| Number 430 | June 17, 2009 |
|
This Week: Investigating Some Investigations (or, Trying To)
|
|
Greetings, This week is a Double Issue of Nygaard Notes, and that's partly because next week I hope to launch the much-belated Spring 2009 Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive. (Hey, it's still officially spring in Minnesota!) Thanks to all of you who have already renewed your 2009 Pledge (I was pretty late in getting your renewal notices out; my apologies.) As for this week's Notes, the longest piece you'll see takes the form of a saga, of sorts. That is, it is a long, detailed account of a story that I have been following for over a year. I wanted to wait until there was some resolution before I wrote about it, but it doesn't seem to be approaching a resolution, so why wait any longer? And anyway, it's already a long saga – I don't want to write a book about it! (I'm already writing a book, as readers of the Notes are aware, and one book is enough, believe me.) Since I decided that this would be a double issue, there turned out to be room for a couple of other, shorter pieces on investigations, in addition to the Saga. Next week I'll discuss the point of all this talk about investigations, but for now, sit back and enjoy the Saga of the Pentagon Pundits (And Other Stories). In solidarity, Nygaard |
|
Just before he was inaugurated, Barack Obama appeared on ABC's Sunday talk show "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. After Obama reiterated his promise "We are going to close Guantanamo," Mr. Stephanopoulos said to Mr. Obama: "The most popular question on your own website is related to this. On [Mr. Obama's transition website] change.gov, it comes from Bob Fertik of New York City and he asks, ‘Will you appoint a special prosecutor, ideally Patrick Fitzgerald, to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?'" Mr. Obama replied, in part: "Obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." Up to this point, every prosecution known to the human race has involved "looking backwards," since it is very difficult to prosecute someone for events in the future. So this statement is really a bit of a non sequitur, but I include it here as it is relevant to the mindset that is the focus of this issue of the Notes. |
|
Over a year ago The New York Times broke a major story that quickly became known as the "Pentagon Pundits" story. I've been following it fairly closely for the past fourteen months, and have talked about it elsewhere, but was surprised when I realized recently that I had never discussed it in the pages of the Notes. The story is still unfolding, but rather than waiting for the story to come to a resolution (which it may never do) I am going to go into some detail on it right here and right now. I think this little case study has a lot to tell us about what happens when public outcry forces the powers that be to "investigate" some of the shocking, horrifying, and/or scandalous events that occasionally are allowed to see the light of day in the U.S.A. In addition, this saga offers some insights into the nature of accountability, propaganda, investigations, and power. Finally, besides being informative and loaded with lessons, I think the saga is highly entertaining, as well! I hope you'll agree. The saga begins back on April 20 2008. The Pentagon Pundit Story Breaks On the front page of the Sunday edition of the New York Times of April 20, 2008 ran a story headlined "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand." The Times reporter, David Barstow, recently was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for the story, which "revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq," in the words of the Pulitzer committee. Here is a bit more on the background, in quotations taken directly from the Times article itself: The article told the story of "a group of retired military officers" who "are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as ‘military analysts' whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world." "Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though," said the Times, "is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance..." Barstow described "how the Bush administration ... transform[ed] the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse—an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." "Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as ‘message force multipliers' or ‘surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration ‘themes and messages' to millions of Americans ‘in the form of their own opinions.' . . . The analysts . . .were framing how viewers ought to interpret events." The Pentagon offered the analysts all sorts of special access, briefings, and so forth, and "In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access." "A few [analysts] expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis." Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, told the Times that "The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people." And that "earnest attempt," reported the Times, "began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day. . ." May 2, 2008: "Calling for an Investigation" A couple of weeks after the Times broke the story, on May 2nd 2008, 41 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro, sent a letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) asking for some action on the scandal. According to the Associated Press, DeLauro "said it was important for the Inspector General to find out how high-ranking officials within the Pentagon were allowed to operate a program aimed at deceiving the American people." In addition, she said, "we are calling for the Inspector General to launch an investigation to ensure no detail surrounding this program remains hidden." May 22 and 