The First Shoe on the Pentagon Pundit Scandal Drops

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 22:30


I said a few days ago that the Pentagon Pundits story wasn't going away.  It's not.  It's not just Ike Skelton in the House that is furious about the deception, there are many angles here.  Did various media companies break the law by not engaging in a good faith effort to identify conflicts of interest?  Did the Pentagon break the law by authorizing and executing a covert psy-ops mission on the public?  What is the right remedy?  How can Congress deal with the systemic rot within the big media cartel that allowed and enabled this to happen?

John Kerry is beginning to ask these questions, by sending a letter to the GAO requesting an investigation to clarify what happened and whether it's legal.  

Kerry asked just how widespread this practice actually was, who knew about it, how it affected defense contracting deals and whether these military analysts or the DoD were breaking propaganda laws. Media reports have asserted that over 150 military contractors, lobbyists, senior officials, and board members were involved in these operations, many of whom had significant financial interests vested in the Administration's wartime policies.

This is just a very tentative first step.  The reality is that we've been the subjects of a propaganda effort for five years, one the Pentgaon acknowledged was wrong by 'officially' suspending it this week after being discovered.  This isn't going away, because there are bulldogs on the hill that are going to push on this as long as we give them the support.

Kerry's full letter is on the flip.

Matt Stoller :: The First Shoe on the Pentagon Pundit Scandal Drops
Dear Mr. Dodaro:

Recently, the New York Times reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) led a covert effort to cultivate military analysts with distinguished service records to produce favorable press coverage of the Administration's wartime policies.

There is great public concern that DoD would systematically enlist military analysts, many of whom had business interests tied to the Administration's war effort, to spread its message over the airwaves.  At a time when confidence in Washington is at an all-time low, there is a very real worry among Americans that when they turn on the television to hear objective analysis from a military commentator they might instead be hearing what they would deem to be "propaganda."

Collectively, this cadre of analysts may represent over 150 military contractors as lobbyists, senior officials, and board members.  The analysts' business relationships raise legitimate concerns as to whether some of them were encouraged to tailor their commentary in order to maintain their companies' good standing with DoD.  In fact, some analysts reportedly echoed message points they sometimes suspected to be inaccurate or false for this reason.

So that Congress may understand the full reach of this alleged operation, as well as what steps may be necessary to prevent a similar effort in the future, I ask that your office pursue a full investigation into this matter.  I ask that this investigation consider the following:

*  The names of all senior Pentagon officials involved in this effort, and the extent of that involvement;
*  The extent of the contact between Pentagon officials and the military analysts in question regarding what was said by the analysts over the public airwaves;
*  The extent to which the military analysts involved had personal financial interests that were in some way linked to their analysis, including a list of federal contracts that are in any way linked to the companies that employ any of the analysts in question;
*  The extent to which the personal financial interests of the analysts were known, and potentially used, by the Pentagon to promote misleading, inaccurate or false information through the media;
*  The extent to which the personal financial interests of the analysts were disclosed to the public and to the media outlets that employed their service;
*  Whether the actions taken by Pentagon officials to recruit and employ the military analysts were in fact illegal, and if so, whether those involved were made aware at the time that they were breaking the law;
*  What procedures are in place to ensure that military analysts with close ties to government officials or information are not using preferential access to senior officials to further business opportunities; and
*  What steps need to be taken by Congress and by the Pentagon to ensure that this type of effort is not repeated.

As the answers to these questions will do much to address the level of doubt and cynicism created by these actions, I ask that you pursue this request with a sense of urgency and report your findings to Congress as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                                                                                                                          Sincerely,
                                                                                                                                                John Kerry


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I'm am very curious to see where this story goes... (0.00 / 0)
I fear one of my extended family members may have even been a part of it. Obviously I'm not going to name him (he wasn't one of the ones already named) but he fits the bill 100%. He is an ex-military officer with extensive contents who recently (right during the heart of the war) appeared on one of our favorite networks as a "military expert" (which he is, no doubt) and towed the Bush administration line almost verbatim. He did this a number of times.

Obviously this is a hideous abuse of the military by the Bush administration and I hope the full extent gets exposed (and that my relative is uninvolved) but from everything I've seen and know personally this abuse seems to be very widespread. We already know they hired a marketing expert (with tax dollars) to help "sell" this war to the public.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


That certainly looks like (0.00 / 0)
a letter from someone who takes the matter very seriously, not a letter sent simply to appease constituents or to show that something is being done.  If Waxman gets involved, too, DoD could find themselves in some really hot water, really quickly, with aggressive questioning from a number of directions.

John McCain

All these experts--- (0.00 / 0)
This all reminds me of back in the beginning of this war. I have a relative who is knowledgeable about WMD, and around this time he was remarking about the people being brought on TV as WMD specialist-commentators, most of whom he knew or knew of. He was not impressed with their competence or credentials. Now I'm wondering if they, too, were just administration puppets.

