The New York Times had quite a front-page scoop eight days ago, when it reported on a Pentagon program that recruited retired military officers, who’ve since become lobbyists or consultants for military contractors, to become propaganda agents of the Bush administration. Throughout the war in Iraq, these retired officers — or “message multipliers,” as they were described by internal Defense Department documents — took on roles as military analysts for all of the major news networks, without noting their puppet-like relationships with the Pentagon.
The controversy has become something of a scandal for the Defense Department (though the controversy would likely have been far more significant were it not for a near-media blackout), prompting officials to scrap the program, at least for now.
The Defense Department has temporarily stopped feeding information to retired military officers pending a review of the issue, said Robert Hastings, principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for public affairs. […]
Some of these retired officers saw their access to key decision-makers as possible business opportunities for the defense contractors they represent, according to the [New York Times]. The story also alleged that the officers who did not repeat the Bush administration’s official line were denied further access to information.
Hastings said he is concerned about allegations that the Defense Department’s relationship with the retired military analysts was improper.
“Following the allegations, the story that is printed in the New York Times, I directed my staff to halt, to suspend the activities that may be ongoing with retired military analysts to give me time to review the situation,” Hastings said in an interview with Stripes on Friday.
Hastings, implicitly conceding an error, told reporters of his pending review, “We’ll take the time to do it right.”
As for the political angle of all of this, I’ve been wondering a bit about what the presidential candidates think about all of this.
The estimable Ari Melber noted today that the Clinton and Obama campaigns both weighed in on the controversy in written press statements.
The Clinton statement:
Senator Clinton is very concerned by a recent press report that the Department of Defense (DOD) hid behind “an appearance of objectivity” in a concerted media “campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” The report raises issues of credibility and trust at the Pentagon. It suggests an extensive, coordinated effort by DOD and the Administration — in a campaign they described as “information dominance” — to try to shape and guide the commentary of putatively independent television military analysts. And it contains allegations that analysts who did not stay on message were pressured or even punished. The report also raises serious questions about the potential linkage of government contracts to favorable public commentary by military analysts.
After the real concerns raised by the information and intelligence provided by the Pentagon in the run up to the Iraq war that obviously got many core assumptions wrong, Senator Clinton believes that it is more incumbent on DoD than ever to avoid any appearance of impropriety in terms of “selling” the Iraq war and our country’s defense policy now.
Without impugning the honor and patriotism of our dedicated career military officers, it is both appropriate and necessary to know to what extent the DOD may have directly or indirectly attempted to undermine the objectivity and accuracy of the military analysis presented to the American people at critical junctures in the ongoing military operations overseas, and to what extent decisions about military contracts were related to this PR effort.
Senator Clinton believes that Secretary Gates should conduct a comprehensive review, and the Inspector General a full investigation, of the DOD’s “information dominance” campaign.
And the Obama statement:
Senator Obama is deeply disturbed by this latest evidence that the Bush Administration has sought to manipulate the public’s trust. From its misleading case to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, to its argument for keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, the Administration has depended on spin because its assertions have not been supported by facts. The aggressive media strategy detailed in the Times deserves further investigation to determine if laws or ethical standards were violated. There must be greater transparency to ensure that those who lobby the Pentagon are not rewarded for favorable commentary about the Administration’s policies. And it’s past time that we conducted an honest dialogue about the situation in Iraq.
The McCain campaign refused to comment either way. What a surprise.