I just stumbled over that part on a conservative blog (http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005244.html), and it was so refreshingly common sense, I had to post it. (...)The media is not, as an institution, anti-military. The media is, however, suspicious of the military establishment, and for good reasons. The Pentagon routinely lies to them. See Tillman, Pat (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNG96CT8OS1.DTL). Or the Pentagon Papers (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/). Or any hundreds of other similar events. At any rate, even if the press is suspicious of the military establishment, Rick is somehow confusing criticism of the Pentagon with criticism of tthe actual soldiers as well as the goals of the United States.
(...)
So let's stop these generic attacks on the media. (...) And while we are at it, can we conservatives please stop this laughable cult of victimology? We have the Presidency (for the second time in a row and the fifth time in the last seven elections). We control the Senate by a ten seat margin. We control the House by a larger margin. We have dismissed or dismantled virtually every institutional check in order to limit opposition debate and increase institutional control, regardless how short-sighted that might be. We are ramming through just about every judge we wanted, and are about to reload the Supreme Court with Antonin Scalia at the helm.

We control dozens of governors offices and an equal number of state legislatures. We have hundreds of think tanks, hundreds of talk show hosts, hundreds of conservative columnists, millions of bloggers. We have dozens of partisan magazines and pundits, legions of 527's and grass-roots organizations, and dozens of think-tanks. We have, ostensibly, our own damned cable news channel and so many right leaning editorial boards of newspapers I can't even begin to count them. Memes that start in obscure blogs find their way onto the front page of allegedly liberal newspapers in the matter of two days.

We may be a lot of things, but persecuted victims we are not. To assert otherwise is to engage in a self-defeating flight of fancy that should be met with nothing short of outright ridicule.

Let's remember that, and remember that the media is not the enemy and their attempts to report abuses by this government are not the problem. We will all be a lot better off if we do, and we can better address our own shortcomings (which are myriad) if we have a critical appraisal of who and what we are and what we are doing. Sure, Chris Matthews may be a sneering jerk at times and has difficulty presenting conservative positions. Tune in to Bill O'Reilly if you need a pat on the back. So you don't like what the Washington Post wrote about Republicans. Pick up the Washington Times for that big wet kiss some apparently need. And so on and so forth.

Even if we do buy into the absurd supposition that the media is overtly hostile towards conservatives, I contend that their criticism would still be vital. An outside appraisal would be a good thing, particularly when you consider the self-referential and oft-delusional nature of our own manufactured media organs (National Review, for example) and the rest of the echo chamber that the right-wing blogosphere appears to be becoming. We are wasting out energy attacking what, in my mind, has been, overall, a pretty friendly media establishment as of late.

And just for fun, you might ask Move-On or Media Matters how liberal they think the media is. The answer might surprise you. So, some perspective, please.Yep. Please.

[ May 30, 2005, 01:35: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Dear lord, is that a somewhat intelligent blogger? I'd thought bloggers and thoughtfulness to be mutually exclusive.

The pentagon would lie because they really don't like the idea of people finding out that while yes, they did get the terrorist cell they wanted to bomb, theit munitions bunker took out the rest of the residential block. They have three choices:

1: Bomb the terrorists and risk civilian casualties because the terrorists hide among innocent citizens.

2: Try to spare innocent civilians but lose more soldiers as they get up close and personal to only take out the terrorists.

3: Ignore them and wait for the next attack like 9/11.

Which do they take?

Option 4: Get the residents to help with the terrorists...

But hey...my glass is 3/4 full...

Option 5: scorched earth (just like president Clark!)

Oh Gnarff,
you have such a sympathetic quaint and romantic vision of the U.S. government only and always exercising its power wisely.

Well, sometimers they just screw up, and want to keep it under wraps - that applies especially to the politicos. To cover their asses.

That is about accountability of an elected government, and one crucial issue.

Maybe you should try some of Tom Clancy's newer books, like the one where he writes for Anthony Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up' (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml).

My point is that there are cases where there are no right answers. This, on top of all the incompetence and corruption, really make you wonder why the Pentagon even says anything...

The Pentagon learned a long time ago it has to say something. They are typically bluntly honest with anything they say. There are times where giving specifics would put lives at risk and the military typically says just that. Something everyone should realize, politicians (such as the SECDEF) are not as forthcoming as the military commanders.

