War Machine
Back in April, The New York Times’s David Barstow published a blockbuster story about the corrupt relationship between Pentagon officials, defense contractors, cable networks, and retired generals. It’s a long piece that deserves to be read in full and, indeed, probably deserves to be reread in full. But the gist of it was that the generals who you’d see on TV acting as nominally independent “analysts” were not, in fact, independent at all. They were getting their talking points straight from the Pentagon. And the coordination was motivated, in part, by the fact that they were also on the payrolls of various firms profiting from lucrative contracts with the Pentagon.
Today he has a followup story focusing in tightly on one particular ex-general, Barry McCaffrey. The headline: “One Man’s Military-Industrial Complex”. Spencer Ackerman remarks that if the piece is false “McCaffrey really ought to sue, because if it isn’t, he has no reputation for integrity left.” This is true. And Barstow certainly seems to have the goods. The piece is long to the point where excerpting from specific examples has no real point, but here’s a bird’s eye view of the issue:
The consulting company he started after leaving the government in 2001, BR McCaffrey Associates, promises to “build linkages” between government officials and contractors like Defense Solutions for up to $10,000 a month. He has also earned at least $500,000 from his work for Veritas Capital, a private equity firm in New York that has grown into a defense industry powerhouse by buying contractors whose profits soared from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, he is the chairman of HNTB Federal Services, an engineering and construction management company that often competes for national security contracts.
Many retired officers hold a perch in the world of military contracting, but General McCaffrey is among a select few who also command platforms in the news media and as government advisers on military matters. These overlapping roles offer them an array of opportunities to advance policy goals as well as business objectives. But with their business ties left undisclosed, it can be difficult for policy makers and the public to fully understand their interests.
On NBC and in other public forums, General McCaffrey has consistently advocated wartime policies and spending priorities that are in line with his corporate interests. But those interests are not described to NBC’s viewers. He is held out as a dispassionate expert, not someone who helps companies win contracts related to the wars he discusses on television.
But rather than focusing on McCaffrey and his issues, it’s worth contemplating the breathtaking lack of integrity on display from the television networks here. As I said, Barstow published a piece on this back in April. None of the TV networks addressed the issue he raised in anything resembling a serious manner. And, again, we now have NBC News caught flat-out in the midst of corruption, deceiving their viewers. And NBC News isn’t sorry. They’re not apologizing. They’re not ashamed. Because they’re beyond shame. They never had a reputation for honor, so they don’t even see this sort of thing as damaging.
60 Responses to “War Machine”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 30th, 2008 at 10:51 am
you wonder about some of these councils on foreign relations too…
November 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Thank you for highlighting this. Prior to reading this, I read the NY Times article and immediately sent an email to my Senator Dick Durbin. I am sure it will once again fall on deaf ears as all this corruption has been ignored for 8 long years.
But the frustrating part, is that this is Washington. Former Congressmen and Senators do the exact same thing. After leaving government service where they pretend they were being altruistic, they go into the lobbying business to reap the rewards there.
The networks and cable news profit handsomely from the relationship with these people. thus insuring most of this stays in the dark. Thus, they are free to rob the treasury out in the open with no voice of dissent from anyone substantial.
It is Conventional Action in Washington — because it is so common place, it has become the norm — so NBC does not see it has news nor can they see that they are an accessory to these corrupt actions.
Hopefully “Change” is coming — but with such entrenched interest, nothing short of a revolution will change Washington.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am
The change I’ve been encouraged to believe in had really better involve cleaning up just exactly this kind of corrupt manipulation of public opinion and pillaging of our treasury. Completely and totally outrageous!
Thank heavens for the blogosphere. Where else would I learn about this crap?
