Battle of the Defense Analysts!

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

One of the most frustrating experiences for a passionate, political news junkie is to see two talking heads go at it over some important issue and have your boy (or girl) let some major falsehood go unchallenged or fail to make a key, pertinent point.

The flip side is it’s very refreshing when someone really nails it.

On PBS’ NewsHour on Monday, 10/2/06, their last segment was “Defense Analysts Debate Whether Secretary Rumsfeld Should Go” (the link provides audio, streaming video, and sadly, a very incomplete transcript).

Lawerence Korb squares off with General Ronald Fogleman, and Korb politely challenges everything Fogleman says in praise of Donald Rumsfeld with detailed facts. When Fogleman asserts that Rumsfeld may be unpopular with the generals, but is well-liked by the rank and file (yeah, right! Thanks for the body and vehicle armor!) Korb challenges him on it, and brings up Rumsfeld’s use of an autopen to sign condolence letters. Every time Fogleman makes an assertion, Korb is right on top of it, and never lets the conversation just move on (as Fogleman clearly wishes it to). Korb lets no falsehoods stand. It’s fantastic.

While I of course no do not possess firsthand knowledge of Rumsfeld and his ways, it is Korb’s portrait that matches common sense, soldier accounts, the statements of all those retired generals, countless news reports, and books such as The Assassin’s Gate, Fiasco, and State of Denial. Rumsfeld has surpassed even Robert McNamara in infamy as a Secretary of Defense, and like Cheney and Bush, he will stubbornly keep leading as disastrously as he has for the past four years. It does the war effort no good to lie about how horrible the situation is in Iraq; lying about Rumsfeld’s catastrophic record doesn’t help the cause any, either.

Orwell Watch: Iraqi Newspapers

It's hard to keep up the scandals these days. I’m revisiting the Iraqi newspaper propaganda scandal for two reasons. The most immediate one is that another, more timely post directly relates to it. The more important issue is that we’ve yet to hear much more detail about the whole thing, despite Pentagon promises to investigate it (I find it hard to believe they didn’t know what went on).

Really, it’s sadly unsurprising that Iraqi newspapers were paid to run pro-American articles crafted by the U.S. military but supposedly written by independent journalists. Sigh. Given the illegal NSA wiretaps, the Pentagon’s illegal collection, retention, and sharing of domestic spying material, the FBI’s rampant use of national security letters and the CIA’s secret black op prisons, I’m not sure even the most ardent conspiracy theorist could keep up with all the very real abuses.

The Los Angeles Times first broke the story about the Iraqi newspapers in this article Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi. You can hear NPR's initial report here, complete with a nauseating conservative apologist who assures us propaganda is really no big deal.

The use of propaganda in Iraq is both stupid and ineffective. If you want to build credibility, the last thing you do is something like this… it's likely the truth will come out at some point, and then no one will believe you anymore.

It's hard to shake the feeling that for the Bush administration, Freedom of the Press ideally means playing uncritical stenographer for the latest talking points. After all, we've had Jeff Gannon/Guckart, a plant in the White House Briefing Room, Armstrong Williams, one of several columnists illegally paid to shill a dubious Bush policy, and an unrelenting array of staged photo ops and town halls... Not that we should forget to mention the Miller maneuver, in which the administration leaks specific misinformation to a prominent reporter, her paper prints it, and then the administration holds up the paper saying, 'See? It's not just us! The New York Times says so too!' ...with the deliberately misleading implication that the admittedly sloppy and credulous Times independently confirmed the information... (this did not happen just once, or only with Judy Miller, although Tom Tomorrow captures the process nicely here.)

Meanwhile, Scott McClellan has (at least) twice accused journalists, including veteran journalist Helen Thomas, of being terrorist sympathizers for not buying the party line he's selling.

And in the last few weeks, at least two conservative think tank members have admitted to accepting money from Jack Abramoff to write columns favorable to his clients...

By the way, if you missed the footage of troops being coached in their responses to Bush bak in October, The Daily Show has the funniest coverage of it here. The White House transcript can be read here. I also find it particularly telling that the soldier who specifically brings up 9/11 to Bush was not just a coached soldier, but an army PR flack. Gotta keep hammering home "9/11"!!! Bush will always invoke 9/11, the only question is how long it will take him. Sometimes it takes as long as seven minutes, while other times he does in under 30 seconds.)

Portrait of a Whistleblower

It’s been easy enough to lose track of the story of Bunny Greenhouse, the government employee who blew the whistle on Halliburton’s no-bid contract for reconstruction work in Iraq. Even though she was demoted and transferred, there’s been little coverage in the media, and most shamefully, no investigation or follow-up from the supervising Inspector General, let alone Congress.

Everyone agrees that Bunny Greenhouse is a stickler for detail. She may not be the easiest woman to work with. However, after reading this portrait by Neely Tucker in The Washington Post, I find it hard to question her integrity. Her personal history strongly suggests this is a woman of character. No one has ever accused her of being stupid (she has three master’s degrees), and few people (other than Sherron Watkins at Enron) become whistleblowers to improve their job security. Yet when it came to the Halliburton deals (technically with their subsidiary KBR), Bunny Greenhouse testified to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee:

"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career."

The contracts were unorthodox. There has been horrendous overbilling by Halliburton. Greenhouse has been punished, yet her supervisors claim this action is not retribution. Wouldn’t these factors necessitate further inquiry? Regarding Greenhouse’s allegations, and her demotion, the Post reports:

A Corps spokesman declined to address the specifics. Instead, the Corps issued a written statement that says the agency followed the law in its dealings with Halliburton. As for Greenhouse's EEOC complaint, the statement said the agency "takes seriously" its employees' right of privacy, and thus could not comment.

Any further investigation appears to be minimal.

This, from another DPC hearing last month, after Greenhouse was demoted:

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "Ms. Greenhouse, has the Inspector General's Office made any attempt to interview you?"

Greenhouse: "None whatsoever."

Dorgan: "None?"

Greenhouse: "None whatsoever."

Dorgan: "That's unbelievable to me."

I don’t buy the portrayal of Greenhouse by her supervisors as a petty bureaucrat or an incompetent. A more accurate view of her would come from her peers and her subordinates (if they would talk), not just her current bosses, who have every motive to undermine her. The portrait offered by the man who hired her, her former boss, Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard, strongly contrasts any negative accounts. Additionally, the paper trail of past evaluations point to someone who may be demanding but is dedicated... frankly, exactly the sort of person needed to supervise spending of the taxpayer’s money.

My take is that Bunny Greenhouse ran afoul of the ol’ boy network, spoke truth to power, and is now being punished for it. Perhaps that’s not the case. But why has there been no little to follow-up on her case? Why does there remain little to no cost-tracking and accountability for the billions of dollars that continue to be spent in Iraq?