Lawmakers Describe 'Being Slimed in the Green Zone'

[sabra]

Source: WP

The sheets of paper seemed to be everywhere the lawmakers went in the Green Zone, distributed to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials and uniformed military of no particular rank. So when Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) asked a soldier last weekend just what he was holding, the congressman was taken aback to find out.

In the soldier's hand was a thumbnail biography, distributed before each of the congressmen's meetings in Baghdad, which let meeting participants such as that soldier know where each of the lawmakers stands on the war. "Moran on Iraq policy," read one section, going on to cite some the congressman's most incendiary statements, such as, "This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history."

The bio of Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.) -- "TAU (rhymes with 'now')-sher," the bio helpfully relates -- was no less pointed, even if she once supported the war and has taken heat from liberal Bay Area constituents who remain wary of her position. "Our forces are caught in the middle of an escalating sectarian conflict in Iraq, with no end in sight," the bio quotes.

"This is beyond parsing. This is being slimed in the Green Zone," Tauscher said of her bio.

...

Brief, choreographed and carefully controlled, the codels (short for congressional delegations) often have showed only what the Pentagon and the Bush administration have wanted the lawmakers to see. At one point, as Moran, Tauscher and Rep. Jon Porter (R-Nev.) were heading to lunch in the fortified Green Zone, an American urgently tried to get their attention, apparently to voice concerns about the war effort, the participants said. Security whisked the man away before he could make his point.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001848.html

[global1]

1. Who Is Printing These Bios? Where Is The Money Coming From To Print Them? Who......

ordered the printing? Who is distributing these to the troops in Iraq?

Certainly this is being done for political reasons - just like the firing of SAG's which we know was ordered from the WH. Just like the presentations that were made to various government departments regarding the elections.

*Co has turned this whole thing into a political football.

But this distributing of bios is just going too far. This should be investigated. I hope some smart soldier in Iraq is collecting these all of these bios and any other info that is distributed to the troops to taint their attitude about visiting members of Congress and continuing to brainwash them into believing what they are doing is rightous.

This just stinks.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

37. the money is no doubt coming from our paychecks

awesome, isn't it?

[peacetalksforall]

48. This is parallel to Doan holding RNC stategy meetings on

government property, government payroll, government time - totally partisan - not government.

They, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, have kicked us out of this country - except for OUR LABOR and TAXES.

WE ARE NOTHING. WE ARE IMMORAL TRAITORS - TO THEM.

This is not a country of, by, for the people.
This is a country of, by, for the corporations.
And Republicans work for the corporations.

Democrats and Independents - bad for corporations.

[MsMagnificent]

70. Being we're such traitors anyhow

what would happen if we --liberals and everyone who is against the continued war funding-- withheld their taxes en bloc?

If I remember correctly, the penalty for filing late wasn't that bad...

...certainly worth putting our money where out mouth is.

It's just a dream that 70+ percent of the population would withhold their taxes, but damn, I'll bet you then the politicians will finally fucking listen!


Sorry to swear like that -- but all this crap has just gone on long enough!

[Frisbee]

63. We can all make a pretty good guess who's behind them...

This is the umpteenth time they have gone too far. It is the umpteenth time they have done something which should be investigated.

I agree it stinks, but they will continue going too far, and the consequences will only be what history records. I have finally accepted that they will not be held accountable for any of the things they have done, oh maybe a token here and there, but in the grand scheme of things, they will get away with it. As long as they don't declare martial law and stop elections, the country will have to endure another year and a half of this, and then begins the long and slow process of righting what has been done. Oh, Congress will talk about holding them accountable, and a few of the better members will try in vain to stop them, but in the end, little will happen. It is a testament to this country's strength, that it will presumably survive this dark period in it's history, and it WILL be looked at as a dark period.

I have reached the conclusion that * is not only the worst president ever, but quite possible one of the worst American's ever.

