About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media ignored front-page Washington Post report that White House hampered Iraq rebuilding efforts by hiring unqualified individuals based on "loyalty to the Bush administration"

September 19, 2006 4:18 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: A Media Matters for America review of cable and broadcast networks and major newspapers showed no coverage of a September 17 front-page Washington Post report by Rajiv Chandrasekaran detailing the process by which many individuals who "lacked vital skills and experience" were assigned to positions in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq based on their "loyalty to the Bush administration."

45 Comments

A Media Matters for America review* of cable and broadcast networks and major newspapers showed no coverage of a September 17 front-page Washington Post report by Washington Post assistant managing editor Rajiv Chandrasekaran detailing the process by which many individuals who "lacked vital skills and experience" were assigned to positions in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq based on their "loyalty to the Bush administration." The CPA governed Iraq from April 2003 to June 2004 and was tasked with rebuilding the country. Chandrasekaran's report quoted multiple sources detailing a process conducted by a political appointee within the Pentagon, who screened applicants for key CPA posts and passed over more qualified candidates in favor of people, who, "because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people." Despite the report's disclosure that the CPA's hiring process "is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2-year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors," the broadcast networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS, as well as the cable news channels, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, have all ignored it, as have all other major newspapers. Chandrasekaran's September 17 article was adapted from his book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone, which was released today by Knopf.

Chandrasekaran's report confirms the prediction of a December 2003 Washington Monthly article, co-written by then-Washington Monthly contributing writer Joshua Micah Marshall, The American Prospect senior correspondent Laura Rozen, and journalist Colin Soloway:

When the history of the occupation of Iraq is written, there will be many factors to point to when explaining the post-conquest descent into chaos and disorder, from the melting away of Saddam's army to the Pentagon's failure to make adequate plans for the occupation. But historians will also consider the lack of experience and abundant political connections of the hundreds of American bureaucrats sent to Baghdad to run Iraq through the Coalition Provisional Authority.

The Washington Monthly article quoted one CPA official as saying that many CPA appointees saw their jobs "as a stepping stone to a better job in the next Bush administration." Another CPA official was also quoted as saying: "Everything is seen in the context of the election, and how [many younger Republicans in Iraq] will screw the Democrats."

In his Washington Post report, Chandrasekaran reported that "[a]s more and more of" the individuals hired by Pentagon political appointee Jim O'Beirne "arrived in the Green Zone, the CPA's headquarters in Saddam Hussein's marble-walled former Republican Palace felt like a campaign war room." Chandrasekaran also wrote that several CPA appointees intended to pursue jobs with the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign.

Chandrasekaran cited, in particular, "[a] 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange."

Further, the article reported that, to oversee the "rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system," the administration tapped James K. Haveman Jr., "a 60-year-old social worker, [who] was largely unknown among international health experts, but ... had connections." According to Chandrasekaran, Haveman replaced Frederick M. Burkle Jr., a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), who had received a master's degree in public health and had worked in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War and later in Somalia and Kosovo. Burkle reportedly received an email from a "senior official at USAID," who wrote that Burkle was being replaced because "the White House wanted a 'loyalist' in the job." According to the article, "When Haveman left Iraq, Baghdad's hospitals were as decrepit as the day the Americans arrived."

From Chandrasekaran's September 17 Washington Post article:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting. *

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

The CPA had the power to enact laws, print currency, collect taxes, deploy police and spend Iraq's oil revenue. It had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad at its height, working under America's viceroy in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, but never released a public roster of its entire staff.

Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated -- and ultimately hobbled -- by administration ideologues.

"We didn't tap -- and it should have started from the White House on down -- just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."

Endowed with $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds and a comparatively quiescent environment in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion, the CPA was the U.S. government's first and best hope to resuscitate Iraq -- to establish order, promote rebuilding and assemble a viable government, all of which, experts believe, would have constricted the insurgency and mitigated the chances of civil war. Many of the basic tasks Americans struggle to accomplish today in Iraq -- training the army, vetting the police, increasing electricity generation -- could have been performed far more effectively in 2003 by the CPA.

But many CPA staff members were more interested in other things: in instituting a flat tax, in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the Green Zone, a walled-off enclave in central Baghdad with towering palms, posh villas, well-stocked bars and resort-size swimming pools.

