’s a particular favorite from Nightly News on August 3, 2006:....

<h3>Above is the defense posted by NBC news anchor, Brian Williams, begun with criticism of the NY Times and praise for Peggy Noonan, followed by William's rationale (excuses...) for not responding on his nightly news show, to this NY Times front page article:</h3>
"Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times
The Pentagon has cultivated “military analysts” in a campaign to generate favorable ... wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/wa...pagewanted=all

<h5>The following excerpt documents the activities, financial interests, and political alliances of Brian Williams' "non-political" NBC news, military consultant generals:</h5>

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ams/print.html
Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story
The NBC News anchor is finally forced to address the NYT exposé -- on his blog. His self-defenses raise far more questions than they answer.

Glenn Greenwald

Apr. 30, 2008 | (updated below)

.... Both McCaffrey and Downing were about as far from "independent" as a news analyst could possibly be. On November 15, 2002, a <a href="http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/04/committee-for-liberation-of-iraq-press.html">press release was issued</a> announcing the formation of something called "The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," which was devoted "to advocat[ing] freedom and democracy in Iraq." Its list of 25 members was filled to the brim with the standard cast of war-hungry neocons -- including Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Leon Wieseltier, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Eliot Cohen, and anti-Muslim "scholar" Bernard Lewis. Both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing -- the two extremely independent "news sources" hailed yesterday by Brian Williams -- were two of its 25 founding members. 

On the day of its formation, the group announced that they would meet later that day with then-National Security Adviser Condolleeza Rice to discuss Iraq. The group's President was quoted in the Press Release as follows: "We believe it is time to confront the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime by liberating the Iraqi people." Here was its stated purpose:<blockquote>The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq will engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. The Committee is committed to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy and the establishment of political pluralism, democratic institutions, and the rule of law.</blockquote>So this was a group devoted to building domestic support in the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq through so-called "educational and advocacy efforts." And NBC News then hired both Barry McCaffrey and Wayne Downing as supposedly "independent analysts" to opine to NBC's viewers about the war, and did so without ever once disclosing this affiliation to their viewers, without ever disclosing that they were dedicated to propagandizing on behalf of the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq. 

Beyond their ideological affiliations that negated their "independence," both McCaffrey and Downing had substantial ties to the defense industry which gave them strong financial incentives to advocate for the war. Worse, these ties were detailed all the way back in April of 2003 by The Nation, in <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030421/interns">an article entitled "TV's Conflicted Experts</a>:<blockquote>But some of these ex-generals also have ideological or financial stakes in the war. Many hold paid advisory board and executive positions at defense companies and serve as advisers for groups that promoted an invasion of Iraq. Their offscreen commitments raise questions about whether they are influenced by more than just "a lifetime of experience and objectivity"--in the words of Lieut. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a military analyst for NBC News--as they explain the risks of this war to the American people. 

 McCaffrey and his NBC colleague Col. Wayne Downing, who reports nightly from Kuwait, are both on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a Washington-based lobbying group formed last October to bolster public support for a war. Its stated mission is to "engage in educational advocacy efforts to mobilize US and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein," and among its targets are the US and European media. The group is chaired by Bruce Jackson, former vice president of defense giant Lockheed Martin (manufacturer of the F-117 Nighthawk, the F-16 Fighting Falcon and other aircraft in use in Iraq), and includes such neocon luminaries as former Defense Policy Board chair Richard Perle. Downing has also served as an unpaid lobbyist and adviser to the Iraqi National Congress, an Administration-backed (and bankrolled) opposition group that stands to profit from regime change in Iraq. 

 NBC News has yet to disclose those or other involvements that give McCaffrey a vested interest in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division in the Gulf War, is now on the board of Mitretek, Veritas Capital and two Veritas companies, Raytheon Aerospace and Integrated Defense Technologies--all of which have multimillion-dollar government defense contracts. Despite that, IDT is floundering -- its stock price has fallen by half since March 2002 -- a situation that one stock analyst says war could remedy. Since IDT is a specialist in tank upgrades, the company stands to benefit significantly from a massive ground war.</blockquote>The same article details that Downing had many of the same problems, including the fact that he sat on the "board of directors at Metal Storm Ltd., a ballistics-technology company that has contracts with US and Australian defense departments." None of this was ever disclosed to NBC's viewers -- not once -- as McCaffrey and Downing were paraded out by Williams and other NBC reporters as "independent" military analysts touting the need to invade and occupy Iraq. 

* * * * * 

In fact, rather than disclose these obviously relevant allegiances, Williams -- throughout 2003 and well after -- presented McCaffrey to his then-CNBC audience as the definitively objective, independent analyst, with introductions like this one, from the November 24, 2003 broadcast, as extremely typical:<blockquote>WILLIAMS: Retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey joins us from Seattle tonight. He earned three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, two Distinguished Service Crosses, was a division commander during the first Gulf War. 