[NYC]

69. You make an excellent point.

Not only is Bush the worst president ever, he's possibly one of the worst Americans ever.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[tom_paine]

74. We are paying for it all. The bitter truth is that we pay for the War on Ourselves, the Bushite War

Against the American People.

The REAL war the Bushies are fighting with all their might, they could give a shit about their bullshit War on Terror, when they themselves are probably working with Bin Laden.

[habitual]

2. only those allowed to speak may speak.

the great attempt to deceive the american public continues.

[tridim]

3. I'd like to see the (R) leaflets for comparison.

"Senator Craig is a fine upstanding member of the NRA and a strong proponent of family values. He really enjoys hugging young male soldiers and if you ask nicely he'll kiss your boo-boo's."

But seriously, I bet the (R) leaflets aren't cherry picked. Now we need to know who authored/authorized these.

[saigon68]

82. You forgot the part on how he

"Loves to fondle their Privates"

[brentspeak]

4. This is sickening. Who are the anonymous Bush cowards who assembled the slime-sheets?

[xchrom]

5. either the democratic party LEARNS that the republick party plays

for keeps -- and there is no arrow in their quiver they won't use -- and act accordingly -- or they will continue to be ''surprised'' and the response will be accordingly weak.

this little news item is STUNNING even in it's brief description.

and it should -- should -- make for some extremely angry lawmakers.

[coffeenap]

6. Your point is exactly what I cannot get my brain around--

when will our own people learn that their "opponents" are bullies, with a view only to win, at any cost? When will "we" stop being surprised by dirty tricks and learn to predict them and fight them? This is what I just cannot understand. Is it the insular nature of the offices? If so, then all they need is one staff member to look at sites like ours to see what others are predicting. I just can't get it.

[xchrom]

7. part of it is that the dems are as much a part of the status quo as the republick party.

and part of the answer lies in the fact that the dems have learned some very, very bad and weak behavior from the reagan era.

-- for the purposes of these contemporary times -- that pretty much sums it up.

p.s. -- i use the phrase ''status quo'' quite purposely.

[coffeenap]

8. I agree, but the problem is that if one wants to play their game

one has to play by their rules and their rules are so very ugly. I like to think our reps are a bit above the level of theirs, but if not, then they have to use their wits to outsmart them. It is as if they try to have one foot on each side of the line, and that is a recipe for failure.

[xchrom]

15. i agree -- it is a recipe for failure.

like running away from the word liberal -- it was an exercise in futility -- and yet....

i believe that the beltway powers that be think they getting something in exchange for this behavior.

we aren't -- but they seem convinced that they are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. dirty fighters win, and we can't afford to lose.

I can't visualize two solutions to this problem, only one.

[coco77]

46. Same thing I have been thinking after watching the Dems...

over the years, and this is what I have been saying about Pelosi and Reid they aren't the ones. Feingold is one of the ones. Someone like Carville also.

[Shipwack]

29. Applicable quote...

'Democrats play for lunch. We play for keeps.'
--Grover Norquist

[xchrom]

32. indeed -- as well as that whole business about a republick party permanent majority.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. We treat stuff like this as quips. They're not, they're mantras. n/t

[BrotherBuzz]

38. The Democrats are too busy keeping their powder dry

[smiley_glad_hands]

9. Rove isn't gone yet?

[coffeenap]

10. Gone, but not forgotten. The well-trained underlings remain. nt

[hvn_nbr_2]

11. Here we will see a test of why Joe-Sixpack doesn't trust Dems on national security

If Dems won't even defend themselves, how can Americans trust them to defend America? Here is your latest test, Congressional Dems. Sounds like Tauscher may be ready to pass it. What about the rest? This demands attention from all the Dems in Congress. Will they roll over (yet again) or will they stand up and fight?

[Kolesar]

12. Because Dems won't stand up to slander?

Is that what you're saying? Not that I disagree. Just trying to put a "finer point" on it.

[hvn_nbr_2]

33. Won't stand up to slander, slime, lies, propaganda, deception, obfuscation...

ad nauseum. The House Armed Services Committee should get Gates over there and put him through the wringer over this one. This is blatant partisan propagandizing and if they let it go, they'll go ever farther.