By the time Bremer departed in June 2004, Iraq was in a precarious state. The Iraqi army, which had been dissolved and refashioned by the CPA, was one-third the size he had pledged it would be. Seventy percent of police officers had not been screened or trained. Electricity generation was far below what Bremer had promised to achieve. And Iraq's interim government had been selected not by elections but by Americans. Divisive issues were to be resolved later on, increasing the chances that tension over those matters would fuel civil strife.

To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience.

Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000.

O'Beirne, a former Army officer who is married to prominent conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne, did not respond to requests for comment.

He and his staff used an obscure provision in federal law to hire many CPA staffers as temporary political appointees, which exempted the interviewers from employment regulations that prohibit questions about personal political beliefs.

There were a few Democrats who wound up getting jobs with the CPA, but almost all of them were active-duty soldiers or State Department Foreign Service officers. Because they were career government employees, not temporary hires, O'Beirne's office could not query them directly about their political leanings.

One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the President's vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was 'uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy ... and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC (Republican National Committee) contributors."

As more and more of O'Beirne's hires arrived in the Green Zone, the CPA's headquarters in Hussein's marble-walled former Republican Palace felt like a campaign war room. Bumper stickers and mouse pads praising President Bush were standard desk decorations. In addition to military uniforms and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" garb, "Bush-Cheney 2004" T-shirts were among the most common pieces of clothing.

"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."

When Gordon Robison, who worked in the Strategic Communications office, opened a care package from his mother to find a book by Paul Krugman, a liberal New York Times columnist, people around him stared. "It was like I had just unwrapped a radioactive brick," he recalled.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mb (September 19, 2006 4:40 pm ET)
         

      You want to scream after reading the article. So much for being hired based on merit. It is outrageous. Yet not a peep from television news. Actually you find most response from blogs, what gives? I stopped watching TV news over after he said/she said reporting of Schiavo coverage. As if facts were debatable. I read about this impeachable incompetence years ago from a blog. Bush has reaped what he has sewn in Iraq. Iraq was doomed from the start with the twits at CPA in charge. Where was the reporting years ago when it could have made a difference? How can you allow these people to remain in charge? Where is the reporting on this now? I try to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and I pull my hair out. Cant blame democrats for lack of reporting by the big 3.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by sasami (September 19, 2006 7:16 pm ET)
           

        ..need to be nice to Bush in hopes of landing big contracts. GE owns NBC, remember?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by bravenewworld (September 19, 2006 4:53 pm ET)
         

      carried it but buried it in the middle of the A section. Same d*** press that couldn't spill enough ink with tales of Clinton allowing high-rolling donors stay in the White House, etc. This, I think, is the best possible example of conservative bias. I stopped watching network news for the majority of my information during the Monica gossip-fest (when reporters were breathlessly reporting rumors and speculation about upcoming rumors every night on TV).

      You would think that people who really think invading Iraq was morally and legally warranted and who support the troops would be outraged, no matter whether they support W or not.

      Read the book "Fiasco" which does a tremendous job of covering this same issue.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Slade (September 19, 2006 5:05 pm ET)
         

      way back in 1984:

      "Had a dream it was war And they couldn't tell me what it was for But it was something they could lie about Something we could die about, you know..."

      Makes me sick.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Watcher_IL (September 19, 2006 5:18 pm ET)
         

      Cronyism, and incompetence. Of course the administration that values these things above talent and experience will not take any responsiblity for the disinegration of Iraq. It can all be easily blamed on the insurgency, or Al Qaeda, or Osama Bin Laden .... yeah thats it. It was Bin Laden.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by rusty shackleford (September 19, 2006 5:21 pm ET)
         

      Why should the CPA be operated any differently than FEMA?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by thaicurry1232446 (September 19, 2006 5:33 pm ET)
         

      It is shocking, yes. Outrageous, yes. But timely, no.

      Interesting article, which promotes an interesting book -- in a textbook sort of way, but the story should have been told long ago -- and was. Even by the Washington Post.

      Perhaps the energy of MediaMatters could be better directed.