Read statements by the military commanders -- those statements are very direct and straightforward. But they also realize their jobs are on the line with every interview -- they'll answer honestly, but will defer politically charged issues because they simply don't want to be fired.

The initial statements about Tillman were correct based on what the commanders were told -- it was after investigating the incident a cover-up was found at the local level and the incident report was corrected. It would have been wrong of the military to put the corrected information out. Tillman was a patriot and deserved to be allowed to rest in peace.

Gnarf: 'incompetance and corruption' are harsh words. I have always said there are a few bad apples in any large organization. The vast majority of people in the military are VERY competent and have high moral standards. Attacking the entire organization for acts of a few is inappropriate and unfair.

The Pentagon learned a long time ago it has to say something. They are typically bluntly honest with anything they say. Gnarf probably read the same article I did:

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption." General Zinni is a well respected individual. He seems to share some of Gnarff's opinion of those in the Pentagon, and I see no reason why he would lie about those in the Pentagon.

Gnarf: 'incompetance and corruption' are harsh words. I have always said there are a few bad apples in any large organization. The vast majority of people in the military are VERY competent and have high moral standards. Attacking the entire organization for acts of a few is inappropriate and unfair.If there's one rotten potato in the bag, that's the one you're going to smell. It will, inturn, infect the other potatos in the bag. While the Pentagon may be more vigilant about this than others, these problems do exist.

The Pentagon learned a long time ago it has to say something. They are typically bluntly honest with anything they say. There are times where giving specifics would put lives at risk and the military typically says just that.A better reason for the Pentagon to keep quiet in front of the press.

Something everyone should realize, politicians (such as the SECDEF) are not as forthcoming as the military commanders.And the Pentagon is the one on the line to do the will of the politicians and work around what is inconsistent...

Read statements by the military commanders -- those statements are very direct and straightforward. But they also realize their jobs are on the line with every interview -- they'll answer honestly, but will defer politically charged issues because they simply don't want to be fired.They aren't there to make the decisions, they are there to enforce them.

Gnarf probably read the same article I did:Actually, I just respond to what I read here on SP. I get very little time for other research on the internet for the time being. This may change if we ever get broadband...

General Zinni is a well respected individual. He seems to share some of Gnarff's opinion of those in the Pentagon, and I see no reason why he would lie about those in the Pentagon.I base my opinion off human nature. Humans (even those at the Pentagon. I'm not addressing Aliens because that's way off topic.) are prone to a little greed and some screw ups. At the Pentagon, there is so much riding on everything, that one scandal or screw up is a major debacle...

My statement is pretty much summed up by this quote from the article:

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.

We read the same article and get different opinions. Such is human nature. I see a military part of the pentagon that is forthright and honest. The political wing lacks a little in integrity (after all they are political appointees and typically have an agenda).

As far as 'keeping their mouth shut' the military learned a great lesson in Vietnam -- excluding the press is a bad thing. In WWII, Eisenhower took the press into his confidence and had a great relationship with the press. The press was brought in on some operations to help the allies and kept out on others to save troops lives. The press at the time knew Eisenhower and the military would be honest and open whenever possible.

In Vietnam, the level of secrecy and exclusion was unbearable. The press went to great lengths to find the information they should have already had -- and in the process divulged information that was harmful to our troops. For example, take a look at how US soldiers are viewed at home today versus during the Vietnam War. The press villified US troops in Vietnam, and the soldiers were showered with dog feces and called baby killers -- you don't see that today.

The civilians at the pentagon are certainly concerned with 'screw-ups' which will cost them their career. A few flag rank officers are the same way (Generals and Admirals). I've met maybe 15 flags, and every one would take the hit on their career to save lives.

We read the same article and get different opinions. Such is human nature. I see a military part of the pentagon that is forthright and honest. The political wing lacks a little in integrity (after all they are political appointees and typically have an agenda). Actually we agree on this point. Some of the generals, who are no longer under the control of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon have been able to speak out against the war and the poor planning that went into it. Nevertheless, those generals who are still under the control of the politicians, don't have the luxury of being so "forthright and honest." Loyalty has its price.