November 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Is it a surprise? GE relies on the military for a lot of business.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The story is not surprising at all…whats surprising is the Times put resources into this and put this story on display. In my experience, they usually cover up for one another. Whats also amazing to me is the symmetry of the Times. I’m going to hold my breath as far as MSM’s reaction to this story. Two weeks from now, everyone will still be watching Olbermann and Maddow…nothing is going to change. GE will still own NBC and will still have its conflicts of interets.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:52 am
And is the only reason why this story didn’t take shape when it would’ve been useful (2003) because
1)the nation is scary liberal
2)everyone had war fever and was affected by 9/11
3)because of number 1, they rarely ever get talking time both then and now and forever
November 30th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Er, The Nation or The New York Times. Perhaps you don’t read those, but that’s where the reporting came from, not Yglesias or Greenwald (although both are valuable for highlighting this information).
November 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
And you gotta wonder. While troops went without body armor, their vehicles without armor, how much was being spent on things these generals were lobbying for on behalf of their clients?
Did they sell out the men and women on the ground? Do they have blood on their hands?
Just asking. Because I’ve written a lot about the military; I’ve heard a lot about military honor, from the troops and their leadership. And this doesn’t fit the bill. Not compared to someone like Gen. Shenseki (who also spoke out against the war in Iraq.) Instead, it fits with the M.O. of the Bush administration that led us to the brink of financial collapse.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Seen Brian Williams’ defense?
He claims he’s developed a ‘close personal friendship’ with these guys so therefore trusts him.
How bizarre is that? One of this nation’s top newspeople doesn’t know to be EMBARRASSED by his ‘close personal friendship’ with a major source? He doesn’t realize how that violates and undermines journalistic professionalism. Rather than try to downplay or hide this relationship, he uses it as proof that all is well?
I honestly think Williams doesn’t know what the word ‘journalism’ means.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Please let me modify my prior comment, to the M.O. of the Bush administration and their corporate war partners, including G.E.; and please forgive the omission.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
This is exactly how dishonestly he acted as Drug Czar, yet no one is calling him on it.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Who are the other war profiteer TV Generals? There’s one ramrod cocksucker whose name I can’t remember that actually seems worse than McCaffrey or Downing. And, wasn’t McCaffrey a Vietnam village murdering piece of shit as well?
November 30th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Well said, Matt. And, in these matters, we should probably adopt the convention of referring not to “NBC” but to “GE/NBC” which more accurately describes the entity engaged in this deception.
Aren’t there stories in the public record of GE interference with news coverage at NBC?
November 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
p.s. I came here via a Glenn Greenwald post on the topic, which is a good memory refresher. Also, you can post comments at the GE/NBC News blog here. Of course, keep it respectful (if tough) and try to relate to the post topic to get by their moderators.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Wow, that article is devastating, especially since many of the sources are on the record, and they are actually named, not some “sources close to the administration” etc. The weirdest thing is, some of the sources, like the DynCorp spokesman, seems to think that what the general was doing is good, he seems proud of it or something. Is this guy that much of an idiot?
November 30th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“General McCaffrey did, however, play an indirect role in helping Veritas win one of its largest contracts, to supply more than 8,000 translators to the war in Iraq.”
So the military needed so many translators, they had to outsource the work. But that didn’t stop them from firing gay translators who already work for them. That’s right, it’s better to spend a lot more money hiring outside contractors, rather than risk having gay people in the military. What’s a few billion dollars (”the contract was worth $4.6 billion over five years, but only if the United States did not pull out of Iraq first”.) comapred to the security of knowing that our military is safe from the gays, right?
November 30th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Mr. Weiner, the general’s longtime publicist, said General McCaffrey worked with clients “to get your mission achieved in the media.” General McCaffrey, he said, often speaks out with the twin goals of shaping policy and generating favorable coverage for clients with worthy products or ideas.
“His motive is pure,” Mr. Weiner said. “It is national interest.”
Oh my god. This has to be satire. These people really believe that the American people are stupid. They believe that we’ll buy that “generating favorable coverage for clients” while making a boatload of money is the General’s way of furthering our national interest.
November 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
It’s quite something that if the news networks decide a story in the NYT is sufficiently embarrassing that it must be ignored, that story basically withers on the vine. That’s because they’re all implicated, and there’s no incentive, say, for Fox News or CNN to run with it against NBC. They’ve all got their paid-up retired brass with murky defense-contractor interests.
