Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

What the Pentagon Pundits Were Selling on the Side

By Diane Farsetta, Center for Media and Democracy. Posted May 5, 2008.


The Pentagon pundit scandal was not only a corrupt marriage of propaganda and corporate lobbying -- it was completely illegal.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


The Pentagon launched its covert media analyst program in 2002, to sell the Iraq war. Later, it was used to sell an image of progress in Afghanistan, whitewash the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and defend the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping, as David Barstow reported in his New York Times expose.



But the pundits weren't just selling government talking points. As Robert Bevelacqua, William Cowan and Carlton Sherwood enjoyed high-level Pentagon access through the analyst program, their WVC3 Group sought "contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq," reported Barstow. Cowan admitted to "push[ing] hard" on a WVC3 contract, during a Pentagon-funded trip to Iraq.

Then there's Pentagon pundit Robert H. Scales Jr. The military firm he co-founded in 2003, Colgen, has an interesting range of clients, from the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. Special Operations Command, to Pfizer and Syracuse University, to Fox News and National Public Radio.



Of the 27 Pentagon pundits named publicly to date, six are registered as federal lobbyists. That's in addition to the less formal -- and less transparent -- boardroom to war-room influence peddling described above. (There are "more than 75 retired officers" who took part in the Pentagon program overall, according to Barstow.)

The Pentagon pundits' lobbying disclosure forms help chart what can only be called a military-industrial-media complex. They also make clear that war is very good for at least some kinds of business.


Some disclosures we would have liked to see


Fox News analystTimur J. Eads works for the military contractor Blackbird Technologies. His job title there, "vice-president of government relations," is often used to describe someone who crafts lobbying strategies but may not take part in lobbying meetings. So, it's not surprising that Eads isn't listed on Blackbird's lobbying disclosure forms. (In 2007 and 2008, Blackbird lobbied Congress on "communications technologies" and the National Guard on "information systems.")

From 2001 to 2003, Eads was in the lobbying trenches for EMC Corporation, a multinational "information infrastructure" company. Eads helped lobby Congress and a long list of federal agencies -- including the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard -- for "funding for data storage infrastructure." EMC's annual report (PDF) for 2003 lists the Air Force Materiel Command and Pentagon Renovation and Construction Program Office among its U.S. government clients.



Prior to EMC, Eads lobbied for the major defense contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). In 1999 and 2000, he was on SAIC's million-dollar-plus lobbying team, influencing federal spending on the armed services, foreign operations, national security and Veterans Administration, among many other appropriations bills.

Another Fox analyst and Pentagon pundit, John C. Garrett, has an even longer list of lobbying clients. He's worked for the Patton Boggs firm since at least 1999. Thanks to the Pentagon analyst program, Garrett offers clients the benefits of his "weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers," as Barstow noted.

Garrett has helped Bushmaster Firearms lobby Congress, the Defense and Homeland Security Departments on the "procurement of small arms" and "foreign military sales of small arms." He's lobbied Congress and Homeland Security on "government smart card initiatives," for the Datacard Group; the Defense and Homeland Security Departments on "foreign military sales," for Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica; on Homeland Security "open source intelligence and fusion center programs," for Factiva; the Defense Department on "federal battery purchases," for Interstate Batteries; and Congress and the Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security and Treasury Departments for "rules to prohibit or regulate foreign government subsidization of M&A [mergers and acquisitions] activity," for Terex Corporation, a multinational heavy equipment manufacturer.

And those are just some of Garrett's lobbying contracts in 2007.



The lobbying activity of Pentagon pundit and CBS analystJeffrey D. McCausland has been more focused on Iraq. He's the "director of national security affairs" at the Washington, D.C. law and lobby firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney.

McCausland lobbied on "private security contracting issues in Iraq," for Securewest International in 2004. The UK-based security firm announced that it had landed a $2.5 million contract with the Coalition Provisional Authority in March 2004, to supply "guards for the military complex at Umm Qasr as well as bodyguards for Iraqi and other personnel," according to the Herald Express in South Devon. At the time, Securewest vice-president Paul Singer said, "Kuwait and Iraq have long been our target markets. … We had a chance to visit the region only to realise how massive the market is." But when the contract ended in late 2004, Securewest decided against seeking more Iraq work. Singer explained, "It was always a difficult place to work and … the kidnapping and execution of 12 Nepalese workers caused great concern." Many of Securewest's staff are from Nepal or India.

But McCausland was hardly at a loss for clients. In 2003, he lobbied Congress and the Defense and Commerce Departments for "contract procurement in Iraq," on behalf of Al-Najat. In 2004, he lobbied on "government procurement / Coalition Provisional Authority" issues for Cross VetPharm, and on "business development in the Middle East," for Educational Testing Service. In 2004 and 2005, McCausland lobbied the State and Commerce Departments on "healthcare development in the Middle East," on behalf of Gemini Consulting.



Fellow CBS commentator Joseph W. Ralston is the last publicly named Pentagon pundit with a significant stack of of lobbying disclosure forms. "Soon after signing with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a 'world affairs' analyst for CNN," reported Barstow.

Not surprisingly, Ralston's lobbying clients include major military contractors. In 2006, he lobbied the Defense Department on "issues related to export of tactical fighter aircraft and defense technology," for Lockheed Martin; and the State Department on "federal funding of demilitarization efforts abroad," for General Dynamics. In 2006 and 2007, Ralston helped Fischer Properties identify "military family housing opportunities," and Pratt & Whitney find "market opportunities for military aircraft engines."


Multiple media mistakes, on lobbying and propaganda


As The Nation pointed out shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq, many of the retired officers hired to provide war commentary had significant conflicts of interest. At the time, Fox and NBC brushed off questions about their military analysts' financial and other interests as irrelevant to or separate from their on-air commentary.