 These days, he's a professor at West Point and an NBC News military analyst, and I know him well enough to know that he's going to want to say a word here, General, and please feel free, about the value of sergeant majors in the U.S. Army who are as talented and as beloved as that man. 

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY, NBC MILITARY ANALYST: Well, you know, you're right on the money, Brian.</blockquote>As always, there was not a word to NBC's viewers that this "NBC Military analyst" was on the Board of Advisers of a neocon group devoted to persuading Americans of the need to invade and occupy Iraq, nor a word about his financial investments in the policies he was advocating. Just look at the completely deceitful way that Williams presented McCaffrey repeatedly, and the type of "independent analysis" to which NBC viewers were consequently subjected. From the September 8, 2003 broadcast:<blockquote>WILLIAMS: We are joined now from Washington by retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey, one of the foremost military experts currently in civilian life. He was a division commander during the first Gulf War, now a professor at West Point, and an NBC News military analyst. 

 General, let's start with what Senator Harkin just said. You were far from a protester of Vietnam, you were on the other end of it as a combatant. He said it smells like Vietnam, so do the bills coming in for it. Do you concur at all? 

 GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY: No, not at all. I think there could be two inept metaphors in Vietnam applied to either Central America, Iraq, or any of the current crises we're facing. That was a very different, externally supported war by a homogeneous people who were essentially on the tail end of a struggle against colonialism, using communism as a vector. 

 My gosh, this is nothing like that. I think Iraq -- By the way, just to get to the heart of the matter, Brian, I actually think the president's speech was an item of tremendous political courage. He has now faced up to -- what I think he was getting from Secretary Rumsfeld was war on the cheap. 

 And now he's saying, We got to succeed, we got to have resources, forces, U.N. legitimacy. This is a step in the right direction . . . . But we better stay the course, or we're in trouble..</blockquote>Here is the dialogue those two shared on Mission Accomplished Day -- May 1, 2003:<blockquote>WILLIAMS: With us tonight to look back at the military operation and perhaps what today means as a media event and a significant event in the lives of the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen is retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey who, of course, commanded the 24th Mechanized during the first Gulf War. He is an NBC News analyst on military affairs. 

 General, let's start with today. The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military. 

General BARRY McCAFFREY (US Army): Oh, yeah, I think it's a huge shot in the arm to the morale of--of the entire armed forces, never mind to remind Americans why we pay for these 10-carrier battle groups. I mean, this is a -- just an enormous source of military power and the ability to influence events sometimes without fighting.</blockquote>In the weeks leading up to the invasion, McCaffrey was frequently on numerous NBC shows, including Williams', presented as an independent expert. On the February 18, 2003 edition of Williams' CNBC show, he was on with fellow war-supporter Michael O'Hanlon -- that was "balance" -- to talk about the risks of the war, and McCaffrey said: <blockquote> Well, I think that the Iraqis have no good options, and so what we're going to do, we will encounter chemical weapons. It will be abject misery. Some will be killed by them. It won't change the military operation. The biological weapons we hope will be deterred by some pretty strong background threats. I think what we're going to have to do is go in and take down 60,000 Republican Guard troops in stiff urban combat in Baghdad and Tikrit, and that's going to look, at rifle company commander level, like World War II for about five days.</blockquote>I could go on for pages printing similar exchanges Williams had with McCaffrey throughout 2003. The same is true for Downing, who was repeatedly presented to NBC viewers as an independent analyst without his multiple political and financial affiliations ever once being disclosed (Months before the war began, in November, McCaffrey was a guest on an MSNBC show to tout the launch of the new pro-war group; when McCaffrey was presented as an independent analyst throughout 2003 and beyond, that connection was never mentioned). 

It's true, as Williams points out as though it is exculpatory, that -- like Bill Kristol and plenty of other hard-core war supporters -- McCaffrey wanted more U.S. troops in Iraq. He even signed a <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm">2005 letter from PNAC</a> -- along with the likes of Kristol, the mighty Kagan Brothers, Max Boot, Frank Gaffney, Michael O'Hanlon and Peter Beinart -- demanding that more troops be deployed to Iraq (the Kagans, O'Hanlon and Beinart -- despite their relative youth -- were all unavailable for duty). 

