POGO's Beverley Lumpkin to Appear on Federal News Radio

Just wanted to give everybody a quick heads up that POGO's Beverley Lumpkin is scheduled to appear on Federal News Radio (WFED) this morning at 11:00 a.m.  The interview will be broadcast live on radio station 1050 AM, and also online at http://federalnewsradio.com/?nid=249.

-- Michael Smallberg

So Not All College Kids are Lazy Slackers

A late tip of the hat to a trailblazing project by Brandeis Investigative Journalism Institute on Boeing whistleblowers published in the Washington Post, April 17^th . This is an exciting and creative endeavor that hopefully will supplement the dwindling ranks of investigative journalism.

Good to see that it’s not just the kids at UT Watch that are doing something productive with their free time.

Pulitzer Shout Out

Congratulations to the San Diego Union-Tribune and Copley News Service, on receiving a much-deserved Pulitzer for probing coverage of all things Randy "Duke" Cunningham related. (Special Honorary POGO Pulitzer to Laura Rozen, who's also been relentless on Dukester stuff.)

POGO to Tipster: Help Needed

We receive tips, anonymous and otherwise, here at POGO all the time. Last year, we were told by one anonymous tipster that, to follow a certain story, we would "need to be prepared for some complexity and sleight of hand." We want to get in touch with this anonymous source who's given us some savory morsels of information. If you could create an anonymous email account (so you can protect your identity) and email us at pogo@pogo.org, we will email you back.  We would love to have a dialogue with you about the information you’ve sent us.

Prox Remembered

Martin Lobel, a lawyer and former legislative assistant to Senator William Proxmire (D-WI), writes:

I worked for Senator Proxmire from 1968 to 1972 as his Legislative Assistant trying to eliminate corporate subsidies at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. He really believed in the free enterprise system, but in the 4 ½ years I worked for him I never met a businessman who didn't believe in the free enterprise system, but who had a special case that demanded either a government subsidy or protection from competition. Prox would have none of that and took on the most powerful groups in those days – the oil industry and the military industrial complex. Interestingly, his attempts to keep the free market free from government interference caused him to become an arch enemy of many so-called capitalists. He didn't care because his idea of a fun evening was to go to Brookings and discuss arcane economic topics so he knew he was right.

Although he used the press to draw the public's attention to some of the more egregious abuses of the public, the more telling stories about his concern for the public were ones that never made it to the press. Two examples: During the Vietnam war he would regularly go out to Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital to visit with wounded soldiers but we were under strict orders not to let anyone in the press know about it because he thought it might embarrass the wounded and he wanted to keep doing
it.

The second, and funnier, story occurred during the Cuban missile crisis, when the Wisconsin National Guard was nationalized and sent to Oregon. The office kept getting complaints that there were  inadequate blankets and intolerable food, even for the army. Well, Prox being Prox, decided to
investigate and, without telling anyone, got on a plane to Oregon, took a taxi to the base where they were stationed and, because it was late when he arrived, he asked the duty sergeant whether he could have a bunk for the night. The sergeant, of course, recognized him, gave him his bunk and duly
noted it in the duty log. The next morning Prox was in the enlisted men's chow line when around the corner at a dead run came the base commander and his staff who had just discovered by reading the duty log that he had a United States Senator on his base. He suggested they go over to the officer's club for  breakfast but Prox said, "No. Why don't you join me here? I want to try the food here." That afternoon truckloads of unavailable blankets started  arriving, more than enough to double the
normal allotment of blankets for  the troops and, surprisingly, the quality of the food improved too.

Can you imagine any of the current Senators doing that? A giant has passed from the scene. Who will replace him?

Remembering Jack Anderson

(Right: A photograph Dan E. Moldea took of Jack with many of his former associates, including POGO Senior Investigator Peter Stockton and POGO Board Vice Chairman Jack Mitchell, at his surprise 80th birthday party in 2002.)

Author Dan E. Moldea writes:

I didn't know Jack Anderson very well, but, as a young independent writer, I received three assignments from him, all related to my four-year investigation of the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa during the mid-1970s. I'll always remember Jack at his 16th-Street office, wearing a pair of slippers and coolly marking up copy at his desk. Whenever I saw Jack, he appeared in control of everything around him. If one of his associates was having difficulty getting a tight-lipped source to talk, all he/she would have to do is tell Jack. He would simply pick up the phone and make the call. Within seconds, the source, awed by Jack and his reputation, would be telling him whatever he wanted to know. Somehow, nearly everyone who came in contact with Jack--even some of his targets--wanted his approval.