      Also, talking about how things operate, interesting that at least 3 of the book's 6 reviews on Amazon (and 3 of the five on the book's jacket) are by writer/reporters with ties to... The Washington Post!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by zerosumgame0005 (September 19, 2006 5:50 pm ET)
           

        how 'special' LOL!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (September 19, 2006 5:59 pm ET)
           

        because like so many things about the bush administration, the media covers up for him. repeat after me: the media is owned today, unlike years ago, by large corporations. the interest of those corporations is to keep the republicans in power, to keep the corporate gravy train going. thus, ignore everything they possibly can that is bad about him. the downing street memo, which said bush was hyping the threat by saddam, was not "old news" when that came out. headlines for days in england. here, nothing.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (September 19, 2006 6:08 pm ET)
             

          Show us your specific evidence that the NY Times, LA Times, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC are covering up for Bush, or "owned" by him? That is such a ridiculous accusation, often repeated here, but never proven.

          And the media are just now large Republican corporations, where before they were what....? Just Mom and Pop little non partisan outlets? Stop grumbling, Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet, his presidency is viewed by many as near Nixon and Carter country regarding failure. So your mouthpiece media is sure doing a lousy job, arent' they?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by spencer (September 19, 2006 6:25 pm ET)
               

            Tommy: In answer to your question, the media, before they became lapdogs, had the Fairness Doctrine, which said both points of view had to be shown.

            Those days are gone; instead of presenting the other side, they can ignore it like they ignored the stories about mass resignations at EPA, DHS, FBI, etc.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (September 19, 2006 6:29 pm ET)
                 

              That has been answered and argued here ad nauseum, and it's uselessness it today's information age has been well documented by many here. It hasn't been in existence in nearly 20 years. Did you complain about it's non existence in the Clinton years? Probably not.

              I still have seen no evidence from mefirst on his accusation.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (September 19, 2006 6:46 pm ET)
                   

                citizen driven oversight of the media? That's what the Fairness Doctrine was. Citizens or citizen groups would lodge a complaint with the FCC. The FCC would then contact the broadcaster who would be required to OFFER time for countervailing opinion to be posed in rebuttal. Nowhere does it state that EQUAL time must be offered just time for opposing POV. In this day and age of technologic and communication miracles the Fairness Doctrine would be easy to institute. I bet MMFA could even become a watchdog group.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (September 19, 2006 6:51 pm ET)
                     

                  Back then then were three major networks, no internet, no blogs, one cable news channel. Today there are dozens of networks and news channels, and the internet. The monitoring of it would be off the charts. We live in a totally different instant information age today.

                  That's why.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (September 19, 2006 7:12 pm ET)
                       

                    No, seriously we're off topic here. Look forward to hashing out the Fairness Doctrine in the future on a more appropriate thread.

                    How about that CPA, though? A sterling example of the conservative 'can do' attitude?

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by blueblood (September 19, 2006 7:38 pm ET)
                       

                    the repoting and coverage of important issues was far more independent and indifferent to thel concerns of the investigated parties. I cannot fathom another Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite in today's media system. Plus, while the number of different channels on TV or magazines at the newstand give the IMPRESSION of diversity, they arer all owned by a hnadful of large international corporations like News Corp. Viacom, AOL Time Warner, CBS Westinghouse, and Bertelsmann.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (September 19, 2006 8:20 pm ET)
                       

                    But after much thought I have to call BS. I think NEWS needs to be fair, balanced and truthful. Most NEWS on the internet is derived from Reuters, NBC, etc not from "Joes' weblog". I think you are obfuscating actual NEWS outlets by drawing in weblogs, pundits etc. The fairness doctrine would HAVE to be applied to Fox NEWS shows. Not O'Leilly, Limbo, H&C etc. Get it?

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by jawill11 (September 19, 2006 11:22 pm ET)
                       

                    all those tv, radio, and newspapers are owned by a handful of large corporations thanks tothe relaxing of ownership rules under the GOP. And as far as the internet goes, they want to do away with that source of news with the elimination of net neutrality.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mescal (September 20, 2006 3:00 am ET)
                       

                    There may be more media outlets now than in the past, but they are owned by FEWER corporations. When it comes to television & radio, there is an overwhelming right wing bias. They see no reason to give time to views that are not in lock step with corprate financial interests. They are able to hammer home the same neoconservative message from these multiple "networks & news channels."

                    I don't understand why you so consistantly oppose equal time being accorded to all points of view. You seem to believe that megacorporations are ENTITLED to monopolistic control of the the airwaves, despite the fact that they belong to the American people. I suspect that its because you realise that conservative thought can only prosper when all alternate ideas & facts are sufficiently suppressed.