It really ought to go without saying by now that advocating more troops for the War hardly made one a "war critic" nor did it demonstrate independence from the Bush administration's propaganda campaign for the War. To the contrary, the fact that both McCaffrey and Downing had financial ties to the defense industry which would stand to profit from policies entailing more defense spending further calls into question their independence, rather than resolves those questions. As The Nation reported back in 2003:<blockquote>McCaffrey has recently emerged as the most outspoken military critic of Rumsfeld's approach to the war, but his primary complaint is that "armor and artillery don't count" enough. In McCaffrey's recent MSNBC commentary, he exclaimed enthusiastically, "Thank God for the Abrams tank and . . . the Bradley fighting vehicle," and added for good measure that the "war isn't over until we've got a tank sitting on top of Saddam's bunker." In March alone, IDT [on whose Board of Directors McCaffrey sat] received more than $14 million worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support hardware.</blockquote>At the very least, NBC viewers ought to have been told of the numerous, substantial ties which these "independent" military analysts had. 

* * * * * 

What makes all of this even more astounding -- and what makes Williams' glib dismissal of these issues yesterday all the more indefensible -- is that all of these conflicts and all of this deceit was well-known long before the NYT article added more details. As I've repeatedly noted, concerns over the use by news networks of retired Generals masquerading as "independent analysts" were raised for years in multiple venues -- including <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04EEDF1230F936A15750C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all">by the NYT</a> and <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003791696">by the astoundingly prescient Colman McCarthy in The Washington Post</a>, and the networks simply ignored those concerns, marching along with their pro-war parade of military analysts. 

But far worse, the specific, undisclosed conflicts of both McCaffrey and Downing -- the two Generals cited by Williams to prove NBC did nothing wrong -- were disclosed more than four years ago by The Nation. And there is no way that NBC and Williams can claim not to have known about them, since The Nation described those ties as specifically as could be. Did NBC ask the Generals about these ties? Did they consider disclosing them to their viewers? Did the undislcosed ties violate NBC News policy? Does NBC have policies now to prevent this from happening again? Who knows? NBC refuses to comment on any of this. 

 In fact, it appears that NBC was informed of these specific conflicts by The Nation four years ago. From The Nation article:<blockquote>The networks don't seem too concerned about what the analysts do on their own time. "We are employing them for their military expertise, not their political views," Elena Nachmanoff, vice president of talent development at NBC News, told The Nation. She says that NBC's military experts play an influential role behind the scenes, briefing executive producers and holding seminars for staffers that provide "texture for both on-air pieces and background." Defense contracts, she adds, are "not our interest."</blockquote>That was just false. As I <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/23/brown/">noted last week after I interviewed CNN's former anchor Aaron Brown</a>, who offered a similar defense, these retired Generals -- certainly including McCaffrey -- repeatedly argued in support for the war and the ongoing occupation, not merely commented upon military tactics. But to NBC, the substantial financial interests of their "independent" military experts to advocate for the war were simply "not their interest." Of course, it's not all that surprising that NBC News doesn't consider these conflicts worth noting given that, as a subsidiary of General Electric, a corporation that also profits greatly from increased defense spending and wars, NBC News is plagued by the very same conflicts in its reporting on the Government's military policies. 

 * * * * * 

Just consider what is going on here. The core credibility of war reporting by Brian Williams and NBC News has been severely undermined by a major NYT expose. That story involves likely illegal behavior by the Pentagon, in which NBC News appears to have been complicit, resulting in the deceitful presentation of highly biased and conflicted individuals as "independent" news analysts. Yet they refuse to tell their viewers about any of this, and refuse to address any of the questions that have been raised. 

More amazingly still, when Brian Williams is forced by a virtual mob on his blog yesterday finally to address this issue -- something he really couldn't avoid doing given that, the day before, he found time to analyze seven other NYT articles -- Williams cited McCaffrey and Downing as proof that they did nothing wrong, and insists that his and their credibility simply ought to be beyond reproach because they are good, patriotic men. But those two individuals in particular had all kinds of ties to the Government, the defense industry, and ideological groups which gave them vested interests in vigorous pro-war advocacy -- ties which NBC News knew about and failed to disclose, all while presenting these individuals to their millions of viewers as "independent." Is there anyone who thinks that behavior is anything other than deeply corrupt? UPDATE: Yesterday, I sent an email to Williams' representative requesting an interview with him and/or an NBC News spokesperson about the issues raised here or, at the very least, a comment from them. I've received no response.

So, I am wondering....as in a "sanity check"....is it me...or has this country moved so far to the right that war mongering, right wing extremists, in the mainstream, are congenially regarded as centrists, and clueless, right leaning "journalists" like NBC's Brian Williams are regarded as "liberal media types", a world where McCain/Lieberman is to be described without challenge, as "moderate" political running mates?

If it isn't "me"....if I am considered lucid, is the disconnect I attempted to describe, the principle reason why our country is trapped in the midst of two unwinnable wars and in a situation where it's daily consumption of 25 percent of the entire world's total daily petroleum production, while we make up just 6 percent of the world's population, is not considered to be out of the ordinary, much less "dire", or "extreme" behavior and circumstances?