Every American is responsible for remaining vigilant, and in reality we should be the final arbiters of truth. The device by which we'd make our views known is pretty obvious: dissenting (or supporting) speech along with elections. The amount of influence wielded by the media and special interests, coupled with public apathy, may have changed that equation, but that's for another thread. You'll notice that I've refrained from calling you the Taliban, precisely because I respect your right (duty?) to speak up when you disagree. Instead, I've taken issue with your premise:
That is, I've seldom seen disinformation during wartime (or diplomacy, if you prefer) classified as an unacceptable lie. I take a relatively cynical view of government (as Dane could probably tell you from prior posts), but even I don't see this as Bush breaking trust with America.
I think we could agree that the press need to be silent on military movements..but it is the press's function to keep the government honest.
We do not agree that it is ever all right to have an office of "disinformation"
The purpose of that office is to deceive the American public. I hated it when the USSR did it and when the Muslims do it today. I want the press to ALWAYS be an antagonist to the government. The problem in recent years was they were in bed with the democrats when I want and expect them to be watchdogs