I can still sense the respect that Jack's presence commanded, as well as the extent to which people, like me, would go to earn his respect. He could make a young associate's day by simply flashing his wry smile and saying, "Good job." To be sure, Jack, in his familiar role as mentor, kept a watchful eye over all the young journalists in his stable. He wanted them to succeed beyond their work for him.

One of those young reporters, Ed Henry, now a respected on-camera reporter with CNN, filed the following brief story on the night of Jack's death last Saturday. Henry interviewed investigative-journalist Mark Feldstein, another accomplished and well-known Anderson-associate, who now teaches journalism at George Washington University and is current finishing his widely-anticipated biography of Jack, Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson, and the Rise of the White House Attack Machine.

Henry and Feldstein, both of whom really knew Jack, speak for those of us who didn't know Jack very well but always looked up to and respected him.

CNN Transcript follows:

Anchor CAROL LIN: Now, there's also word that long-time Washington columnist Jack Anderson has died at his Maryland home. He was 83 years old. A daughter said he died of complications from Parkinson's disease. CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry has more on Jack Anderson's long career.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BERNARD SHAW, CNN ANCHOR: Joining us on the "International Hour" now, syndicated columnist Jack Anderson.

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Jack Anderson was a tenacious investigative reporter exposing malfeasance in the nation's capital for over five decades. The last of the old- fashioned muck rakers, he upon the Pulitzer Prize in 1972 for revealing that the Nixon administration was secretly tilting toward Pakistan in its war with India.

MARK FELDSTEIN, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV.: He truly believed that he had a mission from God, that the Constitution was divinely inspired and he was put here on this earth to go after government wrongdoing, corporate wrongdoing.

HENRY: A devout Mormon, Anderson never shied from a fight with a corrupt politician. The more powerful the better, crusading against Communist-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy, rifling through the home trash cans of J. Edgar Hoover, after learning that was a tactic the director himself use to intimidate people. Anderson's sensational scoops during the Watergate years landed him on Nixon's enemies list. With J. Gordon Liddy going so far as to plot the columnist's murder in order to silence him.

FELDSTEIN: This is the only case I know of where the president's White House top aides are talking about a mob-style hit on a reporter.

HENRY: But Anderson was never quieted by his critics -- his columns syndicated in over 1,000 newspapers. He finally retired in 2004 because of Parkinson's disease. He made light of his illness, joking that the trembling was really caused by spending more than 50 years in Washington.

(on camera): Part of Jack Anderson's legacy was spawning future generations of journalists who learned at his elbow, like Brit Hume, Howard Kurtz and this reporter, too. Ed Henry, CNN, Washington.

Libby Leaked Plame's Name to Oklahoma Indie Rock Band

File this one under bizarre, but POGO pal LC was listening to the Starlight Mints, an Oklahoma band often compared to the Flaming Lips, and noticed that Track 5 of one of their CDs is titled, "Valerie Flames."  From one of her sources, New York Times reporter Judith Miller incorrectly jotted down in one of her notebooks the name "Valerie Flame" instead of "Valerie Plame." Plame is the CIA operative wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson who publicly called out the Bush administration on its false assertions that Iraq was attempting to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger.

You can listen to a sample of the song in Windows Media format or in Real Player format.

The album is titled "Dream That Stuff Was Made Of."  It was released in 2000, so the album doesn't quite fit the Plame affair timeline since Wilson didn't write his New York Times op-ed until July 2003 and no one publicly mentions the trip before May 2003.

If you haven't been following the Plame investigation a good place to start is this Washington Post article, or check Laura Rozen's continuing coverage over at her blog.

Note: Mickey Kaus beat us to the punch earlier in the day.

Decision Makers

GovExec is posting a series of articles profiling the leadership of key federal agencies [hat tip: Defense Industry Daily].  You can learn about the men and women heading the Defense Department, the Intelligence agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Management and Budget and the Justice Department.

Private Interests Inc., formerly known as Congress

According to a new report by Public Citizen, 43 percent of the members of Congress who have left office since 1998 have gone on to a lucrative career in lobbying. That’s 85 former legislators who have shelved the interest of the public in favor of the interest of whoever is writing the checks.