I'm also wondering if these military TV commentators know what they're talking about, beyond what the Pentagon tells them. Are military logistics specialists, professors of modern military history, and the like remarking to their relatives, "These guys don't know what they're talking about. How'd they get hired to go on TV?"


US Attorneys Scandal All Over Again??? (4.00 / 1)
It starts off so innocently--what's a little corruption of the Department of Justice/US Military among friends?  And before you know it, you're staring at the heart of a vast, anti-democratic power-grab that should chill you to your bones.

Problem is, the Democratic Party wouldn't recognize an impeachable offense if it walked up and bit them in the ass.

Which, in this case, is precisely what it has done.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Do the Dems not recognize an impeachable offense (0.00 / 0)
or do they willfully avoid confronting the issues?

Its a world of difference.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Here's A Question, SpitBall; (0.00 / 0)
Are you more interested in bashing the Democratic Party, or getting it to change?

Because, obviously, I have no problem attacking the party for betraying its principles, and the people it should be representing.

But you seem to be so caught up in the attack mode that you risk losing all connection with the purpose of it all.

I think it's quite clear that there are at least two major blocks within the party--those who don't recognize impeachable offenses, and those who avoid confronting them.  But a big part of the reason for people being in the second group is because of the first group, and if one wants to change things, one needs to understand the relationship of those two groups, as well as a good many other relationships.

I don't sense any interest on your part in understanding these relationships.  All I see is an interest in bashing the party.  And since it's the strongest counterweight we have right now to the criminally insane GOP, I have to wonder if you've properly assessed your priorities.

This is not a response to your comment above.  In isolation I might simply agree with it.  But things do not exist in isolation, and your comments attacking the Democratic Party seem to me to ignore that fact.

After all, the Democratic Party was the bulwark of racism--first slavery, then segregation--for over 150 years, before it transformed itself in the 1960s, at the cost of losing dominant national power.  If it could transform itself so fundamentally once, it could certainly do so again.  Most significantly, this is not just a theoretical potential.  The partyprovides space for millions and millions of people who are actively fighting for a more progressive future--a fact that seems to perennially escape your notice.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
You've asked the fundamental question (0.00 / 0)
And I want to give the answer the effort and detail it is due.

Given the current deadlines I'm facing - it'll have to wait - but I'm not ignoring this.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
For what it is worth (0.00 / 0)
This is not going to be quick, or easy.  When I commented that you had asked the "fundamental question" I meant that in every sense of the words I can imagine.  This is one of the few posts I am composing "off-line" because it really is that critical - at least to me. I don't pretend to know very much about what other people think, feel, or desire.  

On one hand, I'm a bit out of my league when it comes to the denizens of this site.  My life has not played out in such a way that I am focused on the deep political machinations, movements, and philosophies which are the subject of many diaries and posts on OpenLeft.  At the same time, the results of these, i.e. who gets elected and how they lead the nation impact, my life in almost every aspect.  I work for the federal government and I am dependent upon the government for the bulk of the money that keeps my basic medical research laboratory running.

In the context of this particular comment - my intention was not to "bash" the Democratic Party - it was more aimed at you.  But, my concern is not limited to this particular post - rather to the general tendency I see in your posts.  This exchange is a prime example, however, so I'll use it.

Compare your original comment about the Democratic Party: "Problem is, the Democratic Party wouldn't recognize an impeachable offense if it walked up and bit them in the ass."

With the one that followed my query: "I think it's quite clear that there are at least two major blocks within the party--those who don't recognize impeachable offenses, and those who avoid confronting them."

Can you see that the prior only addresses half of the latter?  I'm not sure which block you find more objectionable, or destructive - but in my humble opinion, it's the latter.  That is - the main problem I see with the Democratic Party, in regard to this issue and many others, is the part of the issue that your flippant remark ignores.  Now, if this were not a pattern in your posts, I would not pick on it.  After many months of reading and sometimes commenting I've noticed that you have a tendency to focus (not exclusively, by any means) on the "blocks" that are, to my way of thinking, the least of the problem.  In some cases - the whole "Republicans are insane" meme - I find this extremely corrosive and not in the least bit helpful.  Frankly, as someone who puts such stock in the "frames" issue, I'm a bit stunned that you don't see how such amounts to a form of apologetics.

Here's may reasoning: (particular current case) If the real problem are the Democrats that actively avoid confronting impeachable offenses, then by portraying the problem as wholly comprised of the other block - those who can't recognize an impeachable offense - you've made it appear that the problem is ignorance, rather than a calculated choice.  This is critical because each block requires a different response.  The ignorant can be taught, while the willful avoiders must be brought to account.  By superficially focusing on the ignorance, you've created a situation that can effectively shield the willful ones from scrutiny.  In essence you've "apologized" for those that have actively sought to sweep these issues under the rug, by attributing their willful actions to ignorance.