                    Oh, & by the way, progressives complained quite vosiferously complained about the loss of the Fairness Doctrine as they watched the MSM hammer away at Bill Clinton night after night, obsessing about his sex life & the horrible, unbearable lie that he told about it.

                    I guess its just that most of the rest of us at this site kind of feel that OUR point of view deserves to be told right alongside the corporate & neocon propoganda that we are otherwise so inundated with.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by blueblood (September 19, 2006 7:35 pm ET)
                   

                I disdained the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but there was no outlet for me to voice my frustration that in any way mirrors media matters. Plus, Bill Clinton was very good to corporate America in a number of ways (NAFTA, anyone?), even still the MSM covered non-issues like Whitewater ad nauseum, while neglecting FAR more important stories such as cronyism in Iraq reconstruction.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by mb (September 19, 2006 6:27 pm ET)
               

            Didnt you read the MMFA article? This is your proof. The CPA was staffed with incompetents bc of loyalty. Their incompetence played a direct role in the fiasco that is today Iraq. ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS and everyone else you listed have not reported on it, except perhaps in some small way. So what progressives are saying is that the media is not doing their job and the whole notion of a liberal media bias is a farce. Further investigation is needed and yet is non-existent. I dont understand how someone could not be outraged and defend this or attempt misdirection.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by kgonz (September 19, 2006 7:01 pm ET)
               

            Look - here's the very simple logic:

            1) The major mdia outlets are OWNED by corporations 2) As pieces of corporations, their primary responsibility BY LAW is to secure profits by their shareholders 3) These corporations either obviously support POWER (honestly Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter - though Republicans are the larger benficiaries,which I'll get to below) or benefit in some way from the actions of those in power (like GE owning NBC and also being one of the largest weapons maufacturers on the planet) . 4) The way the media make money for their parent corporations is largely through advertising the products of other large corporations. 5) Institutions like corporations do not take action that will hurt themselves, and if pieces of them start to do so, their is a reaction. Therefore, media generally are soft on a) their parent corporations, b) their advertisers, and c) the peoplein power that help maximize profits for the corporations either directly (buying missle, etc.) or indirectly (corporate tax breaks, etc.)

            Why doesn't this result in complete lockstep obedience? a) That would be way too obvious b) It's not a great conspiracy - it'sjust the way the media institution/systemworks within American capitalism. Therefore, there are no hard and fast rules, but rather patterns of behavior. c) The people who work in media are just that - people. And while peopleare fallible, they are also capable and they sometimes do excellent work even within systemic patterns & pressures that may discourage them from doing so.

            As far as Bush's polls and the media - 1) The idea isn't that they ignore EVERYTHING. To do so would be WAY to obvious and doesn't fit the concept of behavior and pressure I outlined above. Eventually, truth can come out, but if you have actually paid attention to how scandals such as Watergate, etc. played out, the MSM as a whole has been quite slow in taking up the story. 2) Polls also reflect the way almost 1/2 the country still believes neocon talking points about Iraq, WMDs & Al Qaeda that have been proven FALSE. Despite all the refutation, people still believe untruths that benefit the Bushies. Why is that? 3) Look, again, this isn't about some vast conspiracy. It's about patterns of behavior based on the reality of the media & corporate infrastructure of America. Things do slip by. Obvious totalitarianism coordinated by corporations would likely raaise some alarms. It works much moer effectively as a covert system.

            But,I expeect that you will just blow this all off as a liberal conspiracy instead of THINKING for a moment and trying to engage my points.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (September 19, 2006 9:19 pm ET)
               

            he wants to know if the media were "mom and pop" outlets before. yes, my lad, they were really. media companies tended to be separate companies in themselves. and many newspapers were either independently owned or part of small chains. those chains have become larger through buying up competing chains. and they have crossed into owning multiple media, that they were not allowed to own before. basically it is fewer and fewer companies owning a bigger share of the media. and general electric did not own nbc. as someone else pointed out here, the proof is in the pudding. they do protect bush or you would see wide distribution of these stories. the new york times was one of the chief outlets for bush's war propaganda. [as for thaicurry being tommy, we know he posts under different names. it's a very tommy like post with eastern twist. but it is still typical tommy "pu-pu platter".]