[TwilightGardener]

13. A politicized military, right down to the lower ranks--scary.

[Cirque du So-What]

14. Congress needs unfettered access

to Americans in the Green Zone. These 'brief, choreographed & carefully controlled' codels are the stuff of Potemkin villages. How else are members of Congress supposed to make realistic assessments? Strictly rhetorical question, since the neocons don't want any such thing.

[onethatcares]

23. they don't want unfettered access to Americans,

they're tripping over themselves with the point that "I've been to Iraq and you haven't", because they have never ever put themselves in harms way for their country. The mere trip into the greenzone is something each will lord over the other. It's time for a complete make over in our government. I don't read of British politicians making the trip to Basra.

[loudsue]

16. If the Dems would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, so that other points

of view can easily be seen and heard, there will be far fewer opportunities for the republicans to spin their lies. Dems need to free up the "freedom" of speech we're supposed to be having in this country. Then, and only then, will this type of propaganda be seen by the average person for just what it is.

:kick:

[rmgarrette64]

18. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery

And a doctrine dictating what people must say is freedom of speech.

Sorry, but no one will ever convince me the "Fairness Doctrine" is in any way, shape, or form even a good idea. And it is absolutely opposed to the 1st Amendment.

R. Garrett

[loudsue]

21. Whew! You couldn't be more mistaken....

the threat of not getting a license to buy up 90% of the media is a great leveller for broadcast media.

When you have more people owning the media, you have a greater variety of viewpoints.


:kick:

[MsMagnificent]

71. less mega-corporate control, less propaganda

[Moochy]

28. Spoken like someone who owns a press

[rmgarrette64]

31. You're posting here, right?

So am I.

It's being read by anyone who is interested.

If we re-institute the fairness doctrine, does that mean DU must give Ann Coulter space to post?

When I ask questions like this, I usually get responses that we'll only apply the Fairness Doctrine to radio, sometimes to TV, and rarely to newspapers. The common assumption is that it will apply only to Fox and Rush Limbaugh, but not to the Daily Show or NPR. No one ever assumes it will apply to DU, though once I heard some one say it should apply to Free Republic (but only once, and that poster didn't seem to receive any support on the idea either...)

But really, turn it around. Try applying your ideas of the Fairness Doctrine to yourself, or something you care about. Don't assume we will always control the legislature or regulatory structure that enforces it. Sorry, I still think it's a terrible idea.

R. Garrett

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. I am not in favor of the fairness doctrine. That's because

the real problem is not access per se, but corporate ownership of too many outlets by too few deep pockets. Music radio is hideous these days, in great part because Clear and other mega-owners have destroyed local programing, local music, alternate stuff, even classical outlets. Would a fairness doctrine solve that problem? uh uh.
But, limiting ownership of total numbers of stations would help a hell of a lot. Same goes for cable outlets, boredcast TV and while we are at it, insuring access to the net with net neutrality.

[DBoon]

35. The fariness doctrine applied only to public airwaves

and not to private press, though there were ownership limitations on who could own how many meida outlets. These ownership restrictions were to prevent a monopolization on public opinion by a single entity.

The fairness doctrine existed until the Reagan administration. I grew up when it was the law of the land. It was the law for many decades previously.

It never resulted in anyone being prevented from stating their opinion on public airwaves.

It did require that programs presenting political opinions provide a forum for opposing views. It was very common to have citizens present rebuttals to official TV station editorials. Nobody viewed this as censorship, anymore that requiring a citizen's access channel as a condition of a local franchise granted by a city.

The public airwaves were though of as a common forum, a public space. Station owners were guardians of this common resource. The rule was designed to ensure that as guadians of a public resource, owners could not provide only a single view - their political programming had to reflect the diversity of views in the community.