These former public servants are in high demand because of their unrivaled access to the Hill. Former members of Congress, for example, retain access to the House and Senate Floors as well as to members-only restaurants and gymnasiums. These benefits afford them more opportunities to make a case on behalf of their clients.

This means that corporations who employ lobbyists with the right connections are more likely to receive a government contract (or other legislation that suits them)—regardless of whether or not it is in the public interest. Effective lobbyists are, in turn, rewarded handsomely for their services.

Ultimately, this practice eradicates the incentive for a politician to act in the public interest. Why should legislators be afraid of losing an election when they can look forward to a lucrative lobbying career? The only lobbying that legislators should set their sites on is that which they were elected to do: lobbying on behalf of their constituents.

Links for Lobbying and the Revolving Door:

The aforementioned report by Public Citizen

Find a lobbyist, with the help of Public Citizen

See the scope of lobbying and find out how much money is going where with the Center for Public Integrity’s Lobbywatch (please see this note on Lobbywatch's methodology)

Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program

The Center for Responsive Politics

PoliticalMoneyLine, the money in politics database

POGO’s report on the politics of contracting, which includes analysis of the affects of the revolving door

Fangs Not Included

Of late some commentators have opined that Congress has dropped the ball on its role in providing oversight over the Executive Branch.  If anyone in Congress needs help the Congressional Research Service has produced a handy Congressional Oversight Manual.  It's kind of a "How-to" guide for Congress.  With sections like "Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Economy of Government Operations" and "Protect Individual Rights and Liberties" the Manual lays out what Congress should be striving to achieve.  The manual goes further and gives Congress direction on how to achieve oversight through investigations, hearings, the media, etc.  If this CRS report isn't enough on its own, Appendix D lists a series of Congressional Oversight videos for those more right-brained types. 

Hopefully, if Congress puts this guide to good use, it'll add some bite to Congress' bark.

Beach Dude Testifies

If you read just one article on yesterday’s hearings on the Abramoff/Tribal Gaming scandal, this one by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post should be it. Beach dude David Grosh washed up on the shores of Capitol Hill this week -- innocent, honest, unconcerned about appearances, uninhibited by the advice of “say nothing” lawyers -- a peculiar curiousity in our nation’s capital. The swirl of the Jack Abramoff scandal has sucked in Tom Delay, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, and others…prompting a normally-jaded news media to find renewed interest in the inappropriate influence of lobbyists whether it be the increased hordes descending upon Washington, DC or the special flights for members of Congress. Let’s hope Senator McCain’s hearings and investigations help clean up our money soaked political process.

POGO remembers Col. David Hackworth

Col. David Hackworth died this week at 74 from cancer. He was a great man.  A great warrior who took his job as protector of the troops into his lives beyond the Army as a journalist and military reform activist.  He filled every endeavor with a passion that is rarely seen anymore.  No one gets angry anymore -- not in the Congress, not in the Administration, not in the media -- the way Hackworth would when contractor interests were placed before the guys on the ground.  I'm proud that years ago, POGO hosted his Washington book party for the release of, "About Face." I was always struck that such a brave man, the mostly highly decorated living soldier, also had the voice of a poet.

Our condolences to his wife and to the troops he represented,

Danielle Brian and everyone at the Project On Government Oversight

You mean we're supposed to keep track of this stuff?

Yesterday, GovExec reported on GAO criticism of the Office of Management and Budget's information technology "watch list."  The gist of the problem is that OMB doesn't watch what's on its watch list:

Because OMB does not require follow-ups on projects and does not maintain a centralized list of those that are at risk, the Government Accountability Office found that OMB does not know whether the projects on the list are being managed effectively.

FBI internet surveillance: Is oversight possible?

Wait a second.  In this AP article on how the FBI's Carnivore's internet wiretap software has been replaced by "superior" commercial wiretap software, it says:

Henry H. Perritt Jr., who led an oversight study of Carnivore in 2000 for the Justice Department, said the FBI originally built its own surveillance system because commercial tools were inadequate. Perritt, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, said he was unaware of any commercial wiretap software that includes audit features robust enough to convince a federal judge that e-mails from innocent Internet users weren't captured by mistake.

"You'd like to have a package that supervisors within a field office and in Washington could do an audit and make sure they're using the tools compliant with the court order," Perritt said.