This is something for the relevant congressional committees to force into the news, except that there’s no guarantee the news nets would cover it, and they’re probably compromised as well.
If a story falls in the papers, and there’s no TV to report on it, is it news?
November 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
If a story falls in the papers, and there’s no TV to report on it, is it news?
Well, I say it’s the responsibility of the blogosphere to keep hammering and hammering until the networks have to respond. I know that NYT has its critics in the blogs (deservedly so, in many cases), but this time they have the goods. And NYT is a for-profit publication that is having its own financial problems, we can’t expect them to keep re-printing the story or something.
On the other hand, Matt, Glenn Greenwald etc etc can keep writing about this, until the network have to respond. Aren’t any of you guys friends with folks who blog for the network? Jake Tapper, for example?
November 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So what has, or what should, Rachel Maddow do about this?
November 30th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
answer for Brian…NOTHING
November 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I can just imagine the convo between Rachel and Brian Williams…”But Rachel, IIIII trust him!”
November 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Matt, you’ve been criticized for this post…for some reason.
Here - http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2008/11/foot-bones-connected-to-ankle-bone.html
November 30th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“On the other hand, Matt, Glenn Greenwald etc etc can keep writing about this, until the network have to respond. Aren’t any of you guys friends with folks who blog for the network? Jake Tapper, for example?”
And why, pray tell, will the networks feel compelled to respond?
Liberals really have this shameless ability to be always surprised that the world fails to conform to the model put forward in civics textbooks. You mean, GE would rather use its network to hawk its war products, journalism be damned?
November 30th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
And why, pray tell, will the networks feel compelled to respond?
Liberals really have this shameless ability to be always surprised that the world fails to conform to the model put forward in civics textbooks. You mean, GE would rather use its network to hawk its war products, journalism be damned?
Yes, laying down and playing dead is better because the world is such an evil evil place and boohoo the network is not going to respond anyway to us stupid, naive liberals so we might as well keep quiet. Yup, that’s a much better world view. Easier to be sarcastic and above-it-all, right?
November 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Just saying that all this is not surprising in the least…its what you get when you allow a corp like GE to own a news outlet…i don’t have the answers, but what you’re suggesting is that GE will look into GE…ain’t gonna happen Tim
November 30th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Fine, GE won’t look into GE, but there are other institutions that can, right? If we all keep quiet because we all think nothing will happen anyway, isn’t that such a defeatist and fucked up way of looking at things? They’ll always get away with stuff like this, so we should never make a fuss when they do stuff like this?
November 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Fine….the Times looked into this…so did the Nation…nothing changed…I GUARANTEE you that Maddow goes on air and doesn’t mention this…also, now that EVERYONE is aware of this because of the TIMES (instead of the nation, a whole other fucked up situation) you think GE will fire the good ole General…you think Brian Williams will reflect with Rachel Maddow on air about how wrong he was and how disrespectful his “i know him personally” line was to his craft?
November 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
And whats the end result of all this? To prevent people from participating in corruption? GE is just using its common sense to make more money…what makes the situation so difficult is that everyone is involved and everyone is connected (military, business, government But, perhaps the only countervailing force to fight the complex is the government because it could put laws in place to recognize “negative influence” that sometimes occurs when people own too much…but government is such an integral part of the system, I don’t see how the problem gets resolved.
November 30th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
What is it you think we all should do, then, scott? Bloggers like Matt or Glenn Grenwald should stop writing about it? We all should stop reading about it? Do I expect NBC to do anything? No. Does that mean I think we should all just ignore the story? No. What’s wrong about pointing out what is wrong, even if you think that nothing will change?
Look, I’m just tired of people snarkily pointing out how naive/stupid other people are - “don’t you know that this is how the world work?, get over it, dude”, “what do you expect from a bla bla bla, why are so stupid to even be surprised” etc etc.