            Report Abuse
      • Author by mb (September 19, 2006 6:05 pm ET)
           

        Are you suggesting that injustices that were done in the past and which continue to affect the present should not be exposed in detail becuase they are not "timely". This was exposed in the past, never by television media, but not to the extent by the article of a few days ago. The incompetence of how war was administered has just been scratched, it needs to be much further exposed. This ties in with war profiteering as well. Dont know what you were trying to imply by "textbook" sort of way. Highly competent people were fired bc of their politcal beliefs and replaced with totally incompetent, loyal people. The article documents the disastorous decisions made by these people. It will haunt us for years to come. It lead to deaths and billions of lost dollars.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by thaicurry1232446 (September 20, 2006 1:32 am ET)
             

          No, I'm not suggesting these details "should not be exposed" because of timeliness.

          I was simply suggesting that the timeliness of the article/book may not be conducive to the immediate all-out media coverage you think it deserves.

          By "textbook way", I was thinking the book will likely be used in classes in future to examine the 'rebuilding' of Iraq.

          There are tons of really good books out there. Not many get immediate wall-to-wall coverage in print, newspaper, radio. The ones that do tend to have a big bombshell revelation in them. This one just doesn't. This stuff's been out there. This fills in details, though, which is always good.

          What I wanted to suggest with my first post is I'm not sure this item merited the homepage big-headline attention it got on this website. The story has been covered and it will be picked up. The inner workings of the CPA will be analyzed for years to come.

          There just may be bigger fish for MM to fry at the moment (just a thought - not criticizing anyone).

          >Are you suggesting that injustices that were done in the past and which continue to affect the present should not be exposed in detail becuase they are not "timely". This was exposed in the past, never by television media, but not to the extent by the article of a few days ago. The incompetence of how war was administered has just been scratched, it needs to be much further exposed. This ties in with war profiteering as well. Dont know what you were trying to imply by "textbook" sort of way. Highly competent people were fired bc of their politcal beliefs and replaced with totally incompetent, loyal people. The article documents the disastorous decisions made by these people. It will haunt us for years to come. It lead to deaths and billions of lost dollars.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (September 19, 2006 6:29 pm ET)
           

        If nothing else can rouse your indignation then consider that those are your tax dollars being wasted, too.

        Despite all the neocon bluster that Iraq and national security is their strong issue, they know they have no moral grounds upon which they can stand. The ones who are not jumping ship advocate torture and defend failed foreign policy. No matter what terminology they apply to torture no sensible American citizen will support it. The parents of our soldiers most certainly did not raise their kids to be the neighborhood bully. My guess is mom's and dad's across the country raised their kids to help the people in their neighborhood and to protect each other. Isn't that ostensibly what our soldiers are supposed to be doing in Iraq, helping to build communities and keeping them safe?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (September 20, 2006 9:00 am ET)
           

        Perhaps the energy of the nation could be directed at an administration that pre-emptively invaded a sovereign nation, with too few troops, too little body armor, too little necessary equipment for the troops, but with plenty of political hacks in over their heads in the administration of the peace.

        Every American wounded or killed since the mission was "accomplished" may have suffered because, instead of having knowledgeable people in the CPA, we had Bush loyalists with no experience in nation building. Their only qualification was their loyalty, not to our nation and constitution, but to the extreme fringe of the Republican Party.

        The words treason, traitor, etc have been used to describe the opponents of the Bush policy in Iraq. What words would be used to describe those unqualified people responsible for winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by cb (September 20, 2006 5:55 pm ET)
           

        The whole MMFA story seems like a contradiction. How can you say the main stream media ignores something that was on the FRONT PAGE of The Washington Post. And I think the point about the story not being timely and being aimed at promoting books that reporters from the Post stand to gain from is right on. With all the sh*t going on in our world today I fail to understand why MMFA spends sooo much time on non-issues. It's distracts people from focusing on really important things and makes MMFA look like they don't have a clue about what really IS important.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by kgonz (September 19, 2006 6:15 pm ET)
         

      I was just about to ask where Tommy was to tell us all how irrelevant this was and how the idiotic liberals in San Francisco were actually a better example of cronyism, but thaicurry1232446 decided to put his/her bit of deflecting into it. Good job. That was a very productive post.

      Are you just dense? It qualifies as timely when the SAME administration that demanded loyalty as the pre-req for rebuilding(destroying) Iraq is still running the countries (US, Iraq, Afghanistan) and calling those of us who disagree with them Nazis who care more about the terrorists than Americans (thus implying that we aren't really Americans anyway).

