Here are a couple of Republican deep thinkers, reflecting on the Pentagon’s use of retired military officers to stampede America into an unprovoked attack on a nation that played zero role in the 9/11 hijackings:

Representative Duncan Hunter of California, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, objected to the amendment, arguing that retired officers working as military analysts were a “great asset” for the country.

“The idea that somehow Don Rumsfeld got these people in a room and told them what to say, if you believe that you don’t believe in the independence of these general officers,” Mr. Hunter said. “None of them are used to having people tell them what to say.”

And Representative Paul C. Broun, Republican of Georgia, said: “Of course Americans engage in propaganda. It’s a vital part of the mission of the United States to promote democracy and protect our country from harm.”

It’s hard to argue with Broun, because his remarks are too incoherent to engage. But Hunter’s remarks are perfectly clear, as is their absurdity. He ought to know better.

After all, Hunter is an army veteran who has served on the House Armed Services Committee for years. Seriously, can he still believe that generals are a rugged, independent lot of free-thinkers and mavericks?

Can he really not know how an officer rises to the top of a vast, sclerotic, insular bureaucracy? Is he unaware that the very ethos of that bureaucracy is subservience, taught and strictly enforced from basic training camp all the way up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Engage brain before operating tongue, Hunter. No class in America is more used to having people tell them what to say than the officer class.