I remember a statement from Bush....when explaining his job....he said part of his job.."was to catapult the propaganda" any one else remember that?

Wow. These guys actually advocate talking in banal simplicities like World War II. Detailed logical analysis just gets countered by detailed logical analysis, so don't do it. They don't treat the public like we're stupid by accident or just because they're stupid, but because they really think we're stupid. One general said it, simplicity and framing. They don't care if they're spewing nonsense.

The mantra and mission of the gop, the more you say it the more people believe it, not matter how false the statement. cheney is the poster child of this tactic, and unfortunately there are people who buy into this bs. So when does the prosecution against rummy start, since its illegal to use propaganda against against our own people? Hopefully next january 21.

Rumsfeld has been a walking ego trip like a Mafia Don all his life. My wife's aunt worked at Searle Pharmaceuticals in the 70s when Rummy was CEO and she said everyone was terrified of him. He insisted on having elevators all to himself and his entourage. Other employees were required to exit when Don wanted to use their lift. It's not surprising that he acted like a tyrant when he was SecDef. Tyrants can only function when they are surrounded by sycophants.

First, "propaganda", in and of itself is not illegal, and in many cases may not at core be objectionable. Of course, the term "propaganda" has a negative connotation (although maybe not for the President), and is usually used as a perjorative by those who disagree with the message being delivered.

That said, the interesting thing here (which remains unexamined by the New York Times and others) is whether the analysts were tasked by the Pentagon to influence U.S. public opinion and the intention was to hide the hand of the U.S. government itself. It is that combination, where the Government seeks to influence while keeping its role in such influence secret that is pernicious (and perhaps illegal). Why illegal?

The National Security Act, Section 503, provides that "No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media," and a "covert action" is defined as "term "covert action" means an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly". This is not as clear as it may seem (for instance, a covert action is defined as taking place "abroad," but later the statute seems to prohibit covert actions at home. This has not been litigated, but is an important question.

It is also important from a policy perspective: the effect of a government policy to covertly influence public opinion would change both the perception and reality of ordinary life in the U.S.

The danger of such activity is illustrated by the case at hand, where Americans may have been tricked into believing that the opinions of experienced (but retired) military officers was significant because of its apparent independence from the U.S. Government. But that appears to have been false.

The "independent" military analysts are giving Rumsfeld advice on how to use the military for best political use.

"In terms of the political ties ... it seems like the political tie has been kind of ebbing away from you guys for awhile. ... But, is there some way that you're thinking about to maybe kind of regain the political tide in your favor by going on the offense. ... Are you going to go out there and, forgive me for the analogy, but start kind of poking people in the nose politically a little bit ...

... But it's got to be the kind of thing that -- what the two Toms were saying about the political, people not hearing the poltical message that you're trying to send sometimes may be seeing you on the offense a little bit"

Transcript p. 18

So covert briefings for military/lobbyist embeds in the networks, discussing how to help Rumsfeld poke people in the nose politically. geez.

And all those prohibitions in the national security act and elsewhere against covert domestic propaganda and using the military for psyops against Americans, phooey - talking about that stuff just makes Rumsfeld and his ex-gens gwumpy.

"RUMSFELD: ... So every time someone tries to do some information operations for some public diplomacy or something, they say oh my goodness,
it's multiple audiences and if you're talking to them, they're hearing you here as well and therefore that's propagandizing or something or it's not fair or it's not right"

Transcript 19 - 20.

Pssst Ex-Sec, what they should have been telling you is, "it's not LEGAL."

Good thing all the "team" were able to keep the sons and daughters in uniform "trusting" them while they went out and pulled this kind of crap. And be paid for it by the people they were actively bamboozling. While the bamboozled sons and daughters and families paid a different price.

And all the while, the good ol boys had a good "chuckle" over attacking the Constitution from within and using military psyops against the American people.

"... I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. That is PsyOps. Now most people hear that and they think oh my God, they're trying to brainwash --
SECRETARY RUMSFELD What are you, some kind of nut? Don't you believe in the constitution?[LAUGHTER]"
Transcript, p. 20

Using psyops against your own civilian population in violation of law and having a big snickersfest over it. That's not misquided or pompous, it's bad. Truly bad.

Ah, Alex, you sure your name is not David Frum or perhaps one of his cohorts? Seriously, though, one can always argue and/or defend parts of a campaign or program. It is the sheer mass of everything we now know about the run-up to war and the conduct of it that tells the whole tale. We were conned on the front end, and parts of the "con" are still going on. And like it always does, more will come out. What struck me in particular about the spring of 2006 and "The Revolt of the Generals" as some called those who spoke out. was the vehemence of the anger in those retired brass calling for Rumsfeld's being fired. Vanity Fair ran a lengthy piece in which each of the dissenting former generals was interviewed at length. One could sense there was a lot more these gentlemen could and would tell at a later time. So, when I read about Rumsfeld's "Message Multipliers," my first reaction was, "Oh, I'll bet Swannack, Eaton, et al know something about this foul-smelling arrangement, and perhaps it fueled some of their anger." Who, indeed, would have a better reason to be madder than hell about phony "neutral opinion" than a commander who retired so he could speak out with nothing to gain but a better plan for troops he used to command in Iraq?

I disagree with you AH.

All the meetings between gov and the "journalist/analysts" who were going to be going onto various national news networks and on various radio programs were all kept secret and the governments role in working with these journalists/analysts to develop a domestic message was not disclosed and was kept covert covert.

Keeping the meetings covert, and the content of the meetings themselves, was because, as specifically stated in the transcript, the meetings were to establish methods of influencing domestic politics and political opinions (see, e.g., references to how Rumsfeld needs to approach the political messaging).

This isn't really any different than the VRNs, except that the Pentagon used covert, undisclosed, government coordinated pre-programed messaging via "live" guests rather than VRNs. These guys also got trips. And all the appropriations bills include the language that, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."

Then there are also internal military prohibitions on domestic propaganda (at least, once upon a time there were) which all the retired military would have been aware of and Pace would have been bound by.

The transcript specifically talks about covertly targeting the domestic audience and covertly coordinating political messaging specifically to help Rumsfeld bloody noses politically and to influence domestic politics, all while never disclosing the role of the Pentagon in molding the messaging that the analyst/lobbyists were disseminating. There may also be Smith-Mundt aspects, since there are also discussions of how to shape the message to be delivered to the foreign audience (Iraqis) in such a way as to also impact the US audience - how to counter the al-Jazeera stories they are upset about (its a crusade, its our oil, its humiliation etc.) with a message ostenibly to the Iraqis and ME, but covertly crafted to affect the domestic market.

It's not AS cut and dried as Bush and Cheney's decisions to plant cherrypicked NIE with Judy Miller for disinformation purposes, but it certainly seems to pass more than a "johnu" test of meeting the elements of the violations.

The primary point that pervades is that when the government is meeting with people to shape a message, then sending those people out to deliver the message, the role of government has to be disclosed. Not years later, but at the time. Not only did that not happen, these guys were flat out laughing about being able to violate the laws because the Executive branch didn't have to worry about all that "constitution" and "laws" stuff.

Listen to those guys all giggle when they talk about the constitution. It's just a big joke.

The striking thing about it, as noted, is the craven obsequiousness they all show Rummy -- one of the most incompetent figures in American military history.

I may be a bit late on this thread, but the line that caught me is at the bottom of p25: an analyst remarks that it doesn't really matter whether the Iraqi government is democratic as long as it doesn't pose a threat to the U.S. in the war on terror. Did I misread this? Rumsfeld responds, "yeah."

Isn't this a bigger deal than the slavish praise?