Yeah, I’m tired of this smart-alecky, pessimistic, snarky,oh-nothing-will-change-anyway, I’m-so-much-smarter-than-the-rest-of-you-poor-suckers, way of looking at things. Not directed to you, BTW, scott, just a general rant.
Sorry, rant over now.
November 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I hear you and do not consider this argument to be personal at all
November 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
And I don’t think you can do anything about it, except point it out…it does sometimes, on occasion lead to justice…but an overhaul of the media/military complex is out of the question…and i love the work of the people you mentioned…but isn’t their a reason why their POV’s are marginalized?
November 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Otherwise, the argument would be that their work would influence enough people over time to exert enough pressure on our leaders to recognize the harmful and toxic effects of insane vertical integration/allowing giant corps to own major media outlets…and then we trust the government to make good laws on media so that the public stays informed?
November 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Yeah, it’s a problem, journalists or bloggers who keep hammering on about a particular thing or obsession get called shrill, partisan, not objective enough, too emotional etc, (Krugman and Greenwald are two main examples), hence reducing their sphere of influence. As a result, most choose to be more careful, picking and choosing what to highlight in order to maintain their reputation and influence. But by doing that, they usually end up doing disservice to many stories that deserve to be highlighted. It’s a problem - how do you maintain your viability within the system without ending up as a shill for the system?
November 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Tim: it’s more a question of think aloud about how to break the network omerta on this story.
I think it needs sacrificial lambs: people who are prepared to give up their place on the MSNBC rolodex by mentioning it live on air. If the story becomes ‘X shitcanned from NBC for talking about McCaffrey’, then it becomes meta, and harder to treat as if it didn’t exist.
So, who’s going to do it?
November 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
yup, but you have to be unknown…if you already have the rep…forget it
November 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
That hypothesis will be tested with Maddow…she’s “liberal”…she doesn’t break stories but her perspective is appreciated. We’ll see what she does with this. Will she acknowledge that General Drug Czar should be removed and the reasons why? Will she assure viewers that in the future NBC/GE will do a better job of vetting its “objective” analysts?
November 30th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
If The Nation is really as committed to this story as they claimed, then Katrina van den Heuvel should do it. She appears on MSNBC, right? But I really doubt that she would. She probably wants to appear on TV again. Charlie Rose could invite the author of the article, David Barstow. He’s been on the show before. Yeah, it’s public television, but probably better than nothing.
I actually see a good chance for CNN to stick it to MSNBC and NBC. I think CNN is the only network to have fired its military analyst after finding out about some conflict of interest. What better way to make yourself look virtuous while doing a story about a scandal your competitor is involved in? Interest in the truth wouldn’t make any of the network to report the story, but maybe blatant self-interest would?
November 30th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
When Bart Gelmann wrote that Cheney series, he got invited to a bunch of shows to discuss it(this is even before the book, just for the series in WaPo). Ditto the authors of other big revelatory series or articles - wiretapping, WMD etc. I guess the network can accept it when the newspapers are criticizing the administration, but when they are the target, the stone-walling is worthy of the Bush people.
November 30th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
does cnn read yglesias comments that go around in circles way after the blogger posted his post? haha…
November 30th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I guess the network can accept it when the newspapers are criticizing the administration, but when they are the target, the stone-walling is worthy of the Bush people.
also worthy of intense scrutiny
November 30th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
and do you think there would ever be a coalition large enough in American government to break up disney, GE, viacom, newscorp? How would that even work?
November 30th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Get the joke people.
TV is showbiz. Therefore everyone on camera is peform-
er. Therefore evryone on TV operates under a rebut-
table presumption that they are a schill. Over time
one gets a sense of who is on the level. For instance
you take Patrick J. Buchanan with a grain of salt,
but he can be quite independent.
All official spolespeople are, by the nature of the
job, schills. Everyone from the Heritage Foundation,
National Review and Weekly Standard is a schill.
Ditto the Cato Institute. Bill Kristol is an uber
schill. The style guy at the end of Rachael Maddow iS
not a schill, but is not as funny as he thinks he is.