Does this new commercial software that the FBI now uses have audit features necessary for judges (and others) to see how it is used?  POGO would like to know.  With such a potential for wide-ranging abuse you'd think that there should be the tools for proper oversight. After all it was former FBI director Louis Freeh who said, "[The FBI is] potentially the most dangerous agency in the country if [it] is not scrutinized carefully."

Iraq: Whose Choice Was It?

The following are comments stemming from Rumsfeld's remarks that POGO blogged on last week.

Although POGO doesn't take a position on the Iraq war, you probably do. Feel free to post in the comments, but please keep it above the belt.

----------

'The Army You Have': Whose Choice Was It?

The Washington Post

Friday, December 10, 2004; Page A36

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's statement that "you go to war with the Army you have . . . not the Army you might want or wish to have" is disturbing in the context of operations in Iraq ["Rumsfeld Gets Earful From Troops," front page, Dec. 9].

The United States was not attacked by Iraq. This war was President Bush's decision, urged on by hawks such as Mr. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.

When you pick a fight, your soldiers should have the tools to finish it. They are, and have been, saying that they don't have all of the tools; 1,276 service members have lost their lives in Iraq, some possibly because they did not have the right equipment for the mission. Mr. Rumsfeld should at least lose his job.

JEFF LUDWIG

Gaithersburg

I couldn't disagree more [w/ Jeff]. The United States was attacked by Iraq, repeatedly so, during our decade long stint patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. From a merely legal technical perspective the agreement reached by the U.S. and Iraq to cease hostilities after the Persian Gulf war provided proper justification for war. No peace treaty was ever signed and the Iraqi government was under certain obligations that were not being met.

It is also legally accurate that the doctrine of pre-emptive war has long held sway in foreign affairs. It dates back to the Spanish Armada and certainly legally justifies the U.S. decision to remove the Iraqi government from power.

But that misses the larger point. While it is true that the Iraqi government did not attack us on September 11 that does not dismiss them from the Global War on Terror. Such closed-minded national defense would have not permitted President Roosevelt to choose Germany over Japan after Pearl Harbor, yet that is exactly the decision he correctly made. Robust national security in time of war is a prerogative long given to American presidents. And let's not forget it wasn't just the "neo-cons" who urged war but most of Congress and the American people as well.

The former Iraqi government had a long history as a state sponsor of terrorism, and it had been the policy of the American government, passed along from the end of the previous administration and Congress, that regime change was first priority in Iraq. The events of September 11 changed the environment in which security threats need to be assessed. State sponsor of terrorism, willingness to engage in terror and use of WMD in the past, desire to use WMD in the future, status as a destabilizing influence in an important region, all add up to a call for action that serious thinkers on both sides of the aisle saw then and now.

But more importantly, success in Iraq offers the only long-term strategy for victory in the War on Terror. The rule of law, respect for property rights, protection of the minority, and free elections are important forces in the world. The creation of liberal institutions in the Middle East and their potential transcendence on the rest of the region offer the only hopeful path to just peace for the world in this present reign of terror and fear.

Those who should have "lost their jobs" are those who voted to authorize the President to take us to war, but then voted against funding for our troops. That funding being the revenue source that would provide additional body armor, armored Humvees, etc. But wait, I think the American people did just send that message in November! Ahh, the wisdom of the American electorate.

As far as any mismanagement of the Iraqi war, let's also let history guide us. War is a bloody mess that never goes how its planned. But the political position that Secretary Rumsfeld should lose his job shouldn't be confused with objective criticism of his tenure. It was Secretary Rumsfeld who argued that an Iraqi government should have been created pre-war so that with victory the Iraqi people saw Iraqis in-charge and not Americans. He also argued that 10,000 Iraqi troops be trained pre-war to join the coalition. But he was over-ruled on both decisions by the State Department. Have all of the President's decisions, or Secretary Rumsfeld's, been correct in executing this war effort? Certainly not. But that standard would have meant presidents Lincoln, Truman, Kennedy, and Roosevelt, and their respective secretaries of War or Defense should have been shown the door. Tactical errors don't equal strategic blunders.

Respectfully,

Craig

I am not completely anti-war, sometimes you have to use TR's big stick. However, I am not a big fan of how this one has been pulled off. My whole view is take care of business, and so many people seem to confuse the two points because they don't have a horse in the race. Does he know anybody who has died over there? Maybe, but I do. The US military is the most capable in the world, and is on the verge of being broken, because of foolish decisions. Over 1,200 KIA and between 10-15k wounded in action or hurt in accidents. Troops are under-equipped, and we get tax cuts and BS political spin.

