Hillary Clinton's campaign finally came out against the Bush administration's secret program to promote Iraq policy through television analysts on Monday, saying it raises questions of "credibility and trust at the Pentagon" and calling for an Inspector General investigation, in a statement provided to The Nation. The program, first reported by the New York Times on April 20, drew criticism from media watchdog groups and some Democrats, but none of the presidential candidates had previously addressed it. Barack Obama's campaign also finally weighed in on the controversy, telling The Nation that the Illinois Senator was "deeply disturbed" that the administration "sought to manipulate the public's trust," and saying the program "deserves further investigation to determine if laws or ethical standards were violated." Senator McCain's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

A Pentagon official announced that it would "suspend" the program for "retired military analysts" pending further review, in an interview with the military's Stars and Stripes newspaper on Thursday. The Pentagon added that the suspension is "temporary" on Monday.

The Clinton Campaign said that given the Bush administration's record on intelligence and misinformation, an investigation is critical to determine how the Pentagon shaped the "commentary of putatively independent television military analysts" for "‘selling' the Iraq war and our country's defense policy now." The campaign statement also flagged "serious questions about the potential linkage of government contracts to favorable public commentary by military analysts."

The Obama Campaign called for "greater transparency to ensure that those who lobby the Pentagon are not rewarded for favorable commentary about the Administration's policies." Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki also broadened the argument to indict the ongoing debate over war policy, saying "it's past time that we conducted an honest dialogue about the situation in Iraq." (Full statements below.)

McCain's refusal to comment on the program is unsurprising, given his staunch support for every major aspect of the President's Iraq policy. However, the Democratic candidates' delay in responding is more complicated. There has been a virtual blackout of the topic on television news, so the candidates have not been pressed in recent interviews, such as Obama's Fox appearance on Sunday. And the issue is politically delicate because it implicates the conduct of retired generals. The campaigns were careful to criticize the administration, not the generals, who hold a hallowed position in foreign policy discourse. The Clinton Campaign even stressed that its criticism did not impugn "the honor and patriotism of our dedicated career military officers," and neither candidate advocated a congressional or independent inquiry.

The Chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee have also called for internal investigations by the Defense Department. Carl Levin, the Senate Chairman, highlighted retaliation against analysts critical of the war in his letter calling on Defense Secretary Robert Gates to investigate. Ike Skelton, the House Chairman, criticized the Pentagon in floor remarks for using retired generals "as pawns to spout the administration's talking points" and called on news organizations to "disclose potential conflicts of interest."

Most of the television networks, however, have repeatedly refused to comment on the story, let alone change their policies. Representative Rosa DeLauro sent letters to five network presidents last week, demanding details about their policies allowing analysts with financial and political conflicts of interest. Free Press, a media reform organization, has documented the networks' refusal to respond to several inquiries (or report on the program itself). The group is calling for a congressional investigation. Since the Times had to sue the Pentagon to obtain the original documents exposing the program, internal investigations and "temporary" suspensions are unlikely to generate any more useful information or accountability.

Clinton Campaign Statement Provided to The Nation:

Senator Clinton is very concerned by a recent press report that the Department of Defense (DOD) hid behind "an appearance of objectivity" in a concerted media "campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance." The report raises issues of credibility and trust at the Pentagon. It suggests an extensive, coordinated effort by DOD and the Administration -- in a campaign they described as "information dominance" -- to try to shape and guide the commentary of putatively independent television military analysts. And it contains allegations that analysts who did not stay on message were pressured or even punished. The report also raises serious questions about the potential linkage of government contracts to favorable public commentary by military analysts.

After the real concerns raised by the information and intelligence provided by the Pentagon in the run up to the Iraq war that obviously got many core assumptions wrong, Senator Clinton believes that it is more incumbent on DoD than ever to avoid any appearance of impropriety in terms of "selling" the Iraq war and our country's defense policy now.

Without impugning the honor and patriotism of our dedicated career military officers, it is both appropriate and necessary to know to what extent the DOD may have directly or indirectly attempted to undermine the objectivity and accuracy of the military analysis presented to the American people at critical junctures in the ongoing military operations overseas, and to what extent decisions about military contracts were related to this PR effort.

Senator Clinton believes that Secretary Gates should conduct a comprehensive review, and the Inspector General a full investigation, of the DOD's "information dominance" campaign.

Obama Campaign Statement Provided to The Nation:

Senator Obama is deeply disturbed by this latest evidence that the Bush Administration has sought to manipulate the public's trust. From its misleading case to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, to its argument for keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, the Administration has depended on spin because its assertions have not been supported by facts. The aggressive media strategy detailed in the Times deserves further investigation to determine if laws or ethical standards were violated. There must be greater transparency to ensure that those who lobby the Pentagon are not rewarded for favorable commentary about the Administration's policies. And it's past time that we conducted an honest dialogue about the situation in Iraq.

Comments (7)

1. Obama and Hillary are 'surprised' that the Bush Ad has sought to manipulate the public's trust? Do these people live in a hole?

   Posted by felicity at 04/28/2008 @ 2:34pm

2. Over 4000 dead US troops, 10's of thousands disabled, 100's of thousand Iraqi's killed and millions homeless and disabled, and it's all based on faking the US citizenry out of trillions of dollars for hsuB/cHeney admin bud's. If only the US citizenry had balls they'd all be in DC boiling tar and opening a few feathered pillows up... Well ok, maybe not the fat lazy couch potatoes, not those out of it on drugs or pharmaceuticals, not the parents with 2+ jobs, not those fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan, not deluded new con repubs, not the too old or happily retired, not the non-pollution types, (unless you can find non-petroleum produced tar), not the pacifists, not the fearful, er, shit, there's no one left...

   Posted by hsuBfools at 04/28/2008 @ 2:48pm

3. You mean the Republicans have a candidate already chosen and the media "knows" where he stands on every issue - and agrees with all of them??

   I didn't think they had anyone running.

   Silly me.

   To,

   Posted by twieliczka at 04/28/2008 @ 3:35pm

4. Hillary is still trying to do CYA by pretending she was duped by flawed intelligence rather than admiting she should have read all those pre-war reports that would make any reasonable person question the wisdom of going to war in Iraq.

   Posted by Metteyya at 04/28/2008 @ 4:04pm

5. This doesn't surprise me at all. Makes you wonder if everything they are saying about our current performance is true with all the crap about the surge working.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/28/2008 @ 5:32pm

6. Posted by HAPPY2 at 04/28/2008

   YOU ARE EMPLOYED BY THE NATION IN ORDER TO SUBVERT THE WILL OF THE TRUE EDUCATED AND INTELLIGENT BLOGGERS HERE!!!!!

   Sorry I haven't seen Frank in a while so I thought I would input what he would say.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/28/2008 @ 5:33pm

7. Of course the usual right wing suspects HAVE to chime in on this... 'OH, EVERYONE DOES THIS'..'NO BIG DEAL'.. REALLY???? No big deal happy2..?? come on.. Time to get your head out of your butts .. This country was fed propaganda for months leading up to this BS action going on in IRAQ... Why should we the people care about that....

   Posted by Vvf1969 at 04/28/2008 @ 9:38pm