This past Sunday, the venerable New York Times published a lengthy screed in which it was revealed that some twenty-two high ranking retired military men and one still on active duty in the Pentagon had been suborned to give false evidence, about the conduct and progress of the aggression against Iraq, to the electronic and print media.

To those of us who have been attentive to foreign press reporting, as well as a few unembeded independents like Dahr Jamail, that the truth wasn't getting through the major media filters is not news. Neither does the suborning of the pensioners come as much of a surprise. After all, the Bush Administration has made an art out of circumventing Constitutional limitations on the federal government by suborning private corporations to do its dirty work; of course for a hetfy price that we the people pay.

Nevertheless, that men who have sworn to honor the Constitution and serve the United States have lied to the public, not to protect the nation but to cover up malfeasance, comes as a bit of a shock. As does the fact that fully twenty-two are identified by name and rank.

One really has to ask, "Have you, at last, no shame, sirs?"

The names, as best I have been able to glean from the Times article, are as follows:

Robert S. Bevelacqua

Kenneth Allard

Jeffrey D. McCausland

Thomas G. McInerney

John C. Garrett

Donald W. Shepperd

Montgomery Meigs

William L. Nash

James Marks

Joseph W. Ralston

William Cohen

Barry R. McCaffrey

Wayne A. Downing

Paul E. Vallely

William V. Cowan

Carlton A. Sherwood

Charles T. Nash

Timur J. Eads

Robert L. Maginnis

Robert H. Scales Jr

David L. Grange

James T. Conway***

Rick Francona

General James T. Conway is still on active duty and Wayne A. Downing is recently deceased. William Cohen, the former Secretary of Defense is perhaps an unlikely source of current expertise, but his business enterprise, hustling up military contracts, is rather central to this whole endeavor. Because, in addition to collecting their pensions, a goodly number of these retirees were also employed in promoting the sale of military equipment and provisions to their cronies. Indeed, some had organized their own enterprise to provide contractual services themselves. They didn't just leave their honor on the studio floor for the meagre stipends and per diems and even transport into the war zone, with which, on occasion, the media corporations provisioned them.

Now the question is: does the public have any recourse against military men who, after they retire from active duty, abuse the public trust? This seems particularly important because, while the Times refers to them as Pentagon analysts, it now seems more likely that these pensioners actually served at the pleasure of the President. And, while it's been clear for some time that a number of Generals have been dismissed, apparently for not giving the proper advice, the President's avowed reliance on what "his generals" tell him now seems validated by the revelation that these more experienced analysts' advice prevailed. Or was it an echo the President heard?

The final thought I'd offer is this. It seems that the culture of obedience which relegates responsibility to someone other than those who carry out the orders, instead of insuring stability and good order, actually promotes risky and irresponsible behavior--that individuals who would never commit attrocities on their own, do so without hesitation when it's likely that someone else will be blamed. And if that's the case, then we have to consider that violent aggression is endemic to the authoritarian/conservative culture. People aren't naturally violent; they become violent when their better instincts are repressed.