Afghanistan harbored the people who did attack us. So what did we do? A half ass operation that allowed the real bad guys to get away. And then, when that mission isn't even half way over, Rummy & co. are looking to invade Iraq. So they go in with less than 1/4 (probably much smaller) of the force in Desert Storm, and ask them to do more, because occupying and controlling urban areas is a hell of a lot more difficult than blasting away at the Republican Guard in the middle of the desert, where the US military's ability to "reach out and touch someone" is unparalled. They also figured this would be short and sweet, and sold it that way to the public and Congress. Guess what? It hasn't been, and the US military has not had the force structure to deal with it in over 10 years. So the units that started all of this back in 2001 and early 2002 are already looking at their 3rd combat tours, and that doesn't even consider guys who return to their home bases with one unit, and then get transferred to a deploying unit. So then there has to be a major mobilization of national guard combat units for the first time since WWII (maybe Korea). These guys are not prepared to go. In many cases they are old, overweight and out of shape, and their units have not been modernized at the rate of the active Army. So what does Rummy say to them last week? Basically deal with it, you go with what you got, not with what you want. Again, in WWII yes, but when you are pre-emptively picking a fight, especially when it is against a 5th rate loser like Saddam, then you make sure you have the tools to get the job done. It wasn't like the Rusky Bear was massing tanks at the Fulda Gap and the only thing preventing western Europe's sudden conversion to communism was the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment.

He is absolutely right that tactical errors don't equal strategic blunders. Strategic blunders do cause tactical errors. The US military has been put into the position of having to destroy the village in order to save it, and that goes over real well in the Arab world. Rummy led the charge to do this war on the cheap, and that resulted in an inability to secure the country after Saddam was overthrown. See Woodward's book if you have any questions. Less with more is a nice theory when you are trying to reign in an increasingly outrageous budget. But with the bullets still flying and IED's still detonating, tell that to the families that have lost loved ones because this nation's leaders thought it would be a cakewalk.

Jeff

Intell Reform Dead On Arrival?

Will the efforts of the 9/11 Commission and 9/11 victim families go to waste?  The LA Times reports (free registration req'd):

"Despite his public support for restructuring the nation's intelligence community, President Bush has done little to ensure that reforms modeled on the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission pass in the coming lame duck session of Congress.

And the legislation, which has run into stiff opposition from the Defense Department, is thought to have little chance of passage when a new Congress begins work next year."

POGO has been somewhat critical of aspects of the Intelligence reform legislation, especially the possibility of increased secrecy that could, however, be fixed (also see "The harm of too much secrecy," The Houston Chronicle, free registration req'd.) The bills currently have language that may expand a troublesome exemption to the Freedom of Information Act—the intelligence “sources and methods” exemption that the government abuses.

Yet, killing the needed reform of America's intelligence community is short-sighted and disingenuous of politicians--who all tout security as a priority--especially the White House. 

WaPo drops the ball on the real question in Airbus crash

Responding to a Washington Post piece today on the National Transportation Safety Board's findings on the Airbus crash in 2001 that killed 260 people, Marcus Corbin of the Center for Defense Information writes:

Has the NTSB been captured by industry? It seems to me that they're following the classic whitewash approach of blaming the (dead) human pilot rather than holding the corporation (Airbus) accountable. Surely the bottom line should be that an aircraft's hardware and especially, nowadays, software should be designed so that the pilot CANNOT BREAK THE PLANE in normal flight. The Washington Post story on the verdict today didn't focus on this fundamental issue. Is there anybody out there who can shed light on whether this is a basic rule for aircraft design now, whether it should be if it's not, and whether it is not fundamentally wrong for a rudder to be breaking off at all, let alone because of the pilot's actions?

Welcome to our blog!

Hi, I'd like to welcome everyone to POGO's first foray into the blogosphere. Here we'll share our daily knowledge from insider of some of the newest developments both inside and outside the Beltway with breaking stories and spot analysis. And hopefully we can create a useful dialogue with you using the unique features that blogs offer.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out another new aspect of POGO's website. Our brand new action center lets you take action on issues that POGO has highlighted with our investigations. Currently you can help support legislation needed to strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act.

We hope that the POGO blog becomes a staple of your daily news intake.

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian, Executive Director