[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6965]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               RETIRED OFFICERS AS PAWNS OF THE PENTAGON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday the front page of the New York 
Times included a story about the efforts of the Pentagon's public 
affairs operation to influence retired military officers now working as 
military analysts for some of our Nation's largest media organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very angry about the issues raised by the New York 
Times story, as are many of my colleagues who have called me aside to 
discuss it. The story does not reflect well on the Pentagon, on the 
military analysts in question, or on the media organizations that 
employ them.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe I am too idealistic, but this story is appalling 
to me on a number of levels. For me, it all comes down to trust and 
credibility. And it would be a dangerous thing for the American people 
to lose trust in the Pentagon, in our retired officers corps, and in 
the press, each of which has a critical role to play in preserving our 
Nation's freedoms.
  Through the years, I have frequently urged our military services to 
improve their efforts to tell America about the good work that is being 
done by our country's sons and daughters in the uniform. Our military 
services have an important story to tell, and public affairs offices 
are critical to that task. But credibility is paramount. Once lost, it 
is difficult or impossible to regain.
  There is nothing inherently wrong with providing information to the 
public and to the press; but, there is a problem if the Pentagon is 
providing special access to retired officers, and then basically using 
them as pawns to spout the administration's talking points of the day. 
There are allegations that analysts who failed to deliver the message 
required by the administration mysteriously lost access to future 
briefings and information. I find this deeply troubling. We deserve to 
be able to trust the actions of the Pentagon.
  We also deserve a retired officer corps that is worthy of the respect 
it receives from the American people, who place great faith in their 
judgment and their loyalty to our Nation. Americans trust our Active 
Duty and retired military, and rightly so.
  I know a number of the retired officers employed by the media as 
military analysts to be honorable people. But the special access they 
are alleged to have received and the circumstances of their employment, 
without proper disclosure of their outside interests or biases, raise a 
number of uncomfortable questions that deserve serious answers.
  Which master do these analysts serve: The United States Government, 
which supplies their retirement pay? The Pentagon, which may reduce the 
amount of analysis they actually need to do by providing detailed 
talking points promoting the current administration's message agenda? 
The defense contractors, who pay them for serving on boards for their 
defense expertise and, perhaps more to the point, for their Pentagon 
connections?
  Will their analysis, either by design or just by lucky coincidence, 
result in contracts or other advantages for the companies from which 
they take home a paycheck?
  Mr. Speaker, it hurts me to my core to think that there are those 
from the ranks of our retired officers who have decided to cash in and 
essentially prostitute themselves on the basis of their previous 
positions with the Department of Defense. I would hate to think that, 
because a few people have blurred ethical boundaries and cashed in on 
their former positions, that we might tarnish the military's hard-won 
reputation for professionalism and objectivity and love of country 
first and foremost.
  Finally, I think our media have a serious responsibility to disclose 
potential conflicts of interest when they do their reporting. This 
applies to all of their stories, of course, and not just to those that 
include retired officer military analysts. I understand that different 
organizations have different rules, but perhaps it would not be out of 
order for our journalism schools and professional journalism 
organizations to develop ethical guidelines for dealing with such 
issues.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's military exists to protect America's 
freedoms for its citizens today and for future generations. The First 
Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans, including retired 
servicemembers and members of the press, to speak freely and without 
restraint. But with our rights come responsibilities to act honestly 
and ethically.
  I have no doubt we will continue to discuss these matters in the days 
ahead.

                          ____________________