Cable news

You keep making this about what you and I as individuals believe which is missing my point.

For many (most?) Americans, you take a retired 4-star general and put him on the tv endorsing anything to do with wartime policies, he is automatically credible. That's why DoD was using those specific people...because it blunted the criticism they were receiving about Iraq/Gitmo, etc.

 

Der Speigel has played the tapes of the al-Maliki interview. al-Maliki wasn't even asked by Der Speigel about whether he agreed about Obama's plan, he brought it up himself. He's confirmed twice there has to be a timetable for withdrawl. The Iraqis confirmed it again.

McCain's response has been that al-Maliki and his government had to say this for domestic political reasons. Which is just another way to admit that getting the troops out is the only politically viable way forward in Iraq.

McCain can't blow off Iraq sovereignty. And he can't use on al-Maliki the line about “not having been there” that he constantly tosses at Obama. Plus McCain has been on record (until recently ) as saying US troops should only stay so long as Iraq asks them to. Let's face it, if al-Maliki says ya gotta go, I don't think you Americans will be voting to stay.

Time to stop agreeing Obama is right on foreign policy. Now... it's the economic stupidity, stupid.

 

Butt, then, you're smarter than the average bear.

 

Just so you guys know, the truth about Gitmo still isn't out and probably never will be and oddly enough, because things weren't as bad as people think.

 

Old burnt out hippies, even less!

 

Jist wait a minit here Buster, How do we know the New Yark Times isn't lying? HUH?

 

It seems like, early on in the war, I remember seeing more than one "retired" command rank officer being used by major networks to comment on the "speculation" put forth by the "talking heads" in knocking the war. Those officers certainly weren't talking for the Government at that point. They were giving their opinion on why some of the actions taken by our military would not work.

 

Basically, I (gulp) agree with you on getting out of Iraq if the Iraqis want us out. What happens after we leave is going to be interesting though.
Your link is, however, less than ideal. I mean, for God's sake, it's the Times.

 

Source documents here...straight from the DoD's own website obtained by the NYT through a Freedom of Information request:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/

 

Exactly...they were giving their opinion - which they are free to do as you and I are. Any "retired" command rank officer could also go on the networks in support of war strategy, detainee policy, etc. The problem is that the Pentagon conceived their own military analyst program to counter the negative views and propagandize the U.S. public.

If it wasn't illegal or unethical, then why did they stop doing it when it was reported by the NYT?

 

Notice which paper Obama and McCain want to run their op-eds in?

I don't think al-Maliki is so much set on Obama's 16 months as he is on the fact that having any timeframe in the negotiations gives him more leverage. But whether it's 2009 or 2010 it seems pretty clear McCain's permanent bases are off the table.

 

At least partly because the networks' incompetence was exposed. They should've properly vetted their analysts in the first place and either not hired them or informed viewers they were military lobbyists. Which isn't to say the Pentagon wasn't taking advantage of the situation.

If a writer for the Times had a conflict of interest at anywhere near this level everyone here would be screaming bloody murder.

 

Yeah, I know. I just threw that question in for RCJohn since he apparently thinks that it's ok for the Pentagon to propagandize U.S. citizens.

 

Just against stupid wars and the liars who enable them.