Nobody ever at the time believed that the fairness doctrine was "censorship" of any sort. This is a right-wing talking point that has spread recently only because we now have a generation that never experienced this rule and is willing to believe all sorts of nonsense about how it worked.

[aquart]

41. Thank you for your concern.

[Moochy]

43. Mythical free markets

The Mythical Free Market of ideas eh? You are ignoring that the press is not the internet.

I do acknowledge that what you say about a reapplication of a Fairness Doctrine to privately owned websites would be ridiculous and stifling.

However what do you think about one company owning all of the media outlets? What ills have come because of this unhealthy, non-competitive, monopolistic media environment full of cross-pollinating synergies dedicated to promoting a consumer-centered lifestyle that supports a media conglomerates' rich portfolio of entertainment , product and service offerings?

So your non-terrible idea is to just allow companies to keep buying any media outlet, consolidating.
But hey I can post here so big fucking whoop dee doo! yes I am so powerful that I can post here on DU! and that's way better than fair rules for media ownership. :eyes:

[tblue37]

49. The Fairness Doctrine only applies to the publicly owned

airways that are used by broadcast media. The point is that the airways are publicly owned, so those who get to use them to make huge profits owe something to the public.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. You obviously have no understanding of what the fairness doctrine

was.

A site like this is a lot of things, but it is not journalism. The fairness doctrine would never be applied to this any more than it would be applied to any private conversation.

It did not, in fact, even apply to editorial pages. Some papers had blatantly conservative stances, others were blatantly progressive, in their editorials pages, but that which was news on the news pagers was held to a strict standard of impartiality. Guest columns were balanced, for example Molly Ivins against Ann Coulter. As a general rule, LTTEs provided letters covering two sides of an issue - not always in balance, but at least in representation.

IOW, the media were not allowed to be used for propaganda. It is just as simple as that. It's called 'integrity'.

[Doctor Panacea]

64. Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine would not affect boards on the Internet.

TV and radio stations were thought of, in the old days, under the Fairness Doctrine, as private enterprises operating in the public trust. They had to maintain a news staff and broadcast news as a public service; and if they editorialized, which they often did, they had to offer time if someone wanted to respond with the opposite view.

The key difference between airwaves and the Internet is that the Internet is not parceled out in leases by a government to private enterprises.

[rmgarrette64]

65. Fine, fine, specifics

New report out by the Media Research Center, http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2007/Riseandshine/report0829_exec.asp.

Primary Finding: The networks offered nearly twice as much coverage of the Democrats. More than half of all campaign segments (284, or 55%) focused on the Democratic contest, compared with just 152 (29%) devoted to the Republicans. The remaining stories either offered roughly equal discussion of both parties or did not focus on the major parties.

Should this be a matter of government concern? Again, this is the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), so it's exactly what everyone is telling me the Fairness Doctrine will cover. In one of the other findings, they state: "In their interviews with the candidates, the network hosts emphasized a liberal agenda." So, should even the questions asked in an interview be subject to regulation?

I know we take it for granted that the major networks are biased to the right - this report shows that not everyone shares that opinion. Who decides?

And by the way, my memories of Fairness Doctrine era radio was very bland, with no one editorializing much on any side. I like the raucous debate, and want it to stay around. Even the stuff I don't agree with. I don't want bean-counters trying to track every minute of a discussion, and figuring out what "side" it's on so we've got some balance.

Be a First Amendment Absolutist. Free press means a free bloody press.

R. Garrett

[MsMagnificent]

73. Yeah! Fairness is for pussies!

It's so last-century!

Propaganda is the new, improved way to go! Or should I say GO(P)?

:crazy:


The question is: If the Fairness Doctrine was still in use, would the MSM have been so quick and willing to take dictation from the White House?
(Yeah I'm looking at you first, New York Times!)

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. The press without the fairness doctrine is pretty much like a debate

between BillO and, well, just about anybody, where he makes is point and when the other responds he goes 'SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!!"

In America, the public supposedly owns the airwaves - we have the right to both sides of an argument. We cannot allow those who are renting our airwaves to bombard us with only half of a debate.