24 2008: Requiring an Investigation (or Two) On May 22nd the House passed (by a vote of 384-23) the Hodes-DeLauro-DeFazio amendment to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment was intended "to prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) from engaging in propaganda programs and requiring the GAO [Government Accountability Office] to launch an investigation into the DOD Military Analyst Program." The amendment "also directs the Inspector General of the Department of Defense and the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the Department of Defense in their program designed to indirectly influence media coverage of the War in Iraq through network and cable news media analysts." The amendment, said co-sponsor Rep. Paul Hodes of New Hampshire "will ... require a report to Congress by both the Defense Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office on whether previous restrictions on propaganda have been violated." Sure enough, two days later, on May 24th, the Associated Press published an article saying that both reports were underway. "A Defense spokesman, Lt. Col. Brian Maka, said Saturday the Inspector General's review will look at whether special access to Pentagon leaders ‘may have given the contractors a competitive advantage." And, reported the AP, the GAO also said it was reviewing the program and whether it violated policies barring use of government money to spread propaganda in the United States." Note that, at this point (the end of May 2008), we have two investigations on the way. One by the Department of Defense Inspector General, which is a Pentagon office in charge of investigating the Pentagon. The other by the GAO, which is "an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress." In other words, one self-investigation and one outside investigation. Got that? Keep both of them in mind as we proceed... (But, wait a minute. Before we do proceed I just have to tell a little side story. That reliable organ of the business classes, the Investor's Business Daily, ran an editorial on May 27th 2008 noting the Hodes amendment, which they characterized as "a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq." The unsigned editorial added that "It's not as if the Pentagon brass, as they wage a global war on terrorism, don't have better things to do than sit down and answer foolish questions about public relations operations from a bunch of GAO bean-counters.") (Wait another minute! Here's another side story: The Washington Post was the only US media outlet to say anything about a totally-separate report by the Pentagon Inspector General that came out on December 12. "Pentagon May Have Mixed Propaganda With PR," read the headline, and the brief Page Two article told us that "The Pentagon's Inspector General said yesterday that the Defense Department's public affairs office may have ‘inappropriately' merged public affairs and propaganda operations in 2007 and 2008 when it contracted out $1 million in work for a strategic communications plan for use by the military in collaboration with the State Department.") January 14 2009: The Pentagon Reports on Itself On January 14th 2009, the Pentagon reported the results of its self-investigation. Not surprisingly, the Pentagon found itself. . . . innocent!" Here's how the Inspector General's report put it: "We found insufficient evidence to conclude that the briefings and talking points provided to RMAs [Retired Military Analysts] while supportive of DoD operations, rose to the level of puffery or otherwise sought the self-aggrandizement of the agency, its personnel, or activities." Added the IG, "We considered the broader issue of whether the RMA outreach activities were designed to misinform the public, unduly influence public opinion, or otherwise constitute an improper effort to build public support for DoD activities." After "considering" the issue, the watchdog said that "We found insufficient evidence to conclude that [the Pentagon] conceived of or undertook the type of disciplined public relations effort that is suggested by the foregoing question." All in all, said the Pentagon, "We determined that [all the things we were asked to look at] were conducted in accordance with DoD policies and regulations." The headlines duly reflected the reassuring verdict. "Retired Officers' Media Role Deemed Appropriate," said the Washington Post. "Inspector General Sees No Misdeeds in Pentagon's Effort to Make Use of TV Analysts," said the NY Times. All of this led the amendment's sponsor, Representative Paul Hodes, to remark "To say there are factual inaccuracies in this report is the understatement of the century. I think it is a whitewash." We'll see in a moment how accurate this assessment turned out to be. In the meantime... The Times article concluded by reminding readers that "Two other inquiries into the program are continuing. One, being conducted by the Government Accountability Office, is scheduled to be completed next month. The other is being done by the Federal Communications Commission, which has regulatory oversight of broadcasters." So now we have three investigations to track. The completed one by the Pentagon, one by the GAO, and also an FCC investigation. May 2009: "Riddled With Flaws, But..." The weekly news magazine U.S. News and World Report has a column called "Washington Whispers," in which the following tidbit appeared on May 4 of this year under the headline "Rumsfeld Aides Trash New York Times Pulitzer": "Rumsfeld's current spokesman, Keith Urbahn, cites a January 2009 Pentagon Inspector General's report debunking the [NY Times Pentagon Pundit] story: ‘The Times's reporting on DoD's routine outreach to military experts didn't merit a place in the paper, much less a Pulitzer." and "Between the New York Times and the Pentagon's Inspector General