Con Artists You Believe

We’ve been conditioned to believe certain people, either because we’ve seen them so many times that they have become a “house hold name”, or because they have in some way or other become known for their specialty. What happens when those people are nothing more than a con artist, puppets to the masters that control and use them, sent to deceive the American public into believing something that isn’t true?

Such are the facts of this next article. In this case, the con artists are former military analysts now with ties to lobbyists, military contracts, senior executives and board members of contractors for the administration all with one goal in mind, to get military contracts and money. They will say or do whatever it takes to get what they want. And you have been conned.

These are the faces of those whom we have come to trust and these are the faces of the con artists. These are the faces of the betrayers. These faces, remember them, know them, and do not believe a word they say ever again. The names? Those that need to be fired are:

Montgomery Meigs NBC analyst

Donald W. Shepperd CNN analyst

John C. Garrett Fox News analyst

Thomas G. McInerney Fox News analyst

Jeffrey D. McCausland CBS News analyst

Kenneth Allard NBC analyst

Robert S. Bevelacqua former Fox News analyst. Not sure if that means they already fired him or what exactly.

From we have this story:

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

By David Barstow

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse – an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

The full story can be found HERE:

The records will show these military analysts have been bought through hundreds of private conferences with military leaders, and those with influence in contracting matters and/or of significance in budgeting. From the State Department, the White House and the Justice Department and with men such as cheney and gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley. You tell me, is there any sign of bias here? Can you say we’ve been conned?

In return for all this catering, these men have reiterated what the White House administration has put before them, even when they thought it might be false or misleading. They said it anyway just to garner favor. Such are the media whores of this day.

Now, a few of them have expressed regret for their part in all this. However, does that make up for what they have done? I don’t think so. Nor can it restore our faith in the media or in those who claim to be “in the know”.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

But they participated and they chose to lie to the American people, to the networks, knowing they were trusted. So if they now regret having done this, what is that supposed to mean to us? Now we can trust you to tell us the truth? Give us a break here guys. When you wallow with swine, someone will mistake you for a pig.

The Pentagon defends its claims of telling only the truth, as they know it of course. And as we’ve seen with Yoo’s twisting of the Constitution on torture and wire-tapping of Americans without a warrent, so too has the Pentagon done much twisting and torturing of the truth about Iraq. The only way to tell a lie and make it stick is to remove the truth forever.

The Networks claim they have little or limited knowledge of their analysts ties to the military or the administration. The ethical standards by which the journalists were held did not apply to the military analysts. Now isn’t that just peachy? Seems to me that anyone in the business of media should be held to certain standards of ethics, lies and deceits are unacceptable, period. Those caught with their hands in the cookie jar, whosoever cookie jar it be, should be fired. Double standards for these people need to cease.

Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.

These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts 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.

These analysts were paid well enough by industry standards by the networks making between $500 and $1,000 per appearance. It seems, however, this wasn’t enough for them. They even went so far as to betray the networks in favor of the Pentagon by warning them if a story was coming out that the military should be aware of or offering tips on how to out maneuver the networks themselves. The fact that they are still working smacks of the ridiculous to me. Is it obvious to only me that these men cannot be trusted? That their credibility is gone? That from now on every time I see their face, I’m only going to have ONE thing on my mind, that is the face of a liar. The rest of me will tune them out utterly. And that they have betrayed the trust placed in them by both the media networks as well as We the People?

Interviews and transcripts aplenty show their betrayal. How anyone could use these men again is beyond me. Their credibility is gone as far as I am concerned. Firing publicly is the only redeemable action the networks can take it seems to me. But then that has never been done before.

Anything that was deemed to be critical of the administration, these men went into overdrive to counter. The Pentagon supplied the wording, they supplied the lips and voice to speak them. And it was done over, and over, and over again. And these are only 8,000 pages worth. Imagine what we still don’t know?

John C. Garrett is a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq. In promotional materials, he states that as a military analyst he “is privy to weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers in the administration.” One client told investors that Mr. Garrett’s special access and decades of experience helped him “to know in advance – and in detail – how best to meet the needs” of the Defense Department and other agencies.

Makes you want to puke just knowing they are out there. The article goes on and it is a must read. The trust of We the People is running really thin here. If the networks don’t fire everyone of them, they won’t be doing any justice to themselves of those customers who watch their programming. But hey, that’s business right? Please go and read the article to find out the rest of the story. I found it an excellent read.


~ by justmytruth on April 20, 2008.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: