Pentagon Military Analyst Program - Department of Defense Investigation and Pulitzer Prize

Department of Defense Investigation and Pulitzer Prize

In January 2009, the US Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG) released the report of its investigation. The report rejected most of the allegations from Barstow's New York Times story. The DoD report concluded that the evidence was, "insufficient to conclude that RMA outreach activities were improper. Further, we found insufficient basis to conclude that conceived of or undertook a disciplined effort to assemble a contingent of influential RMAs who could be depended on to comment favorably on DoD programs." Concerning the contract controversy, the investigation found that, "extensive searches found no instance where such RMAs used information or contacts obtained as a result of the OASD(PA) outreach program to achieve a competitive advantage for their company." The report stated that 29 percent of the RMA had some type of corporate association.

In April 2009, the Pulitzer Committee announced that it would be awarding a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting to the New York Times and David Barstow for the RMA expose'. RMA's such as US Air Force Lietenant General Tomas G. McInerney and Army Major General Paul E. Vallely reacted angrily to the announcement, citing the DoD IG's investigation which the RMA's stated had "discredited" the Times story. Barstow replied that the Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, had found the DoD IG's investigation "highly flawed" and labeled it a "whitewash."

On May 6, 2009 a story by Barstow in the New York Times revealed that Donald M. Horstman, the DoD's deputy inspector general, had repudiated the DoD investigation report, stating that an internal review found that the report, "did not meet accepted quality standards" and "relied on a body of testimonial evidence that was insufficient or inconclusive." According to Horstman, the review found that Pentagon officials who had devised and managed the analyst program had refused to speak to DoD investigators. The review also found that the investigation's methodology was seriously flawed. Horstman added that no additional investigative work would be done to reissue the report because the analyst program has been terminated and the senior officials who oversaw it no longer work for the DoD.

On May 7, 2009 the Washington Times reported that the DoD IG had reviewed and withdrawn the report after being pressured by Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, to do so. Levin reportedly sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on February 2, 2009 rejecting the report and asking the DoD IG to conduct a second investigation. The Washington Times noted that Barstow, in his May 6 story in the New York Times about the pulled report, had failed to disclose Levin's involvement.

Read more about this topic:  Pentagon Military Analyst Program

Famous quotes containing the words department of, department, defense and/or prize:

    ... the Department of Justice is committed to asking one central question of everything we do: What is the right thing to do? Now that can produce debate, and I want it to be spirited debate. I want the lawyers of America to be able to call me and tell me: Janet, have you lost your mind?
    Janet Wood Reno (b. 1938)

    ... the Department of Justice is committed to asking one central question of everything we do: What is the right thing to do? Now that can produce debate, and I want it to be spirited debate. I want the lawyers of America to be able to call me and tell me: Janet, have you lost your mind?
    Janet Wood Reno (b. 1938)

    Unlike Boswell, whose Journals record a long and unrewarded search for a self, Johnson possessed a formidable one. His life in London—he arrived twenty-five years earlier than Boswell—turned out to be a long defense of the values of Augustan humanism against the pressures of other possibilities. In contrast to Boswell, Johnson possesses an identity not because he has gone in search of one, but because of his allegiance to a set of assumptions that he regards as objectively true.
    Jeffrey Hart (b. 1930)

    He saw, he wish’d, and to the prize aspir’d.
    Resolv’d to win, he meditates the way,
    By force to ravish, or by fraud betray;
    For when success a lover’s toil attends,
    Few ask, if fraud or force attain’d his ends.
    Alexander Pope (1688–1744)