office, it's pretty clear which is a more credible and non-partisan source." Credible, you say? Two days later, on May 6th, the Pentagon's Inspector General office withdrew their January 14th report because it was "so riddled with flaws and inaccuracies that none of its conclusions could be relied upon." That's the New York Times paraphrasing Donald M. Horstman, the Pentagon's deputy Inspector General for policy and oversight, in a memorandum announcing the withdrawal. The Times, the only newspaper to report on this story, ran their brief article on page 21, saying, "In a highly unusual reversal, the Defense Department's Inspector General's office has withdrawn a report it issued in January exonerating a Pentagon public relations program that made extensive use of retired officers who worked as military analysts for television and radio networks." "In addition to repudiating its own report," said the Times, "the Inspector General's office took the additional step of removing the report from its Web site." (Nygaard Notes was able to find a copy of the original, 85-page report, however. If anyone wants to read it, contact me and I'll send you a PDF copy.) The unfortunate part of this retraction is that the DoDIG memo concluded by saying "We have determined that additional investigative work will not be undertaken to reissue the report because the ... program has been terminated and responsible senior officials are no longer employed by the Department." Yes, you read that right: The Pentagon officially admits that the investigation they did, mandated by Congress, was worthless. But they're not going to produce a real report. Let bygones by bygones! Postscript: The Mystery Continues, and Deepens Well, that takes care of the Pentagon's investigation of itself. But what about the other two reports, one by the Government Accountability Office and one by the Federal Communications Commission? I haven't been able to find out anything about the FCC report, but if and when they respond to my inquiry (Case Number CIMS00002118116) I'll be sure to let you know. The GAO report, in contrast, is an interesting little story-within-a story, which I relate in the next article. |
|
In the last article I mentioned that the New York Times, in its January 17th article on the bogus report by the Pentagon's Inspector General, said that "Two other inquiries into the program are continuing. One, being conducted by the Government Accountability Office, is scheduled to be completed next month." As I began working on this story about the Pentagon pundits last month, I thought I would take a look at that report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the Congress had ordered and that was scheduled to come out in February. After all, I have looked at many GAO reports and usually find them to be quite reliable and informative. So I went to the GAO website, as I have many times, and was surprised to find not a hint of any such report. This was on May 6th, a good three months or more since the report was due to be ready, according to the Times. So I wrote to the GAO research office, describing the report and saying that I had been unable to locate the report on the GAO website. "Can you help me?" I asked. The following day, May 7th, I received a response that was so succinct I will reprint it here verbatim: "Hello Mr. Nygaard, I have been unable to locate any report on your subject, I didn't even see anything pending. Thanks for Contacting GAO Research services, Anna GAO Research. Hmmm... I thought. No report. Nothing pending. That's odd. A month went by, and I was working on this story again and found myself reading the recently-retracted report by the Pentagon Inspector General. Imagine my surprise when I ran across the following paragraph on page 2 of that document: "Also, members of Congress requested the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Enforcement Division of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct concurrent inquiries regarding the use of military analysts. The GAO is writing a legal opinion concentrating on issues of fiscal law—specifically, the potential misuse of DoD appropriations for publicity or propaganda purposes... The DoD Inspector General team coordinated their efforts with ... the GAO ... to avoid duplication." [Emphasis added.] I knew by this time that the Pentagon report was "riddled with flaws and inaccuracies," but I didn't think this reference to the two reports was one of them. So I wrote to my friend Anna at the GAO again, quoting the paragraph above and asking her "Are you sure there is no record of such a report?" She again wrote back very promptly, mentioning only a report from 2005 and adding that "Your inquiry is for something from 2009 and it may be in the works but hasn't hit the database that I'm allowed to use to search for such things." Along the way I also telephoned the offices of Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro and Michigan Congressman John Dingell, both of whom have been pushing for an investigation of the Pentagon Pundits. Their press secretaries staffs were very friendly, but couldn't find out what was going on with the missing GAO report, either. While I was at it, I asked DeLauro's press secretary about the FCC investigation. She told me that the FCC had told her that the investigation "is underway." These investigations can take as long as 15 months, she said to me, adding that she would keep an eye on it. Finally, I emailed the New York Times and asked Mr. Barstow what he knew about these things. Never heard back, not surprisingly. Three investigations. The Pentagon's investigation was a whitewash, and no followup will be done. The FCC investigation is months away, at best. And the GAO investigation exists in some other dimension, if it exists at all. I'll keep following this story. |
