It has been close to two months since the NYTimes story about the retired general Pentagon propaganda program broke. What followed was a tiny smattering of outraged statements from a few politicians, some outrage from retired military and active media folks not on the DOD dole, and very little media coverage or self-examination. (This Democracy Now report being a notable exception.)

Along with Free Press and others, we are pushing for more oversight, more information and more action on this issue. You can help here.

What little to no coverage or oversight means is that the program — which is not exactly on sound legal and ethical footing under current US law and regulations — may have simply morphed into something else. Even though the Bush Administration knows that this sort of "psy-ops" activity is prohibited, because they have been caught with their hand in the propaganda jar before:

…Since 1951, Congress has enacted an annual, government wide prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for purposes of "publicity or propaganda." For instance, in 2005, the prohibition stated:

No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. G, title II, 624, 118 Stat. 2809, 3278 (Dec. 8, 2004). (The language of the prohibition has remained virtually unchanged since 1951.)

All of these ginned up propaganda programs started hitting the public consciousness in 2005, causing a public outcry and Congressional calls for an investigation, which was undertaken by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO issued a formal report in February 2005 indicating that the Bush Administration efforts to shape the news via the prepackaged video news releases were inappropriate. The GAO subsequently issued similar opinions on the other Bush propaganda programs….

We just don’t know where this particular program stands because there has not been nearly enough public discussion, oversight and disclosure for anyone to have a full picture on this. And I have this recurring image of "former Pentagon spokesperson Torie Clark" on air spouting supportive little nuggets, and wondering how far out this propaganda planting program reached. Given what the Bush Administration did with the WHIG — planting stories with pliant reporters that they then got to publicly discuss because the information was already "out there," what ethical boundaries would they not cross? Not many, I’m afraid.

On May 26th, the House passed its defense authorization bill for this year, and included a provision spearheaded by New Hampshire Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes, who co-sponsored the House bill with Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., calling a halt to this sort of domestic psy-ops program from the DOD — requiring truth rather than face-saving spin maneuvers. They are to be applauded for their efforts on this. But from the Senate? As yet nothing, although there are some promises that this will be discussed as part of their defense budget later in the summer.

Why is is this so important for all of us? Because the propagation of lies, half-truths and spin as a policy foundation is nothing new for the Bush Administration, but getting supposed "independent" plants on air to reinforce those lies is — and it’s not legal. We deserve to know the truth about this and to discuss the ramifications of using spin as cover for Presidential policy blunders:

…I think it would be difficult to implement," said Anthony Pratkanis, co-author of the book "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion," of any law attempting to prohibit the military from promoting itself. Interpretations of what constitutes propaganda can vary, and U.S. efforts to influence a foreign enemy — which is allowed under the law — often seep into American airwaves anyway, he said.

"What we really need is a norm that respects the role of the military" as independent from the executive branch, said Pratkanis, a social psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz. "It’s more the responsibility of a president to sell his policies and not hide behind the military."…

On April 20, The New York Times uncovered a six-year Pentagon program that cultivated several dozen military analysts to generate favorable news coverage on the war. These retired military generals were fed talking points, taken on trips to Guantanamo Bay prison and Iraq, given access to classified intelligence and briefed personally by senior defense officials, including then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to e-mails, transcripts and other records provided to the Times and eventually released by the Defense Department.

That the officers maintained extensive ties to the Pentagon after retirement wasn’t surprising, as is custom among military’s senior ranks. But the program seemed to unfairly reward these new media personalities and the defense companies that employed them as lobbyists with plum access to the department so long as the retired officers spoke in favor of the war.

Also alarming was that the Pentagon may have given the retirees false or overly optimistic information about progress in Iraq, even as violence was increasing. The program was particularly noteworthy because it relied heavily on active-duty military officials to provide the positive information….

The Defense Department has shut down the program pending an internal review. Both the Defense Department inspector general’s office and the Government Accountability Office are investigating whether the effort violated any rules, including if it gave some contractors a competitive advantage by employing the retired officers as lobbyists….

We decided this is too important to wait for someone to decide to pick up the ball again. So we are pushing for public accountability on this issue. You can send letters to your members of Congress here, using our handy letter tool. And we’ll have more to come on this issue in the days ahead…