Today, the broadcast and cable networks are steadfastly refusing to cover or otherwise address the Pentagon military analyst program, with very few exceptions. In this case, though, the pundits' undeclared financial interests are only part of a larger and much more serious problem. These officers participated in a covert government program designed to shape U.S. public opinion -- an illegal program, and one that relied on the willingness of major media to play along, without asking too many questions. And that's exactly what happened.

The media outlets that featured the Pentagon's pundits need to address both aspects of this debacle -- that they failed to identify or disclose conflicts of interest, and that they helped propagandize U.S. news audiences. NPR Ombudsman Alicia C. Shepard's recent column only mentioned the former. She pointed to NPR's new "detailed guidelines for vetting on-air guests and looking for potential conflicts of interests" as the solution. But those guidelines don't include questions about contacts with or materials provided by government officials, or trips funded by government agencies. Instead, Shepard concerned herself with the question of whether NPR analyst Robert Scales does or "does not spout the Pentagon's line."



Memo to Shepard: It's illegal for the U.S. government to propagandize its own citizens, regardless. And instead of debating shades of gray, shouldn't NPR be denouncing any propaganda attempt as antithetical to the ideal of a free press?

Increasingly, news audiences are realizing the many ways in which interested parties skew media coverage. Media outlets need to wake up to that reality and work to strengthen their safeguards in defense of the public interest. Their only alternative is to start composing their next weak and belated mea culpa, in a desperate attempt to protect their ever-dwindling credibility.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: pentagon, propaganda

Diane Farsetta is senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the position they are in
Posted by: Lauren on May 5, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is like that of a person who has been abusing their child. They don't want to admit it, complicated by the fact it is illegal and an old habit. Naturally they meet it with denial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the position they are in Posted by: VZEQICVA
The Logic of An Expanding War
Posted by: Last Chance on May 5, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the Pentagon and Bush Administrations are so deeply involved in promoting war contracts, how can they afford to allow Democratic reformers to occupy the White House? They might all go to jail ! What to do? Simple. Justify the war by setting up another terrorist attack, then punish Iran and the other "axis of evil" nations = World War Three and Bush & Hagee's beloved Armageddon in which they go out with a big bang and Jesus arrives to reward them for destroying God's creation with a re-created paradise on Earth (!) So, it looks like we may not make it to the November elections after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good story - but nothing next to the pre-war propaganda
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 5, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be instructive to go back to 2002 and 2003 and make a list of all the corporate pundits who advocated for the invasion, and then compare that list to that of the corporations receiving Iraq reconstruction and Pentagon contracts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ILLEGAL? TRY HIGH TREASON
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 5, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Officers are personally and morally respon-
sible for their charges. They engage in making profits on the very things that get their soldiers killed. Their opinions carry alot of weight. "We're winning". Not true. But the longer the fight goes on the more money the noble officers make. Knowingly increasing the danger to the military beyond what is necessary is high treason. Doing it for profit is like a bad dream to me. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A great way to make a buck--start a war.
Posted by: Sojourner on May 5, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that we needed to go to war in Iraq for the same reasons the Nazis helped Franco in Spain: when you have a huge military apparatus, it needs to be used.

I am guessing that our military told the politicians that we need to know how to fight future wars, and Iraq could teach us. Along with greed and pollyana politics, our leadership complied.

The US is now run by our military. It's the addiction that keeps us publicly poor and privately rich. Gutless Democrats may hang their heads but they like the jingle in their pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Federalist Society has infested our Justice Dept..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 5, 2008 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the Federalist Society all but controlling our Justice Dept. and having completely infested it, these and many other political other crimes are not being investigated..at all..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Legal, schmegal
Posted by: willymack on May 5, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tha rat bastards in this regime define reality, legality,and morality. Just ask them; they'll tell you so. The amazing coincidence here is that their definitions match their aims and purposes each and every time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV News consumer? You're part of the problem
Posted by: peterjkraus on May 5, 2008 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone still tuning in to ANY tv news program in this eighth year of Bush is too dumb, lazy or intellectually corrupted to be taken seriously. Come on.... anyone who watched Shock and Awe on CNN, one of the networks or PBS knows how slanted the propaganda was.
Newpapers such as the New York Times and LA Times were just as complicit, but their somewhat more discerning readership forced them to change their tone ... as soon as it was politically feasible to do that.
God, the good ole US of A reminds me more and more of the USSR. An East German buddy of mine, who visited here for the very first time in 1991, could not get over the impression that Russians and Americans were almost interchangeably alike. Now I know what he meant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't want to pay them
Posted by: ericksonml@sbcglobal.net on May 5, 2008 8:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From whom can we demand our tax dollars back?

The pentagon spent taxpayer money illegally; WHO CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE???

These are the big questions:

Who can be held accountable?

How can this occur?

What can an ordinary citizen do?

Can this scandal be made part of the election debate - and how??

Ask the average person: Would you agree to your son or daughter being killed in a war if it keeps our defense contractors profitable land rich?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't want to pay them Posted by: bikerdude
Impeachment can bring accountability
Posted by: bikerdude on May 9, 2008 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we impeach George W. Bush we can make him own up to his responsibility. A federal crime has been committed and it appears that he aided and abetted this crime. Impeachment will make him accountable and will, in all probability implicate all the others who were complicit in this crime. Lets find out if Speaker Pelosi is considering impeachment yet. Speaker, are you listening?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

electing progressive Democrats in 2008
Posted by: whealeydj on May 11, 2008 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the first step and when the right wing wackos try to call us traitors because we should say the real traitors or the war profiteers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement