Congratulations on your new gig!

Posted at May 16, 2008 8:13 PM in response to Thank you, Paul Kiel, and good luck!

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.

Posted at May 8, 2008 5:32 PM in response to Audio: Military Analysts Laud "The Leader" Rumsfeld

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.

Posted at May 8, 2008 4:51 PM in response to Audio: Military Analysts Laud "The Leader" Rumsfeld

So the guys who are most clearly on the criminal culpability line are all willing to show up and muddy the waters with lies about which Congress HAS done nothing and will do nothing - all leading up to eventual pardons of those "poor boys" Congress is being mean to - so they will all owe Bush.

Someone, somewhere, needs to pull out a dictionary and look up the differences between testify and test a lie.

Posted at May 6, 2008 3:02 PM in response to Yoo, Feith, Ashcroft Agree to Testify

Not ex-Army, but ditto on what Mr. Lafferty says above. Kerik was incompetent and bad news, but the damage done by "liberating" prostitutes instead of training police (Kerik's been gone a LONG time now, far too long for the CONTINUING failures of "training" for police and Iraqi military to lay at any one door) anyway, the damange done from that is far less than the damage done to Iraq as a nation, American soliders, America as a nation and countless Iraqi civilians by the actions of commanders like Sanchez over the many years we have been in Iraq.

Posted at May 5, 2008 4:21 PM in response to Sanchez: Kerik Was Focused on Busting Baghdad Whorehouses

Whether or not a Dem wins the general in KY or not, I think the post is wrong to say that Yarmuth and Chandler won't get top of the ticket help with Obama in their districts.

Yarmuth has a large African American population and a lot of Louisville Dems are not big Bubba supporters. UofL sits there and Obama's people do a great job motivating students.

Chandler in Lexington has UK (and Transy, etc.) sitting right there and again, the Dems there are not necessarily "Hillary" Dems.

Actually, a lot of the Hillary supporters are more likely to go with McCain in the general.

DemDave1972 - that's an interesting story. I've spent most of my life in Kentucky, IN and to a much lesser extent (3 years) VA. The only one of those states where the N word was used in front of me in a public place like a diner was VA. And that while Wilder was running. OTOH, the Klan used to try to stage marches in some nearby IN towns when I was a kid (over 3 decads ago).

I do think Hillary will win the primary, but I don't see an Obama endorsement hurting Yarmuth or Chandler and I don't see a ticket led by Obama hurting them at ALL in THEIR districts.

Posted at April 29, 2008 11:55 AM in response to Kentucky Rep. Ben Chandler Endorsing Obama

In five days, I did not observe a forced abortion

Did he think they were spectator events?

Unbelievable.

Posted at April 21, 2008 4:15 PM in response to Schaffer: What Forced Abortions? I Didn't See Any Forced Abortions

Good lord - think of the costs to try this the first time, much less a second time.

And while the taxpayers are paying for Mary Beth (not me, a very different Mary Beth) to curry political favor and help make herself a nice slot for when Bush leaves office, taxpayers are still reeling from a $500,000 award of fees (and there may be more to come) from Alice Martin's improperly prosecuted defendant in Alabama. That's not including Seigelman.

If the House Panel is investigating, what they need to take a look at is this case:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002484
since a lot of the work is already done for them - what with the court finding no basis for the case to go forward and no basis for the pre-judgement attachments, and Martin spinning like a top to try to keep from having to testify under oath.

Posted at April 9, 2008 3:21 PM in response to Allegedly Political Prosecution Ends in Hung Jury

[That George Thompson should be Georgia]

Good for Thornburgh. He can add this case to his helpwith the Americans with Disabilities Act and prosecutions of hate crimes to the pros and prose on his life summary.

Posted at April 9, 2008 3:15 PM in response to Allegedly Political Prosecution Ends in Hung Jury

Couldn't have had a better year for picking off McConnell in KY, until Schumer had to come in and muck up the works, foisting Bruce Lunsford off on us.

Blergh.

Lunsford actually supported Fletcher against Dem Chandler in the Gov race, has supported McConnell pal Northup that Yarmuth finally took out, even made some joint announcements with McConnell, has a very checkered history in KY, and was resoundingly beat in the Gov primary last year by Beshears, who Lunsford was also attacking.

whatcouldabeen
:(

Posted at April 8, 2008 8:50 PM in response to Dems Exceptionally Well Positioned To Expand Majority In Senate