The "Republicans are insane" issue, and the related, "the Bush Administration is incompetent" explanations for the mess in Iraq, function much the same way.  Let me offer another perspective.  The Neo-Cons are not insane, nor are they incompetent (well, no more than any other group of human beings).  They hold to an agenda - fairly well laid out by the PNAC and more recently by Bill Kristol and his ilk - that is not compatible with the way most Americans think about this nation and our place in the world.  Thus, if they want to be able to have the power - hold and control government resources - to enact that agenda, they cannot openly express their goals in public.  They must lie and deceive in order to rule.  I think you understand this point, just as clearly as you understand the block in the Democratic Party that you did not mention in your original comment, so I don't feel as though I need to spell it out for you in any great detail.  The problem, as I see it, is that by continually speaking in the frame of "Republicans are insane", you essentially "apologize" for those that practice deceit as a matter of policy, and disinformation as a matter of public outreach.  The insane cannot control their actions - but the ill-intentioned can.  We don't generally prosecute the insane for their crimes - we feel sorry for them.  I don't want people to feel sorry for Dick Cheney because they think he's crazy - I want them to get pissed off because he's consciously acting in a way that is antithetical to the spirit of this nation.  I want people to demand an answer to "why are you doing this?", and not to be satisfied when he says, "Oh, to protect America, of course", by convincing themselves that he has good intentions, but is simply incompetent, or a bit whacky.

I'm not saying that you don't understand this aspect of Cheney's methods - clearly, you've posted diaries and comments that show how much you DO understand it.  What bugs me is the imbalance in your posts - you give far too much credence to the "insanity" frame and I find that not at all helpful.

On "bashing" the Democratic Party.  I don't think I've made any attempt to obscure the fact that I don't really give one whit, or two shits, about either one of the Main Stream Parties.  I may be more sympathetic to the "progressive" wing in the nation, but by and large, such is stymied by party loyalty.  At the same time, I see no reason to portray this as an either/or situation.  Is it not possible to support BOTH a progressive movement AND the development of a viable multi-party system?  I admit, I can't cite any books by well-known authors that support my points, but I have seen the value of a viable multi-party system with my own eyes, albeit at the local and state level of government.  I've lived in 4 US states: Michigan, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota.  Of these, MN has the most responsive governments I have experienced - especially at the local level (Minneapolis).  At the same time, MN has the most open form of voting and party establishment. Alternative political parties are encouraged by a "5%" rule - get a minimum of 5% of the popular vote in ANY state-wide race - get in on the public funding money for the party.  No such thing was happening in any of the other states when I lived in them (could be now, I don't know).  The ballots are displayed in a manor that "legitimizes" the alternative parties.  In IL, the Republican party candidate was always at the top of the ballot, then the Democratic Party candidate - both in larger font-face and bold - followed by the others (unbold, and smaller point size).  In MN, candidates are listed alphabetically, without regard to party affiliation, and all in the same font size.  Sure, you can pass it off that off as trivial thing - but the alternative party candidates are actively included in the debates, as well - they are not written off as fringe elements - they are encouraged and respected.  

Even so, the majority of our elected officials are from one of the MSPs, so the hegemony of the major parties is not broken.  I cannot help but relate the openness of the MN political system with the relative responsiveness of the governments elected by the citizens.  Minimally, the presence of viable alternatives has a tendency to weed out the "lazy" candidates from the MSPs.  By "lazy" I mean the candidates who's basic argument as to why one should vote for them is that they are not the other person.  At the national level this argument is pernicious and the norm.  During the 2004 campaign for President, my neighborhood was besieged by door-knockers - most from the Democratic Party ( the "Impeach Bush" sign in the front yard successfully scared off the GOP, I suspect, or maybe they just didn't care).  Almost every single one of those canvassers told me the same thing when I asked why I should vote for Kerry - some variation on, "well, he's not Bush".  Few had an actual, positive reason why Kerry should expect my vote.  In the end, I did not vote for Kerry, or Bush, or Nader - I voted "Art Temple" (but that's another story).

I can see it already in 2008.  As the Democratic nomination is drawing to a close and the GE is looming, both candidates are moving away from the left-wing.  They are perfectly happy to do so because they can pretty much guess that they have the left wing votes tied up.  There's no viable alternative - all they need to do is spread the fear of a McCain presidency and we'll all line up like good little children, quit griping, and cast our vote the Democrat. The only ones that don't play along are the "spoilers" that vote Nader, or the lunatics that cast protest votes, or abstain.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox