Matt Ortega

Noah Shachtman wrote about an incredibly disturbing military report that recommends secretly recruiting, or even paying, sympathetic bloggers to function as attack dogs on policy opponents and spread specific information.

Since the start of the Iraq war, there’s been a raucous debate in military circles over how to handle blogs — and the servicemembers who want to keep them. One faction sees blogs as security risks, and a collective waste of troops’ time. The other (which includes top officers, like Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. William Caldwell) considers blogs to be a valuable source of information, and a way for ordinary troops to shape opinions, both at home and abroad.

This 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University, “Blogs and Military Information Strategy,” offers a third approach — co-opting bloggers, or even putting them on the payroll. “Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering,” write the report’s co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning.

A military spokesman claimed that the report was an academic exercise.

“The comments are not ‘actionable’, merely thought provoking,” he tells Danger Room. “The views expressed in the article publication are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy or position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, USSOCOM [Special Operations Command], or the Joint Special Operations University.”

These practices are better known by their academic terminology: “political persecution” and “propaganda.”

If you don’t want questions, don’t foist these children onto the public stage.

Fight your battles like adults and stop hiding behind youngsters dragging around red wagons filled with your talking points.

–Michelle Malkin, conservative blogger
(MichelleMalkin.com, 10/08/07)

Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-Clarence, N.Y.), then-chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) last fall, hiding behind children to avoid questions about what he knew of former Congressman Mark Foley’s (R-West Palm Beach, Fla.) inappropriate, likely illegal, sexual behavior with underage Congressional pages:

Who could ever forget President Bush’s infamous snowflake baby photo-op following his veto of stem-cell research over two years ago?

Malkin and her acolytes in the conservative blogosphere are relentlessly attacking the family of a young boy who gave the Democratic Weekly Radio Address. (Flag lapel pins and children giving radio addresses — this is what the far reaches of the conservative base spend their time on these days, along with hating Mexicans, Persians, Arabs, and Muslims.)

Thers holds his ground:

But all this shit started with obviously stupid and dishonest “questions” that weren’t questions at all, but vile innuendo. The reason actual journalists didn’t ask these “questions” is that there was never any reason to ask them except to engage in this innuendo.

Both sides have and will likely continue to incorporate children in political messaging. (”Family values,” anyone?) It is nothing new.

However, digging into the background of a child’s family to score political points that never come to fruition, because the person’s suspicions were ultimately proven wrong, is yet another sign of just how pathetic and determined these people are, and hypocritical. (Malkin sold her house and changed her children’s schools after her private information was divulged, in retaliation for publicizing and promoting phone numbers and e-mails, which she reposted multiple times after she was contacted that her readers were leaving death threats.)

Hank Shaw of the Stockton Record picked up on last week’s emergency liveblogging Q&A with Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton, Calif.) following statements that appeared in the Washington Post regarding Iraq. (In the comments section of the Q&A, it is quite obvious that McNerney changed few minds, but was a thoughtful gesture nonetheless.)

This faint praise for President Bush’s “surge” sent the activists into orbit. Hundreds of blog posts began pouring into cyberspace crying betrayal. Hundreds more postings emerged after House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, cited McNerney as among the Democrats who supposedly supported the surge. (Boehner’s spokesman is Brian Kennedy, who worked for Pombo last year.)

Republican use of wavering Democrats on Iraq was to be expected. In fact, it was expected — by everyone but McNerney’s D.C. staff. Plus, I am sure Spokesman Brian Kennedy was pleased to be the one to, personally, stick it to McNerney’s grassroots supporters.

Shaw’s piece continued:

“Oh Jerry McNerney. What is to be done with you?” blogger Julia Rosen wrote on Calitics. “Frankly, I am saddened about this whole thing. It has been clear that all of our work to create communications channels about your Iraq positioning was for naught.”

Blogger Howie Klein at Firedoglake said he’s become “exasperated” with McNerney.

“Jerry was the one who wanted to end the occupation of Iraq,” Klein wrote. “I don’t really have any doubt that he still does. But he’s given lots of other people plenty of reasons to wonder, including many of his earliest and most devoted backers.”

Julia Rosen, quoted in the article, wrote at Ruck Pad earlier today:

This particular article may serve to further depress McNerney’s activist base, but it may help him out in the district. While the majority of the district is in favor of withdrawal, I have a hard time believing that they would get upset over any praise of Bush or talk of cooperation with the Republicans. The article ends pretty strongly for him. [emphasis added]

The helpfulness of this particular article on McNerney’s support within the district will be, I think, marginal at best. But the damage done, or continued, to his online/grassroots base from the last two to four years will further dampen their support for the freshman.

But wouldn’t that prove to be an incredible problem for Jerry next year?

Heading into 2008, McNerney will be without the major backing from the environmental groups as he did last year, and if this trend continues, he will not have the same kind of enthusiastic support from activists online, inside and outside the district.

That means less people willing to part with heavily-contested dollars and less people willing to commit hours in phone banks and precinct walks. Added that the Republicans — statewide and nationally — are licking their chops to take down Jerry, that will all prove to be large hindrances on McNerney’s chances at a second term.

(Disclaimer: Last fall, I worked with the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund in California’s 11th Congressional District in opposition to then-Congressman Richard Pombo of Tracy, Calif.)