Paul Hodes' Amendment Says No To Propaganda From Defense Dept
 Monday, March 17th, 2008

Remember these guys? Well, they may be out of a job next year! Last month, the New York Times exposed the "media Trojan horse" sham in which the Pentagon was feeding information about the Iraq War to the American public through military analysts and commentators on network news channels. Last week, however, a new step has been taken - this time by the House of Representatives - to prevent this sort of program, in which retired military officers reportedly relayed the administration's themes and messages to the public regarding terrorism and the Middle East.

Democratic Rep. Paul W. Hodes of New Hampshire (yay NH!) introduced an amendment to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill, which forbids the Department Of Defense (DOD) from participating in "a concerted effort to propagandize" the American people on the war.

Some Representatives were opposed to Hodes' amendment: Rep. Duncan Hunter (a Republican Congressman in California who, you may recall, ran for President in this election but dropped out in January) denies that propaganda took place, despite the Pentagon's withdrawal of the "program" a week after the Times' article; Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Congressman, was also against limiting the DOD's power of expressing pertinent phrases publicly.

The amendment passed, however, with a voice vote and a vote of 384-23.

In a statement, Rep. Hodes said, "In a free and democratic society, our government should never use the public airwaves to propagandize our citizens. Congress cannot allow an Administration to manipulate the public with false propaganda on matters of war and our national security.

"This amendment will ensure that no money authorized in this act will be used for a propaganda program, and require a report to Congress by both the Defense Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office on whether previous restrictions on propaganda have been violated. It's time for the American people to finally know the truth."

Comments > >