Joe Scarborough is a schill. Mika is good looking but
blah. Chris Matthews is not a schill, but he’s not
prepared. At times Keith Olberman is a schill, but
mostly he is unreliable.
Watching Fox gets to be masochistic. The Big Three
broadcast networks are mostly useless.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Ken, people would take you more seriously if you knew how to spell the word “shill,” which you misspelled no fewer than seven times in one paragraph.
Also, it’s Olbermann, not Olberman.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Ken,
Do you mean shill? One who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, confidence game, etc.?
Matthews & Olbermann as shills? I rather think of them as clowns, with Olbermann having an edge on intelligence, and occasionally (rarely) saying something heartfelt and compassionate.
As for the topic at hand: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Don’t give up the fight. We have ourselves a society that has grown venal, selfish, and stupid. We can do better.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:23 am
Okay. Fine. Fair enough point. What I meant to say–after flying to Tokyo and reading this blog all freeze-dried and jet-lagged at 4AM–was simply that I appreciate the fact that Matt would highlight and keep on this story. I think it’s really important. Not too surprising? Agreed. But important all the same.
And even more important to keep harping on it. Regardless of whatever small amount of good it might do.
But you think that your little snark is somehow a contribution, Don SinFalta? This is how you’re working today to make the world just a little fucking bit better?
December 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
General McCaffrey has been absolutely committed to objective, non-partisan public commentary on national security issues since “911″. He is proud of his association with NBC. His on-air commentary is based solely on his personal convictions and experience.
Check Google for the association of Rumsfeld and McCaffrey. You will find 14,000 hits nearly all hostile to the arrogance and mismanagement of the Rumsfeld War on Terror. Hardly the stuff of someone “shilling” for the Pentagon. Hardly the actions of someone trying to ingratiate himself with DOD contracting authorities on behalf of his business interests. General McCaffrey is not a lobbyist. His focus in business is on understanding and explaining the national policy environment. When he sees a concept that would support military interests - he does, of course, recommend it to national defense leaders.
General McCaffrey is an expert on national security. He is not a reporter. He is an American war hero from Vietnam (where he was wounded in combat three times) - and the first war with Iraq during Desert Storm. Both his son and daughter served as Army officers.
He routinely is invited to testify to Congress on national security issues. He interacts with the intelligence community, foreign governments, academia, the defense industry, and all elements of the US Armed Forces. He is widely respected as a public commentator of great integrity and balanced views. Mr. Barstow has tried to create a false picture.
The real General McCaffrey is explained by his 37 years of public service to include four combat tours - which he continues now as a businessman, academic lecturer and writer, and media national security expert.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
According to Glenn Greenwald, Robert Weiner (see comment #47) is the PR agent for General McCaffrey. It would be more than a little ironic if in defending someone from not disclosing conflicts of interest, he himself didn’t disclose his own conflict of interest.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Thank you, Crust.
I think it is far worse than “ironic” that Weiner hides the fact that he is being paid by McCaffrey to make the above post. I think this kind of deception allows us to assume that Robert Weiner is a liar, simply put.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Hmmmmmmm.
Weiner’s description of what McCaffrey does in business sounds a lot like lobbying go me.
‘Explaining the national policy environment’ to paying clients hoping to sell to the govt. presumably.
Recommending ‘concepts’ which ‘would support military interests’ to ‘national defense leaders.’ Persuading govt. to buy his client’s stuff.
Seems like lobbying to me.
Would YOU buy a used armored car from this guy?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
January 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Hello its a very nice site!
==
http://webuyuglyhousesnow.info/how-to-apply-feng-shui-rules-in-bathroom-location/
January 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Thank you very much,your site is perfect
==
http://webuyuglyhousesnow.info/real-estate-offers-quality-residential-properties/
March 1st, 2009 at 5:17 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:16 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
How are you. All the world’s a cage.
I am from Liechtenstein and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Expedia airline tickets expedia coupon promotional codes.”
Thank
Moana.