What part of "fairness" do you not understand?

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. The only surprise is...

That anyone is surprised. :shrug:

[daleo]

19. Interesting term - "Moran on Iraq policy"

It reminds me of a certain sign...

[caraher]

22. hehe - yeah, my first thought too until I re-read the name of the rep - NT

[underpants]

24. Go USA

[rodeodance]

20. ....Rubaie was watching children's cartoons.

....Tauscher called it "the Green Zone fog."

"Spin City," Moran grumbled. "The Iraqis and the Americans were all singing from the same song sheet, and it was deliberately manipulated."

But even such tight control could not always filter out the bizarre world inside the barricades. At one point, the three were trying to discuss the state of Iraqi security forces with Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, but the large, flat-panel television set facing the official proved to be a distraction. Rubaie was watching children's cartoons.

When Moran asked him to turn it off, Rubaie protested with a laugh and said, "But this is my favorite television show," Moran recalled.

Porter confirmed the incident, although he tried to paint the scene in the best light, noting that at least they had electricity.

[rodeodance]

25. Just who assembled them is not clear. E-mails to U.S. Central Command's public affairs office in Bag

........It was the bio sheets that seemed to annoy the members of Congress the most. Just who assembled them is not clear. E-mails to U.S. Central Command's public affairs office in Baghdad this week went unanswered.

"I had never seen that in the past. That's new," said Porter, who was on his fourth trip to Iraq. "Now I want to see what they're saying about me," he added, when he learned of the contents of his travel companions' rap sheets.

For one, the quotations appeared to be selected to divide the visitors into those who are with the war effort and those who are against. For another, they were not exactly accurate. Under "latest Iraq vote," Tauscher's bio noted that she had voted in favor of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days of the bill's enactment.

She did vote that way -- in May. On Aug. 2, Tauscher voted in favor of her own bill, which mandates that troops be granted a leave from combat at least as long as their last combat deployment before being shipped back to Iraq. That vote might have been a little too popular with the soldiers she was meeting, Tauscher said.

Still, Porter was quick to add, for all the drawbacks, the trip was worth it.

"No doubt you will have people speak the company talking points," Porter said. "But I spent time with people who were not officers, four of them from Nevada, two who were very blunt" about their support for the war and their anger over partisan fighting in Washington.

"I tend to lean with the rank-and-file members of military who have nothing to gain," he added. "They want to go home as soon as possible."

[Bandit]

26. So repeating a Congressman's words back to them is sliming them?

They should have the guts to say hell yes I said those things and I meant every word of them. I support the troops and place their safety above anything else.. Why do they backtrack so much?

[Shipwack]

27. Well, yes it is sliming them...

If the leaflets are selective quotes used to put the congressman in the worst possible light. I'm willing to admit to being wrong about this, if the pamphlets also tell about which congress people supported a military pay increase, and which Republicans (including the President) shot it down...

But no, that would spoil the myth that the Dems hate the military, while the 'pubs love and support them.

[lonestarnot]

57. Well where is the slime part, all I saw here was only the truth. I wouldn't be ashamed of that vote

[Moochy]

30. Managed Pentagon PR Event

Yes that's sliming. So the person trying to get the attention of the delegation, that was "whisked away"? We'll never know. Slimed.

[2rth2pwr]

61. I am wondering what they mean by sliming them

did I miss it? What was said that was sliming?

[Plucketeer]

36. Sadly, outside of this forum...

..... WHERE is the outrage??? :argh:

[EnricoFermi]

39. ...in Senator Craig's pants

[kerry-is-my-prez]

53. Maybe this should be posted in the Gen Discussion - more people read that one...

n/t

[ieoeja]

40. Are they intended to slime or prevent faux pas?

When a congress critter comes around government agencies want their people to put on their best behaviour. It may very well be they were providing "suck up" material for the personnel. Talking points targetted for the specific audience, e.g. congressman.