      Seriously, I don't know how you can, even in that weird delusional world conservatives seem to inhabit, fail to see that this is further proof of the corrupt, jingoistic, greedy, sycophantic, self-serving nature of this adminstration, and, by extension, the rest of their party, the Republicans.

      Really, conservatives, tell me how this is not both: a) evidence that the MSM will do almost anything to avoid really challenging the Bushies b) evidence of the truly repulsive focus of the Bush administration - power at all costs.

      Please, start your rationalizations and desperate attempts to identify some lefty who has been demonstrated as corrupt while never once engaging with the massive sclae of corruption this displays from the people you likely helped elect.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by thaicurry1232446 (September 19, 2006 6:56 pm ET)
         

      No, I'm not Tommy-Boy. And no, I'm not a conservative nor a Republican. Seriously.

      As you all slam the 'mainstream media', you herald the publication of an article that is essentially an advertisement for a book that is not so balanced itself. And the reviews on the book's jacket show the same kind of cronyism that the book seeks to denounce!

      Since when is the Washington Post not the mainstream media?

      Pay attention to TV -- think about what you would have covered this "news" without it being a plug for the book -- particularly since the CPA is defunct now. That's what I mean by 'timely'. Honestly. Just try to conjecture this. With an open mind.

      I once met the author, and believe me, his ego is big enough that he'll make sure he squeezes as much media attention out of this as he possibly can.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (September 19, 2006 7:27 pm ET)
           

        the miscreants who staffed it should just get a pass? They should just disappear down the memory hole, because they wouldn't be so bold as to rear their ugly heads again after they have been disgraced? I'm coming across harsh, I don't mean to. I'm groggy, I'm signing off but not until I've read some more of your posts. Have a good'n.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by kgonz (September 19, 2006 8:36 pm ET)
           

        >No, I'm not Tommy-Boy. And no, I'm not a >conservative nor a Republican. Seriously.

        OK

        >As you all slam the 'mainstream media', you herald >the publication of an article that is essentially an >advertisement for a book that is not so balanced >itself. And the reviews on the book's jacket show the >same kind of cronyism that the book seeks to >denounce!

        1) Provide links 2) None of that means what is in the book is at all wrong 3) EVERYONE gets the people who like them to give positive reeviews, so, honestly, who cares. 4) How does this in any way invalidate the quotes and information in teh article?

        >Since when is the Washington Post not the >mainstream media?

        I never said they weren't. But, just because ONE outlet of the MSM covers something, it doesn't mean the MSM as a whole isn't being lame.

        >Pay attention to TV -- think about what you would >have covered this "news" without it being a plug for >the book -- particularly since the CPA is defunct >now. That's what I mean by 'timely'. Honestly. Just >try to conjecture this. With an open mind.

        I did. Sure, it's timely for him. So is EVERY person who promotes a book. As far as how to cover, how about just saying, "The Bush adminstration came under more criticism for its handling of the war in Iraq today. New allegations of cronyism in the CPA, which ran Iraq at the behest of the Bush administration . . . " This administration has SCREWED UP so much, how is this not connected to their PATTERN of monumental blunders? Really! You didn't address this in your post.

        >I once met the author, and believe me, his ego is big >enough that he'll make sure he squeezes as much >media attention out of this as he possibly can.

        Wow. A writer with an ego. Stunning. Someone in the media who will squeeze every amount of publicity they can out of their five minutes. Wow. That 's never happened before.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by blueblood (September 19, 2006 7:45 pm ET)
         

      how the liberla media was all over the far less egregious Oil-for-Food Scandal involving an organization opposed to U.S. foreign policy, but is silent regarding a MUCH LARGER INTENTIONAL HOMEGROWN FINANCIAL DISASTER the goal of which was not to actually help the Iraqi people but to enrich party supporters consisting of fundraisers and loyal corporate contributors like halliburton and Bechtel.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (September 19, 2006 9:14 pm ET)
         

      As important, as we have been led to believe, the Iraq Theater of the War on Terror is. As precious as we hold the lives of our troops, as much as we, as a nation have riding on the outcome of George w bush's grand scheme, this war has been a training ground for the young Neocons. I wonder how the families of our fallen service men and women feel, knowing that the lives of their loved ones were in the hands of glassy eyed, young Republican loyalists? If we had competent people in these positions in the CPA, would we be in the same position in Iraq as we are today?

