Gen. Odom: Military Analysts Can’t Defend Relationship With Pentagon ‘Because Of Its Conspiratorial Nature’
Gen. Odom: Military Analysts Can’t Defend Relationship With Pentagon ‘Because Of Its Conspiratorial Nature’
On April 20, the New York Times published an extensive exposé of a secret Pentagon program that used 75 retired military analysts employed by television networks “as ‘message force multipliers’ or ’surrogates’ who could be counted on to deliver administration ‘themes and messages’ to millions of Americans ‘in the form of their own opinions.’” The program successfully infiltrated most media outlets; a review by Media Matters last week showed that these analysts have been quoted more than 4,500 times since 2002.
Appearing on the Diane Rehm Show this morning, Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret.), the former Director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, said he was “shocked” by the revelation, saying the actions of these military men would be difficult to defend:
Well I was a little shocked by it. … My own sense of my obligations and my officer’s honor in the past would make me think that’s not a proper thing to do. … But I don’t think they’ll be able to defend that position publicly very well, particularly because of its sort of conspiratorial nature. I think it’s quite legitimate for military officers to talk to a number of people in the Pentagon, but to be part of a recurring meeting that is designed to shape the public opinion — that’s a strange thing for officers to be willing to do, in my view.
Listen here:
The secrecy Odom condemns was a prerequisite for participation. “The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.”
Unlike Odom, conservatives see little wrong with the Pentagon’s operation. Neocons Max Boot and John Podhortez dismissed the revelations as “part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington journalism” and said the story “reveals nothing more than that the Pentagon treated former military personnel like VIPs.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino insisted that it was “absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino insisted that it was “absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it.”
Ms Cuban Missile Crisis/Bay of Pigs ; there’s a tremendous difference between providing “information” as opposed to providing bullshit propoganda . You and the entire Chimpy administration are guilty of simply providing the latter………..
May 19th, 2008 at 3:06 pmWhat does it say about just how bad BushCo is when members of Reagan’s administration look legitimate and rational?
As Mario Cuomo once so apted stated (paraphrased) “The legacy of the Reagan administration was that it become socially acceptable to lack compassion.”
Bush’s legacy? Liars, thieves and incompetents can rise to great levels of power, and the GOP became extinct as a result of their actions.
PEACE
May 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pmIsn’t there a law against turning propganda against the American public? It’s not the Hatch Act…what is that prohibition.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pmAnd now that The Times and other outlets actively and knowingly joined in this deception, shouldn’t they face some kind of prosecution, perhaps even break-ups of their empires? Would that be something? Break up the New York Times publishing empire just as Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was broken up. What has trust busting only happened to Gentiles…?
“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.”
“War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.”
“War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”
GEORGE ORWELL
May 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pmPrytania Says:
——————————————————————————–
It looks like it worked.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Not if you ask our military that is deployed in Iraq or the Iraqi people themselves , you GOP/Chimpy leg humping lump of crap…………
May 19th, 2008 at 3:12 pm“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
Harry S Truman (1884 - 1972), August 8, 1950
May 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pmOur dear leader has set the tone.
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
May 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pm- George W. Bush
kassandrasduplex Says:
——————————————————————————–
Isn’t there a law against turning propganda against the American public? It’s not the Hatch Act…what is that prohibition.
And now that The Times and other outlets actively and knowingly joined in this deception, shouldn’t they face some kind of prosecution, perhaps even break-ups of their empires? Would that be something? Break up the New York Times publishing empire just as Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was broken up. What has trust busting only happened to Gentiles…?
May 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
If the basis of breaking up an empire was spewing propogandist crap , FAUX Comedy Channel would have been dissolved over a decade ago ……………..
May 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pmkassandrasduplex Says:
Isn’t there a law against turning propganda against the American public?
Yes. I think it’s called fraud.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pmYou can be sure that the smears of Odom by the Bush quislings are already being composed. Within 48 hours they’ll be quietly sent to Matt Drudge via anonymous sources, and after Drudge publishes the smears, Rove, Kristol, Kondracke, Barnes, Goldberg, Hannity, Savage, Malkin, Coulter, and all the other sycophants will be dutifully repeating the slurs on air and in print. I hope Odom is prepared.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pmthat’s a strange thing for officers to be willing to do, in my view.
It is also ILLEGAL!
May 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pmkassandrasduplex Says:
Isn’t there a law against turning propganda against the American public?
How about the Smith-Mundt Act?
The U.S. government is legally prohibited from conflating these operations by targeting PSYOP activities–intended for foreign audiences–at the American public.
http://www.gwu.edu/ ~nsarchiv/ NSAEBB/ NSAEBB177/ index.htm
May 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pmNow would be the time to ask Wes Clark if he was asked to do this by the Pentagon, and what he did? He seems to be of high moral fiber, I would like to see, just so I know. He is the only actual Major General or higher that has any trust remaining. I would just like to see the proof!
May 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pmWho really was behind the current war?
May 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pmhttp://www.haaretz.com/ hasen/ pages/ ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Just as egregiously is the fact that during the buildup to the war there were almost no anti-war voices to counteract the opinions of the so-called military experts that were seen on the network and cable TV shows. Even that quasi liberal Keith Olbermann has had on his show people like former General Barry McCaffrey and former Colonel Jack Jacobs while rarely having a true anti-war activist on Countdown. I brought this to Olbermann’s attention about a year ago and because of my impudence was blocked from sending any more emails to Olbermann, which demonstrates that so-called liberals can be just as intolerant of an opposing viewpoint as can the rabid conservatives.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pmshoeless, how about starting by charging GW with murder. Look at V. Bugliosi’s book, due end of May.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:33 pmThen tell me why there is no goddam move to charge this SOB with capital crimes!