The brass would rather not have some GI mouthing off, "all those stupid liberals opposed to this war are just helping the enemy," to some congressmen who opposes the war.

[jaybeat]

42. Looks like it worked, in one case (Baird-D)

He kept talking at his town-hall meeting in Vancouver (WA) about how his "visits" to Iraq changed his mind--that even though he thought the invasion was "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States," now that we were there, we needed to "finish" "helping" the Iraqi people.

An Iraq war veteran spoke and told him flat out that the "tours" that Congress members get are 100% propaganda and have absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going on in Iraq. (Surprise, surprise.)

Maybe this will help Baird realize that he's been had, suckered and taken for a fool. I'd love to know what was on his "bio" and how they used that to hoodwink him.

[coco77]

44. I am wondering why this is suppose to be a surprise..

I have always feared for the Dems when they took trips to Iraq. I have always suspected this is why some of the soldiers were so wholeheartedly supporting dumbo.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

50. Why didn't they tell "Security" to let the man speak before he was taken away?

I'd like to know what his point was, too...

[kerry-is-my-prez]

52. It's like saying - go ahead and let the Dem Congresspeople get killed....

Very scary. What other purpose would there be to this?

[KneelBeforeZod]

55. Slimed?

I don't get the problem here. Congressmen and congresswomen have the right to speak out against the war in Iraq, and soldiers have the right to know where the visiting government officials stand.

Our position on the war is nothing to be ashamed of, so I simply don't understand the problem with broadcasting to the troops the fact that Democrats have been fighting to bring them home.

Do we think hiding our opinions from the troops would be a better tact? Lets be honest with them, and if they don't support our ideas, that's fine. They have the right to know and decide for themselves.

Z

[mitchtv]

59. Then you would have no objection to them bringing

Their own fact sheets with them next time? Two can play that game

[KneelBeforeZod]

62. Of course not ...

Why would I have a problem with a Congressman bringing his own 'fact sheet' to outline his views? Sounds like a reasonably good idea to me. Just tell them what you think ... if the military doesn't like your ideas, so be it. You can't please everyone.

It looks to me like some people in the military simply exercised their 1st amendment rights, and distributed the already public statements of the visiting Congressmen. Since when is it "sliming" to educate yourself and others about the on-the-record statements of public officials?

Are we contending that these Congressmen didn't say these things? No. Were the congressmen wrong to say these things? I certainly don't think so ... but if THEY are embarrassed by their own statements, they really should've thought of that earlier.

If this effort were publicizing some of Bush's more outlandish remarks, we'd be applauding the ingenuity of whatever member of the military came up with the idea.

Z

[mitchtv]

75. First of all, the military does not have that 1st amendment right

They cannot delve into politics, for a reason. No one wants a politicised military, and they proved it by "selecting" what votes they publicized,, thereby creating controversy and setting people up for repercussions because of someones views on the war in this case. IT IS NOT THE MILITARY"S ROLE TO POLITICALLY EDUCATE ANYONE, in fact it is dangerous.

[Toots]

77. Then why does Rush Limbaugh have fifteen hours a week to do that very thing?

Using tax payer dollars I might add...

[KneelBeforeZod]

78. Ridiculous ...

Members of the military has the same first amendment rights as the rest of us. They have the right to their opinions, and to speak out regardint their opinions to the extent that it does not violate the Military Code of Conduct to do so.

>> They cannot delve into politics, for a reason.

The military, as a unit, cannot delve into politics. Individual members can and do "delve into politics". For instance, they vote.

Certainly you're not advocating the revocation of the first amendment to anyone that joins the military.

>> No one wants a politicised military, and they proved it by "selecting" what votes they publicized,, thereby creating controversy and setting people up for repercussions because of someones views on the war in this case.

Our views on the war are fine. I see no reason to hide them from the military. Publicizing already public statements of government officials is not "sliming".

>> IT IS NOT THE MILITARY"S ROLE TO POLITICALLY EDUCATE ANYONE, in fact it is dangerous.