      This will make everyone who reads it run out to put a "Proud to Be an American" bumper sticker on their car.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by thaicurry1232446 (September 19, 2006 9:33 pm ET)
         

      re: KGONZ post:

      I wrote: As you all slam the 'mainstream media', you herald >the publication of an article that is essentially an >advertisement for a book that is not so balanced >itself. And the reviews on the book's jacket show the >same kind of cronyism that the book seeks to >denounce!

      > 1) Provide links 2) None of that means what is in the book is at all wrong 3) EVERYONE gets the people who like them to give positive reeviews, so, honestly, who cares. 4) How does this in any way invalidate the quotes and information in teh article?

      1) Provide links to what? Google should be enough. 2) Never said the book was wrong. Just that timing might not be good for widespread media coverage. 3) You miss the point. The book is about cronyism, and guess what? It exists in the author's world too. It's powering the marketing of this article/book to some extent. Just a little piece of interesting irony. 4) Doesn't invalidate anything but the hype. See point 3 again.

      >I never said they weren't. But, just because ONE outlet of the MSM covers something, it doesn't mean the MSM as a whole isn't being lame.

      Agreed. I get frustrated about that on many levels. Did you see the great multimedia package the LA Times did on our oceans in grave peril? Fabulous. But no other outlet picked up on it. Totally different topic, but just an example.Happens all the time.

      >I did. Sure, it's timely for him. So is EVERY person who promotes a book. As far as how to cover, how about just saying, "The Bush adminstration came under more criticism for its handling of the war in Iraq today. New allegations of cronyism in the CPA, which ran Iraq at the behest of the Bush administration . . . " This administration has SCREWED UP so much, how is this not connected to their PATTERN of monumental blunders? Really! You didn't address this in your post.

      First of all, just quoting information from a book isn't a great way to 'cover' news (granted, tv does often by using AP and Reuters wires as sources). But really. I'm not defending tv coverage or non-coverage, but think about the way it works. Yes, the administration has screwed up. Yes, the CPA stories in the article are outrageous. There's a whole slew of books about the Great Iraq F***-Up hitting the market now, and I don't think each one can become its own widespread news item. This topic was covered by media already!

      Yes, they're my tax dollars. But if the article/book dug deeper into that subject and actually broke real new ground -- that dug below the story about the naive stock-exchange guy, for instance -- and into the MONEY -- the Halliburton and Co. war profiteering. The profiteering from contracts for armor, for mess halls, the privatizing of our military. The inside skinny on the hijacking of the Pentagon by Rumsfeld. I want THAT stuff clearly set out in an article and book.

      The cronyism is enraging, yes, and infuriating that we inflicted it upon another country. It is, after all, how Capitol Hill works, no?

      I suspect if there was truly groundbreaking stuff in the article/book, it would be seized upon by the MSM. But it's been written about before.

      >Wow. A writer with an ego. Stunning. Someone in the media who will squeeze every amount of publicity they can out of their five minutes. Wow. That 's never happened before.

      The point of the comment was that I'm not too worried about his story getting out in other media. He'll make sure it does, so don't know if concern is needed. So they didn't cover it in the 24 hours after the article came out. They will.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (September 20, 2006 12:09 am ET)
           

        you "never said the book was wrong". sure you did. you said it "was not balanced in itself". another indication that you could be tommy. deny what you just plainly said.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by thaicurry1232446 (September 20, 2006 12:59 am ET)
             

          I don't know who the hell Tommy is. Interesting that my views could be so close to someone else's as to be indistiguishable, though.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by thaicurry1232446 (September 20, 2006 1:11 am ET)
             

          re: saying an article/book may not be entirely balanced does not equal the statement "it's wrong".

          There are a lot of accurate things published that may not be balanced.

          To be fair, I haven't finished the book yet... But -- don't laugh -- there must be SOMETHING or a few things, that have worked in Iraq. And that worked in the CPA. And I'd like an account that pointed out what worked along with what didn't and why.

          Yes, it's pathetic that we unleashed the results of cronyism on Iraq, but look at how Capitol Hill works. Jesus. In a sense we're unleashing the results of cronyism and political appointments of inexperienced party-line people on our entire country and the whole world all the time.

          You won't believe this, but I'm guessing I'm much closer to your political views than you think I am. But I do think the progressives/left of center folks tend to fall just as much into the trap of black-and-white thinking as Bush's conservatives do.

