DougR and I are on the polar opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I agree with him that this is a common practice at election time.

Where I disagree with DougR is on this statement:

"Even newspapers slanted toward one candidate or another would provide such space for free I believe."

Wrong. The newspapers never give out political advertising for free.

I realize most people nowadays aren't aware of this, but back in the Old School days, nearly every newspaper had an editorial slant that supported either Republicans or Democrats. That editorial slant was known and understood by the newspaper readership, and the news given was interpreted accordingly. It wasn't considered controversial, partisan, or political. It was simply a recognition that there was no such thing as truly objective, unbiased reporting of news.

The era of tv network news seems to have undermined the very important critical thinking skill once shared by American voters. Very few people nowadays knows and understands how and why they need to determine the editorial slant of the tv and radio network news that they watch and listen to, or read in their papers BEFORE accepting what they say. People take the news literally as truth, much in the same way that the most conservative religionists take their holy books literally.

This is not a good thing.

I also disagree with DougR about this particular group of leaders making this announcement being insignificant.

I believe it is very significant that such a large, powerful group of diplomatic and military leaders is willing to publicly state their opposition to Bush administration policies in the post-9/11 era. In any era, you rarely see this sort of a group become involved in the political debate, because diplomats and military leaders are supposed to be able to serve the interests of the US, and not one political party or president over another. So the way they conduct themselves is to stand apart from the political debate, even though their personal political opinions are usually known within the political establishment in New York and Washington.

The US' aggressive, beligerent unilateralism and Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war has been disastrous for the US on a military and diplomatic level. I believe that is why this particular group is now speaking out. That they are speaking out in the wake of their equivalent group in Britain, is likely a strategical move, but that should give Americans pause. But it isn't.

Too many Americans keep viewing the global impact of our government's actions through the red/blue lens of American political divisions. That is a really big mistake. The standing of the US has plummeted around the world in the last two years, from the point of being at an all time high in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. That too should be giving Americans pause, but isn't.