A three-year government investigation has found no wrongdoing by Bush-era Pentagon officials when they gave war briefings to retired military analysts who served as TV and radio commentators.
The probe by the Pentagon inspector general was a response to a 2008 Pulitzer Prize-winning article in the New York Times that implied the former military officers, some of whom worked for or were defense contractors, received financial favors in return for their commentary and that they were tools in a propaganda campaign.
Sources familiar with the IG’s final report said it will say officials broke no rules or laws when they provided information briefings, some from then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
The IG also found no evidence that any analyst or his defense contractor employer received any favorable treatment or procurement contracts due to his work as an on-air commentator, according to the sources.
“The report basically says the Pentagon activities were in compliance with DOD [Department of Defense] directives and instructions,” a government official familiar with the findings told The Washington Times. In terms of financial favors, “they didn’t find any evidence of that,” the source said.
The IG report is due to be released in the coming weeks. It is the second IG probe into the same allegations raised by the New York Times, and then by congressional Democrats. The first probe released in January 2009 came to essentially the same conclusions. It said briefings were “conducted in accordance with DOD policies and regulations.”
The 2009 report added: “We found no indication that partisanship was operative during the interchanges with [retired military analysts] and found no evidence that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs personnel sought to somehow avoid portraying DOD as a source for the information provided. Rather, the briefings were open and transparent.”
The second IG report promises to end years of charges and government investigations pushed by Democrats. The toxic atmosphere left many retired military officers feeling that they had been accused of committing crimes without any proof. Pentagon officials have said the briefings were similar to sessions with reporters, columnists and think tank scholars to convey the administration’s point of view.
The swirl of charges began on April 20, 2008, when the Times published a front-page story, headlined “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.” The story implied, but did not outright charge, that analysts received contracting favors.
“Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show,” the story said.
And it said the Rumsfeld aides “used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.”
Across the front page were photos of a who’s who of prominent retired officers: Thomas McInerney, the late Wayne Downing, Ken Allard and Bo Scales.
The Times story brought charges from Democrats that the Bush Pentagon violated the rules against conducting a propaganda campaign.
Three investigations began: one by the IG, one by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and one by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
In January 2009, the IG reported the program followed Pentagon guidelines. No rules or laws were broken.
The findings did not sit well with Senate Armed Services Chairman Sen. Carl M. Levin, Michigan Democrat. He fired off a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates saying, if no laws were broken, then Congress needs to pass laws that outlaw what the Rumsfeld aides did. He also implied that the analysts received financial gain, according to a copy obtained by The Washington Times.
“While the report finds insufficient evidence to determine that any contractor received a competitive advantage as a result of its ties to retired military analysts, the report fails to assess whether the retired military analysts themselves obtained financial benefits from contractors as a result of their favorable access to DOD information and officials,” Mr. Levin wrote.
Mr. Levin asked for a new probe. Mr. Gates sent a letter to the IG with Mr. Levin’s letter attached.
That April, the Times article won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting.
A month later, the IG withdrew its report. It did not back off its finding that no Pentagon polices were violated, but said investigators did not look extensively enough into whether analysts received financial favors and did a poor job of identifying which analysts worked in the defense industry.
The withdrawal letter said no new probe would be done because Defense Secretary Gates ended the program as a reaction to the New York Times story.
But that did not end the issue. Mr. Levin urged Inspector Genera Gordon Heddell, at his confirmation hearing, to reopen the investigation. Mr. Heddell compiled, and a new probe began in June 2009 with a new team of investigators.
While the IG was cranking up investigation No. 2, the GAO came out with its findings in July 2009. The GAO also concluded that briefing retired military officers did not violate laws against propaganda.
“Clearly, DOD attempted to favorably influence public opinion with respect to the Administration’s war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan through the RMOs [retired military officers],” the GAO said. “However …. based on the record before us in this case, we conclude that DOD’s public affairs outreach program to RMOs did not violate the prohibition. We found no evidence that DOD attempted to conceal from the public its outreach to RMOs or its role in providing RMOs with information, materials, access to department officials, travel, and luncheons. Moreover, we found no evidence that DOD contracted with or paid RMOs for positive commentary or analysis. Consequently, DOD’s public affairs activities involving RMOs, in our opinion, did not violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition.”
Democrats also demanded that the FCC investigate the retired officers. In a letter that reveals how politicians took the Times story and turned it into a criminal indictment, Rep. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat told the FCC in a May 2008 letter, “It could appear that some of these analysts were indirectly paid for fostering the Pentagon’s views on these critical issues.”
Mr. Dingell suggested the retired officers broke the law. He wrote, “The American people should never be subject to a covert propaganda campaign but rather should be clearly notified of who is sponsoring what they are watching.”
The FCC subsequently sent letters to some analysts saying they may have broken the law. Mr. Allard, a retired Army officer who was interviewed by the IG and FCC officials, said the FCC has never issued a report.
Mr. Allard, and other analysts, believe their reputations were sullied by the Times, and then by allegations from congressional Democrats.
Mr. Allard wrote a book on the briefing program, “Warheads.” He wrote in a 2009 column, “Far from being anyone’s surrogates, the military analysts were strong-willed, fiercely independent and utterly defiant of party lines — whether propounded by the Pentagon or our own networks.”
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC
No comments:
Post a Comment