Unless the bastards come after me again, this is my last column on a national disgrace.

So let me be absolutely clear about who the bastards are: The New York Times, Senator Carl Levin and their 40 Democratic allies in the House of Representatives. The disgrace in question: The Times’s April 2008 “exposé” alleging conflicts of interest and wrongdoing by the retired military analysts often featured on television newscasts before and during the Iraq War.

I was one of those analysts. In fact, I wrote a first-person history of the Pentagon briefing program in a 2006 book, Warheads. After the Times article was published, I repeatedly argued that the story was perversely unfair, misleading and badly slanted. Among other defects, it omitted the “small detail” that Warheads had even been published, immediately raising fundamental questions of inaccuracy, even plagiarism.

What was far worse: Solely on the basis of The Times’s article, Senator Levin and 40 House Democrats promptly demanded investigations: by the Pentagon inspector general, the Federal Communications Commission and the General Accounting Office. None found any of the wrongdoing alleged by The Times in the article for which it was subsequently awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

This ignominy finally came full circle last week in a Washington Times article by Rowan Scarborough, one of the only journalists courageous enough to follow this story through to its wildly improbable conclusion. Scarborough had watched in 2009 while Senator Levin leveraged his powerful position as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the Pentagon IG for a re-investigation. Surely the IG must have overlooked wrongdoing by the previous administration, the chairman’s reasoning went, but with Barack Obama now in power, go back and look even harder!

Pentagon inspectors general follow orders but don’t compromise their integrity. In September 2011, Scarborough reported that, its two-year re-investigation complete, the DOD IG was about to report that Pentagon officials and retired military analysts had complied with all laws and regulations. Having provided lengthy sworn statements to each of those investigations, I kept asking DOD IG public affairs officers when the final report would be released, receiving increasingly evasive replies.

Scarborough eventually uncovered and reported the shocking truth: Senator Levin directly intervened in the investigation in order to influence the wording of the final IG report. This was the political equivalent of jury-tampering but, for a while, it seemed like Senator Levin’s misconduct would go un-noticed. But then, Congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, announced his intention to examine Senator Levin’s meddling. The DOD IG’s final report was issued last week, reported appropriately enough by Rowan Scarborough.



A careful reading of Scarborough’s story raises several troubling issues:

1.) Media Corruption: Until its principal findings were reputed by four separate federal investigations, no major reporter other than Rowan Scarborough ever investigated the deeply flawed exposé by The New York Times. The members of the Columbia School of Journalism’s Pulitzer Prize Committee effectively gave that story a pass, overlooking obvious defects to award their highest honor. The Times story clearly does not merit this distinction, although Rowan Scarborough’s gutsy reporting just might — either that or the Kennedy Library’s “Profiles in Courage” award.

2.) Political Corruption: Ballot-box retribution is always the best way to redress the abuse of power. But why not call Carl Levin’s cabal to account? Why were he and his congressional allies allowed to waste taxpayer dollars on four needless and time-consuming investigations? Did Carl Levin try to cover their tracks by influencing the IG? Exactly how much money was wasted, and which politicians were culpable? These are the real issues that Chairman Issa needs to look into. But only the Senate can answer why its ethical standards are so low that a man like Carl Levin is allowed to chair its Armed Services Committee.

3.) Redress of Grievances: Because it is an institution beyond all shame, don’t expect an apology from The New York Times, much less an admission that its story was incorrect. But Congress owes the retired military analysts, my Warhead colleagues, a special apology of its own. Under congressional authority and volition, three agencies of government investigated those officers on four separate venues, finding no trace of wrongdoing. Congressmen, their staffs and even agency officials made disparaging assertions that later proved false. So exactly where, as I have asked repeatedly, do we go to get our reputations restored?

Like many officers of the Vietnam generation, I was often taught that the media was not to be trusted, that it carried a deep institutional bias against the military which, among other things, guaranteed freedom of the press. After almost 10 years as an NBC News Warhead, I have a more nuanced view of the good, the bad and the ugly among the Fourth Estate. But make no mistake: This was the most disgraceful episode in media-military relations since the Vietnam War. As you watch tomorrow’s Army-Navy Game, draw your own conclusions about its future impact on our democracy and those who defend it.

Colonel (Ret.) Ken Allard rose from draftee to Dean of the National War College. A former military analyst for NBC News, he is a prolific writer on national security issues. Email him at Warheads6@aol.com.