Again, you're confusing the military as a whole with individual members thereof. Individual members of the military have the right to "educate" whomever they choose (so long as it does not conflict with the Military Code of Conduct).

Z

[LanternWaste]

80. You believe in good faith...

You believe in good faith that this is not tax-payer supported political indoctrination, and rather a non-biased analysis of Congressman X's stance on the conflict?

You believe it should be the job of the military to engage in political discourse in addition to secure through military means the safety of the American people?

[KneelBeforeZod]

81. I saw no indication of taxpayer funding ...

>> You believe in good faith that this is not tax-payer supported political indoctrination, and rather a non-biased analysis of Congressman X's stance on the conflict?

First - I saw no indication whatsoever that this was a taxpayer-funded endeavor. That is an assumption which as been made only on this forum.

Second - I never said this was unbiased ... I just think that members of the military, like you and I, have the right to their own biases.

>> You believe it should be the job of the military to engage in political discourse in addition to secure through military means the safety of the American people?

Again - assumptions have been made. There is no indication that these fliers were an official military action. The military, as an institution, should remove itself from political matters ... but individual members of the military have the right to engage in political action so long as they abide by the Military Code of Conduct. I don't know the code ... but I doubt this was a violation.

It seems more likely to me that a zealous conservative member of the military decided to distribute fliers to publicize the views of the speakers at this event. I assume that the distributor disagreed with the congressmen ... but, I see nothing wrong with that.

Like I've said - the anti-war movements has got nothing to be ashamed of here ... we're right, and we're fighting to bring our men and women home. And - if the congressmen are, in fact, ashamed of their anti-war statements ... they really should've thought of that earlier.

Let's not lose the forest for the trees here ... since 9-11, we've been fighting for the right of dissenters to speak out against their government. We've fought for military-member anti-war protesters that wore their uniforms at protest events, we've fought for consciensious objectors that didn't want to fight ... and we should fight for the right of conservative dissenters to express disagreement with liberal congressmen.

Z

[LSK]

56. K&R and send to KO!!!!!

[lligrd]

58. Apparently Rove Got A new Job Already nt

[spirit of wine]

60. It Most Likely Is Coming From A Group Like This

Remember This being mentioned?

http://www.lincolngroup.com/?q=ourclients

Or this group:

http://www.rendon.com/team.php

-Peace

[Divine Discontent]

68. exactly... one of them

hired contractors... who's main purpose is to change hearts & minds... and that includes are fighting forces.

[otohara]

66. Surprised It Took Them This Long

but then again, it's fall.... time to roll out the flyers and fax out those press releases "war good, anti-war traitors bad" P.S. Iran next!

[Divine Discontent]

67. OK

this is a form of TREASON imo. They're attacking elected representatives of our nations Congress with smear sheets, and most likely using taxpayer dollars to do so!

DAMMIT Congress or anyone who works directly with them - press each other to force accountability on this brazen behavior!

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

[KneelBeforeZod]

79. Treason?

Now its TREASON to speak out against a government official? Would it have been treason if a member of the military had distributed derogatory information about George W. B*sh or Dick Cheney? I'd suggest you take another look at the 1st Amendment ...

I'm sorry, but labeling ANY political speech (from the right or left) "treason" is simply totalitarian nonsense.

These people, no matter how misguided, have the RIGHT to disagree with us.

Z

[Solly Mack]

72. find out who did it and then GO AFTER THEM

and I mean...actually go after them.

[scarletwoman]

76. Un-freakin'-believable! Well, no -- actually TOO freakin"-believable. But, DAMN!

They damn well BETTER investigate where these papers came from!

And while they're at it, they ought to come up with their OWN bio sheets to distribute when they visit the Green Zone.

In the larger picture, however, this is just one more of layer of bullshit in the vast mountain range of bullshit that sustains this entire imperialist enterprise. If Congress isn't ever going to come right out and say that the WHOLE THING IS BULLSHIT, then I guess they're probably just going to take their lumps.

sw