That's how those news folks keep their jobs, Joe. The media = the establishment. They want more Bush. Can you blame them? Can you imagine them to pay their employees NOT to favor the guy who represents More Bush?

Hitler had Krupp, we have the MIC. It's all about the money.

Where is the freaking HOPE Jim?

It's in U.S. voters connecting the dots, seeing who's really got their hands on the levers of the War Machine and why ($$, not ideology). Maybe this latest story about the "military analysts" who are really Pentagon Puppets will be the last straw, the eye-opener.

It's Sunday, I'm gonna light up a cheapie and dream it is so.

The revelations come out on the weekend.

I hear you, macgupta -- but the folks with subscriptions to the weekend Times are the choir, the converted, for the most part. No one hopes more than I that this story has legs, that it's the final straw that causes America to open its collective eyes and see who and what are the real forces behind our ever-growing military budget and the use of it to justify that growth. Nothing would please me more. But there is a history of stories inconvenient to the Powers That Be which are released on the weekend and lose their steam by the time the average American leaves home for work on Monday and flips on newsradio in the car. But hey, didn't mean to be cynical...

Does anyone see the NYT story echoed anywhere? I've checked many major metro dailies, watched the weekend shows. Am I looking in the wrong places? Was I right that weekend exposure was going to kill this unpopular (to the people who are really pulling the levers) story?

"How can "news" organizations refuse to address -- just completely ignore -- accusations which fundamentally indict their behavior as "journalists"?"

Well, if you owned the means of dissemination, and if you knew that ignoring accusations would effectively make them go away...wouldn't you??

"...It seems to me that if you really want a situation to change, you'd better be able to say what you want the other party to do..."

Well, how about something simple? Like not announcing those ex-military talking as "military analysts"? There is a connotation of impartiality in the term "analyst" that is simply not a reflection of who these gentlemen are. It would certainly be asking too much to have the news outlets reveal connections to military contractors or amount of time spent being "briefed" by the Pentagon, but calling them spokesmen for the Pentagon or the Administration would be accurate enough to pass for honesty in the context of American journalism. Calling them analysts is not.

That's what I'd ask them to do.

Ya done good.

It isn't that Obama said those with all the experience hadn't accomplished much, or that Hillary felt it was an unfair accusation or whatever. It's that she said, "Earlier today my opponent attacked me on energy issues." Attacked? This is cheap-headline vocabulary and turns substantial debate into mud-slinging.

Words matter!

"What exactly is the point of feeding Israel billions of dollars every year in military aid..."

All you gotta do is read the Haaretz.com link in your article, where it says the following: "...the agreement permits Israel to convert into shekels 26.3 percent of the aid money, thereby enabling it to procure defense equipment from Israeli companies. The rest of the aid must be used to purchase equipment from American military industries."

Even the small amount of noise this story generated had an effect. Possibly, there are still a few people in the Pentagon with a sense of shame.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/pentagon-suspends-militar_n_98985.html

I'm not enough of a constitutional scholar to know how correct the SCOTUS was in allowing the states to make their own rules in this case. It seems unusual for the top court to take on a case of something that so clearly ain't broke and don't need fixin'.

So now, some states will have Voter ID laws, some states will not. Democracy will survive. When my grandfather was young, you didn't need a license to drive a car and when the requirement was established he pretty much thought that America The Land of the Free was all washed up.

What has Wright said that is so Wrong? Of course, no politician can be as bold, edgy or even funny as Wright can be. But I hope Obama doesn't have to put the guy down in order to distance himself.

His divisive views? Joan, you are parroting the MSM, here. Have you listened to whole speeches at a time? What's so divisive about telling the truth? What's so divisive about saying there are issues of race that fester and go unaddressed, even unadmitted? Please, define what you mean by divisive and explain how, exactly, JW divides -- or seeks to divide -- us.

I watched the show religiously as a kid. Later on, I remember hearing that Mr. Burr had generously put a fair number of young men through college at his expense. What else he may have put them through I do not know, nor do I want to.

Why aren't we spending that $277 million here in the States, where it would buy a very nice bridge or dam or...water treatment plant? Well, here at home the contractors would be observable, their work and their books open to inspection by those footing the bill. In Iraq, Bush cronies (or cronies of cronies) are free to waste, skim and embezzle to their black little hearts' delight. Ah, what a wonderful war!