Has anybody ever noticed that Google’s News Homepage uses a number of articles from Voice of America (a defined propaganda outlet of the Untied (sic) States of America) and that Google is the parent company of You Tube and that a large number of anti-Clinton videos seem to populate You Tube when one does a Clinton search? Could there be some censorship and re-routing done at You Tube? Anyone ver look into who the Board of Governors is at VOA? The head honcho is ultra-Righty and Zionist James Glassman. Another member is Condi Rice.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:34 pmHello Orwell, welcome to our nightmare.
“The end justifies the means - ANY means.”
~ The Republican Party
May 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pmHow can we impeach and prosecute the lying, mass murdering, money grubbing, coke sniffing, drunk driving, AWOL dodging sociopathic national embarrassment in our White House when we have a 51 49 split in the Congress with number 51 being Old Joltin’ Joe Lieberman the Traitor? Joltin’ Joe is lumped in with the Democrats but as we all now can plainly see, is in actuality a far Right Republican. That leaves us with a 50 50 split, pure gridlock.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:43 pmYes, and look how proud the rank and file is of their fascist party’s propaganda success.
Prytania Says:
It looks like it worked.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pmkassandrasduplex, re anti-Clinton youtube videos.
Maybe, and then again maybe not. Seek and ye shall find.
Despite Hillary having about $1500 of my money (and she’s the only politician apart from Kerry I’ve ever given money to) I for one don’t spend my time looking for US political videos on Google/YouTube except for an issue matter like energy, or war, or healthcare or media bias–that sort of thing.
There are a lot of factors that may be involved. ObamaGirl for instance doesn’t have a political bone in her body or thought in her head. The internet media deosn’t necessarily reflect sincere or important trends (other than the desire for porn, violence and cute animals).
May 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pmWHY? Are you too stupid to figure out how to lick his boots and hump his leg at the same time?
May 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pmPrytania; aiming propaganda at the American people is against the law- illegal.
It’s a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. link provided by shoeless at 3:25 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pmPrytania Says:
Who knows the millitary better than ex-generals and other top brass?
There are several veterans who post here that would the military better than you do.
And they know how to spell military.
**mumbles something about brainless trolls
May 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pmBefore trolls try to smear General Odom, here is some of his bio.
William Eldridge Odom (born June 23, 1932) is a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, and former Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan, which culminated a 31 year career in military intelligence, mainly specializing in matters relating to the Soviet Union. After his retirement from the military he became a think tank policy expert and a university professor and has since became known for his outspoken criticism of the Iraq War and warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:13 pmWayne, methinks the trolls would be better suited to their usual smearing. Of their own excrement all over their faces.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pmRUCerious Says:
Wayne, methinks the trolls would be better suited to their usual smearing. Of their own excrement all over their faces.
That’s much better than throwing it at the humans.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pmThe has been a law prohibiting the use of government funds for the purpose of domestic propaganda since 1951. The GAO has opined that this prohibits direct and indirect means of propaganda. This is clear and the military members involved in the propaganda effort should be sent to courts martial.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:25 pmWhile Odom was not known as warm or humble, he did bring rigor to his intell work unlike some of those who followed in his top assignments.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pm#14 - oldtree
General Clark would never have been asked because he was against the war from the beginning, even testifying to Congress about his concerns. The Pentagon wanted only stool pigeons. He was a commentator on CNN when the war began but addressed only the military experience as it was unfolding. His focus at that time the troops then in combat.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:05 pmKenneth Pollack was also on today’s show. Why, oh why are ‘intelligent” shows like this one still having guests who were cheerleaders for the war and got everything wrong?
May 19th, 2008 at 6:08 pmChrist….I am holding out the beleif tha someday, someone is going to hold these people accoutable…
May 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pmMany years ago I served briefly with General Odom. Subsequently I observed as he advanced through the ranks to ultimately head NSA before he retired. I have a couple of observations about him:
May 19th, 2008 at 11:52 pm- He is one of the most intelligent officers I have ever known, to include General Wesley Clark.
- He embodies the West Point motto, “Duty, Honor, Country.”
- He is a real straight arrow, who demands the absolute best of his subordinates.
spencers mom Says:
Bush’s legacy? Liars, thieves and incompetents can rise to great levels of power, and the GOP became extinct as a result of their actions.
PEACE
The Repukians will attempt something very desperate and outrageous in the coming months. My list of possibilities:
Bombing Iran
Martial Law through staged or real attack
Manipulating voting machines
The big question is out of the following lobbyists; Oil, Pharmaceuticals, Media, AIPAC, Military, Meat, Alcohol, GMO Foods, and Insurance Companies, which candidate fits the bill, either Dem or Rep?
May 19th, 2008 at 11:58 pmIf it is all “Appropriate” Dana, how about transcripts of all the meetings? If they are truly working for the ‘common good’ shouldn’t we salute that hard work by making it public?
Oh yes; of course, “”"”"National Security”"”"” concerns prohibit revealing such information.
Yep, that’s the ticket!
May 20th, 2008 at 6:01 am