Pentagon "Military Analysts" Didn't Break Propaganda Rule: Investigators

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon did not violate a federal prohibition on propaganda by using retired military officers to tout the Bush administration's war policies in the media, congressional investigators said Tuesday.

At the same time, the report by the Government Accountability Office said the use of military analysts by the administration prompted legitimate questions from members of Congress and the news media about whether defense contractors with commercial ties to the retired officers received favorable treatment in procurement decisions.

The GAO's opinion did not examine whether any companies received a competitive advantage or whether any Defense Department acquisitions may have been tainted.

The finding is the latest installment in a dispute that began in April 2008 when The New York Times reported that Pentagon officials met and spoke frequently with dozens of retired officers to discuss the wars and other national security topics. Many of the retired officers then repeated administration talking points during appearances on television news programs.

The Pentagon program has since been terminated.

Military officials "are pleased that (the GAO) found DOD public affairs to be in full compliance with the law," Defense Department spokesman David Oten said.

In January, the Defense Department's inspector general found insufficient evidence to conclude that the so-called "Public Affairs Outreach Program" was improper. But that report was withdrawn in May because of inaccuracies in the data used by the inspector general.

Congress directed the GAO last year to issue a legal opinion on whether the Defense Department broke a federal rule that bars it from using taxpayer dollars for publicity or propaganda purposes not approved by lawmakers.

"There is no doubt that DOD attempted to favorably influence public opinion with respect to the administration's war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan through the (retired military officers) with conference calls, meetings, travel and access to senior DOD officials," the GAO said.

But the GAO uncovered no proof that the Pentagon attempted to conceal the effort. Nor was there any evidence the retired officers were paid for positive commentary or analysis, it said.

Should the department consider a similar program in the future, it should consider whether it needs better procedures "to protect the integrity of, and public confidence in, its public affairs efforts and to ensure the transparency of its public relations activities," the GAO said.

___

On the Net:

GAO: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/316443.htm

Comments

[jsgaetano]

Propaganda is legal, so long as you are a Republican.

Well heck, in reality the law simply doesn't apply to Republicans. No matter what they do, it's either supported, ignored, or forgiven.

[archerlane]

Lying War Mongers parade out by corporate America "patriots".

End of story.

[WindySailor]

The propaganda rule doesn't apply if you hold one hand behind your back with fingers crossed. As you can see in the accompanying screen grab, no hands are visible.

[Meesterclean]

"The GAO's opinion did not examine whether any companies received a competitive advantage or whether any Defense Department acquisitions may have been tainted."

A deal was made. These guys are definitely guilty of propaganda and should be parts of a war crimes trial. It was obvious what they were doing. I don't care if they were paid or not. This was intentional lying to the public in an organized way. Misinformation, defamation, and propaganda laws need to be strengthened and the GAO needs a probe, because this "opinion" or decision flies in the face of the evidence.

[ashman73]

B.S. It was absolutely propaganda, shoved in our face to start an unnecessary war. Worthless GAO. Another fine example of our tax dollars hard at waste.

[lthuedk 1]

Undiluted propaganda. Shame on the GAO.

[lovethesinner]

"The GAO's opinion did not examine whether any companies received a competitive advantage or whether any Defense Department acquisitions may have been tainted."

Since all military industrial companies benefited from prolonging the war in Iraq, the question of "competitive advantage" is beside the point. LIkewise, the issue of legality is also irrelevant. The use of former generals without disclosing their connections to military industry is an UNWARRANTED AND UNETHICAL INFLUENCE upon our political discourse.

It is the very definition of PROPAGANDA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU&feature=related

[HeevenSteven]

"the Defense Department's inspector general found insufficient evidence..­..."

Oh, what a surprise. A little extra baloney never killed anyone, eh?

[ManwithaParachute]

Ugh.

Does Canada take political refugees from the USA?

[Rastageneral]

Same question for me... except I think I'll head for a country towards the south w/warm climate and hopefully near a beach!

[plooger]

> 'The Pentagon program, the "Public Affairs Outreach Program," has since been terminated, but Defense Department officials have not yet commented on the GAO report.'

That there was a "program" that involved briefing these supposed outside interests, surreptitiously, pretty much nails it as a propaganda effort. That the investigators are unwilling to characterize it as such is not surprising.

[time4change2009]

It was absolutely pathetic how we were hoodwinked and bamboozled by the Bush Regime...t­hese con-men 'experts' in conjunction with our media to be supportive of our unjust occupation of Iraq which lead to the death of over 4000 of our sons and daughters and countless thousands of Iraqi deaths. We were treated like we literally live in a third world country. Constant lies through our media.

[seal62]

There is no we in hoodwinked­..{i see it but i dont}.and when I said something i was a terrorists­..When a whole sht load of vets said slow down ,the gop said we didnt love America as much of those that never served,

[TeamBrat]

Not sure I understand what you're saying, Biker...cu­rious. [e-mail]

[Lucky123]

Falls right in line with the standard Repub hypocrisy:
Publicly show your outrage at a Dem when he commits adultery, but then support your fellow C-Streeters when they experience the same problems.
Go along with every budget increase the Repub president requests, but kick and scream when the Dems ask for it in order to fix the problems created by the Repub driven deficit.

[Grannysue]

And who decided this? I know THE MILITARY!