As I understand it, the propaganda operation must be "covert" to be illegal. According to Barstow's article, the Pentagon took affirmative steps to assure that the fundamental nature of the relationship with the analysts would not be disclosed.

Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.

In addition, the Pentagon's briefings of the Generals were kept separate from the Pentagon's press briefings. This is obviously evidence that the operation was intended to be covert.

Ultimately the legal issue is likely to come down to whether the Pentagon merely asked the Generals not to volunteer the nature of their Pentagon contacts or whether the Pentagon and the Generals took affirmative actions to conceal them. However, this issue is complicated by the media's stunning abrogation of any duty to ascertain and disclose to viewers and readers the nature of any potential conflicts of interest. In effect, the Pentagon and the Generals appear to have relied upon the media's unwillingness to make these basic inquiries of the Generals. If, in response to such inquiries, the Generals had mislead the media, or if the Pentagon terminated the participation of any General who truthfully responded to such inquiries by disclosing their Pentagon contacts, we'd have an open and shut case of a covert propaganda operation.

If, at the end of the day, the media was content to faithfully peddle Pentagon propaganda and ignore troubling signs that the Generals were coordinating with the Pentagon in a propaganda operation, the Pentagon and our government can argue that they could not have reasonably expected to have concealed the contacts from a media professionally obliged to reveal conflicts of interest and restrict the analysts they employed to truly independent analysts. But the media did not apply to the analysts the same requirements applied to reporters and correspondents for disclosing potential conflicts of interest, and the Pentagon, it appears, in effect relied upon the media's negligence and unprofessionalism and was willing to exploit it.

As troubling as the Pentagon's propaganda operation is, it is even more troubling to consider the possibility that the media was a willing and eager conduit, if not a knowing participant in the operation. Governments will, by their nature, attempt to propagandize, even in the face of laws prohibiting covert propaganda operations. We rely upon the media to reveal and report such illegalities, and to assure that they are indeed presenting independent analysis rather than propaganda. As Glenn has so amply demonstrated, the media completely failed to do this, and the failure appears to have been more a product of conscious disregard by the media for its duty rather than mere inadvertence or negligence.

Clever, are they not?

Now I know that MK Ultra is old hat, but what was the name of the 1997 project?

MK Heroes?

All that work and Gore didn't make President.

Don't bother scripting the show on my account, unless you have some other survivors in mind, which I doubt.

The Pentagon has been formulating their strategy to control the press since Vietnam which the Pentagon blames for the imagined defeat there. It's to the Pentagon benefit to keep perpetuating the Vietnam defeat slogan so squeeze more money out of the American taxpayers for the pentagon's budget which includes the cold war mentality morphed with the terrorism mantra of endless fear mongering for the purpose of endless war, the Pentagon dreams come true. The pentagon had no incentive to prevent the 9/11 attacks, so they didn't. As of this writing the PENTAGON HAS YET TO COME UP WITH AN ANTI BOX CUTTERS DEFENSE SYSTEM but is intent of preventing the terrorists from taking the high ground of space, with the Space Command which can easily be rendered useless with tin foil.

Thanks. That was an intriguing post about the air wing commander of the Kitty Hawk undergoing an Admiral’s Mast and retiring. It is really hard to tell what the offense may have been, but for the Captain of an aircraft carrier to relieve his essentially second-in-command, is very rare and the offense must have been very significant. Or it could have been personal, such as improper conduct unbecoming an officer. I much more suspect the latter than I would a protest to an attack on Iran.

The Pacific Stars and Stripes is a civilian publication aimed only at the military. As a career public affairs officer who spent 12 years in the Pacific area, I answered a lot of media queries on potentially embarrassing incidents. Their journalists, many of who are ex or retired military, almost always acted as true journalists who were seeking the truth. It’s interesting that this publication will cover subjects that the M$M often ignores. Their journalists since the time of WWII have maintained their integrity whereas many M$M have not. It may have to do with earning far less money or the fact that these journalists revere their country and its constitution.

We are commanded by the civilians, yes: but if given an unlawful order are not supposed to follow it. This does not seem to relate to the point Glenn is making: officers were asked to do illegal things, thus compromising their oath. I myself always refused what I took to be an unlawful order, which sometimes got me into rather strange confrontations (and ultimately, yes, I did leave, because it seemed to me the higher in rank you went the more corrupt it became, so that it began to seem that a life of continual confrontation would be the result). But that the military is under the control of the civilian politicians does not negate an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and that seems to me to be the key point.

when I said "this does not seem to relate to the point Glenn is makeing" I meant that "the point you made in your post does not seem to relate to the point Glenn is making."

Yes it does offend me because it makes me look like a prick (thanks Pedinska) when I use it around those who are more offended than me.