          I believe I can be completely outraged by the CPA shenanigans, and at the same time think that the reporting in the book is late, should've been covered by WaPo in-depth earlier, was covered by many (including intl press), should now be covered by doing much more deep digging ... and naming names -- all of them.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (September 20, 2006 7:28 am ET)
               

            on those things that have worked in iraq. maybe you need to be a little more informed before you comment. as for "black and white thinking" by those on the left, that is true of some. my problem with the right wing is that want to repress dissenting views and news and they frequently lie on top of that. look no further that rush limbaugh. yet as many times as he lies and is shown to be a hypocrite, his sheep come back for more.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by reprobatemind (September 20, 2006 10:15 am ET)
                 

              I'm opposed to the Bush administration's policies regarding Iraq as the next person, and am appropriately outraged (though not surprised) by this report. However, let's not toss the baby out with the bath water.

              There are people in Iraq who are trying to do the best they can to make things work. Several of my friends and co-workers are there now, and are very competent. Although Iraq in general is a disaster of our making, let's try not to impugn everyone who has gone over there and made some things work, even if these things often go unnoticed due to their small scale, k?

              As for thai, it looks like he/she is making an honest effort, and is even reading the book, which is more than can be said of many here I'm sure (including myself).

              If a person expresses reservations about information presented from either ideological viewpoint does not mean they belong to the opposite camp. Dogma is bad for everybody.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (September 20, 2006 12:37 pm ET)
                   

                everyone who is in iraq. i know someone from where i work who was in the army and was called back and is there now. i'm sure there are lots of people who want to succeed there, but it is this administration that has put roadblocks in the way of doing that. [not that we should be there to begin with]. and if thai is making an "honest effort", then perhaps he should actually read the book before he declares it not balanced. he did not challenge the facts, which would be a good place to start if he's going to state "reservations" about something.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (September 19, 2006 11:59 pm ET)
         

      those "14 characteristics of Fascism", as much as I enjoyed it(I guess "enjoyed" isn't the right word), I tried to read it with a critical eye-- was it "designed" to connect with our current administration? Was it too deliberate in mirroring them?

      I try to question things coming from those with similar views to my own as much as I question those who are polar opposites of me.Like most people, I'm probably not as good at that as I think I am.

      But the 14 points of fascism thing- Are these guys using that as a guide now, or wot?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (September 20, 2006 9:19 am ET)
         

      Nothing wrong with throwin' a few jobs your friends' way... it's just bidness. Heheheh...

      Does Bush understand that he is the President of the United States and not some small town mayor doling out patronage jobs?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by penalcolony (September 20, 2006 9:54 am ET)
         

      The Seattle Times ran the Post's Chandrasekaran story on the same day, the Christian Science Monitor commented on it the following day, and Chandrasekaran was interviewed yesterday on NPR's Fresh Air. But that's it so far. Oh, that liberal media . . .

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pjcarter (September 20, 2006 8:41 pm ET)
         

      A recent FCC report noted that media consolidation has had a negattve effect on local TV news coverage. Of course it never saw the light of day because the FCC had all copies destroyed. Expect more stories like the Washington Post article to get swept under the rug while more cronyism continues. "Heckuva job."

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • ABC
    ABC News
    ABCNews
    7 W. 66th St.
    New York, NY 10023
  • CBS
    E-mail: E-mail form

    CBSNews
    524 W. 57th St.
    New York, NY, 10019
  • CNN
    CNN
    One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
    Phone: 404-827-1500
    Fax: 404-827-1906
  • Fox News Channel
    FOX News Channel
    1-888-369-4762
    1211 Avenue of the Americas
    New York, NY 10036
  • MSNBC
    Mr. Phil Griffin,
    Senior Vice President, News
    NBC Television Network
    30 Rockefeller Plz
    New York, NY 10112
    phil.griffin@nbc.com

    Steve Capus,
    President, NBC News
    steve.capus@nbc.com

    MSNBC
    letters@msnbc.com
    MSNBC/Microsoft-NBC
    30 Rockefeller Plz
    3rd Fl
    New York, NY 10112
    (212) 664-4444

  • NBC
    NBC News
    NBC News
    30 Rockefeller Plaza
    New York, N.Y. 10112
  • The Washington Times
    Washington Times

    Washington Times
    3600 New York Ave NE
    Washington, DC 20002-1947
    (202) 636-3000
  • NBC Nightly News
    E-mail: nightly@nbc.com