SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JDN who wrote (551786)3/15/2004 10:03:24 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny

By ROBERT PEAR
March 15, 2004
nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.

The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it had hired her to read a script prepared by the government.

Another video, intended for Hispanic audiences, shows a Bush administration official being interviewed in Spanish by a man who identifies himself as a reporter named Alberto Garcia.

Another segment shows a pharmacist talking to an elderly customer. The pharmacist says the new law "helps you better afford your medications," and the customer says, "It sounds like a good idea." Indeed, the pharmacist says, "A very good idea."

The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."

In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."

The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

Lawyers from the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, discovered the materials last month when they were looking into the use of federal money to pay for certain fliers and advertisements that publicize the Medicare law.

In a report to Congress last week, the lawyers said those fliers and advertisements were legal, despite "notable omissions and other weaknesses." Administration officials said the television news segments were also a legal, effective way to educate beneficiaries.

Gary L. Kepplinger, deputy general counsel of the accounting office, said, "We are actively considering some follow-up work related to the materials we received from the Department of Health and Human Services."

One question is whether the government might mislead viewers by concealing the source of the Medicare videos, which have been broadcast by stations in Oklahoma, Louisiana and other states.

Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government or its contractors without identifying the source.

Kevin W. Keane, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said there was nothing nefarious about the television materials, which he said had been distributed to stations nationwide. Under federal law, he said, the government is required to inform beneficiaries about changes in Medicare.

"The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Mr. Keane said. "Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools."

But Democrats disagreed. "These materials are even more disturbing than the Medicare flier and advertisements," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey. "The distribution of these videos is a covert attempt to manipulate the press."

Mr. Lautenberg, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and seven other members of Congress requested the original review by the accounting office.

In the videos and advertisements, the government urges beneficiaries to call a toll-free telephone number, 1-800-MEDICARE. People who call that number can obtain recorded information about prescription drug benefits if they recite the words "Medicare improvement."

Documents from the Medicare agency show why the administration is eager to advertise the benefits of the new law, on radio and television, in newspapers and on the Internet.

"Our consumer research has shown that beneficiaries are confused about the Medicare Modernization Act and uncertain about what it means for them," says one document from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Other documents suggest the scope of the publicity campaign: $12.6 million for advertising this winter, $18.5 million to publicize drug discount cards this spring, about $18.5 million this summer, $30 million for a year of beneficiary education starting this fall and $44 million starting in the fall of 2005.

"Video news releases" have been used for more than a decade. Pharmaceutical companies have done particularly well with them, producing news-style health features about the afflictions their drugs are meant to cure.

The videos became more prominent in the late 1980's, as more and more television stations cut news-gathering budgets and were glad to have packaged news bits to call their own, even if they were prepared by corporations seeking to sell products.

As such, the videos have drawn criticism from some news media ethicists, who consider them to be at odds with journalism's mission to verify independently the claims of corporations and governments.

Government agencies have also produced such videos for years, often on subjects like teenage smoking and the dangers of using steroids. But the Medicare materials wander into more controversial territory.

Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, expressed disbelief that any television stations would present the Medicare videos as real news segments, considering the current debate about the merits of the new law.

"Those to me are just the next thing to fraud," Mr. Kovach said. "It's running a paid advertisement in the heart of a news program."

Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: JDN who wrote (551786)3/15/2004 10:48:21 AM
From: sandintoes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
This might explain why all the Kerry supporters and many of the Democraps are fighting Bush and our countries fight with terrorism..

Pure EVIL..scum bags, our founding fathers are crying.

AFTER THE WAR
Saddam's Useful Idiots
Did any Iraqi money filter back to American war critics?


BY ROBERT L. POLLOCK
Monday, March 15, 2004 12:01 a.m.

A year ago John Kerry described the nations that would liberate Iraq as a "coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted." It turns out that may be a better description of his own antiwar camp. From Jacques Chirac's and Vladimir Putin's political cronies to Tony Blair's own Labour Party, many of the most vocal opponents of enforcing U.N. resolutions turn out to have been on the take.
Were some of the most vehement and prominent American critics of the war similarly bought and paid for? There's no hard evidence to support such a conclusion, but it's a possibility worthy of investigation following the appearance of a politically connected Detroit-area businessman on a recently published list of individuals receiving oil money from Saddam Hussein.

Shakir al-Khafaji's close ties to Iraqi Baathists and Michigan Democrats are a matter of public record. In late January the al Mada newspaper in Baghdad published his name on a list of 270 individuals, companies, churches and political parties that Iraqi Oil Ministry documents allege benefited from Saddam's largesse. The Iraqi Governing Council has hired a team of professional auditors to investigate; some of the alleged beneficiaries have already confessed.

This wasn't the first time I'd heard Mr. al-Khafaji mentioned in connection with clandestine oil profits. In Baghdad last May, a man I'll call Omar, a newly unemployed officer of the Iraqi intelligence service (the Mukhabarat), leveled the same accusation. He also alleged that some of the money had been intended to finance a documentary film by former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter and to influence Democratic congressmen, including former House Minority Whip David Bonior.

When I met Omar he was armed with references (which checked out) from foreigners he'd known in his last post, working for Mohammed al-Sahaf--a k a "Baghdad Bob"--at the Ministry of Information. He accurately described Mr. al-Khafaji's service as chairman of regular pro-Saddam Iraqi "Expatriate" conferences. He noted his close contacts with high-level Baath officials such as Tariq Aziz, and told me how Mr. al-Khafaji had brought Mr. Ritter to Iraq in 2000 to make a documentary about the damaging effects of economic sanctions and how Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

But Omar went further, saying Iraqi authorities had arranged for oil transfers to Mr. al-Khafaji to finance all this activity. Omar said proceeds from the sales were to be transferred to an account controlled by one of Mr. al-Khafaji's brothers in Jordan, where they would be less likely to attract the scrutiny of U.S. authorities. Some of the money was intended for Mr. Ritter's film. Other funds, Mr. al-Khafaji allegedly told Tariq Aziz, would go to finance the elections of Democratic congressmen in order that they "would be a lobbyist for Iraq." Omar named Mr. Bonior and Rep. John Conyers. I pressed him as to whether he could be certain any transfers were ever made. No, he conceded, "maybe he was plotting to take the money for himself."

Mr. al-Khafaji denied receiving any oil allocations as alleged by Omar and the Iraqi Oil Ministry documents when I spoke with him last month and again last Wednesday. He also denied making any improper political contributions. "All these allegations have been investigated by the federal government to death and they found nothing wrong," he said. But he did acknowledge having two brothers by the names Omar gave me in relation to the alleged Jordanian bank account, as well as his relationships with Mr. Ritter and the congressmen. In fact, much of the picture Omar painted for me--entirely unprompted; the name al-Khafaji meant nothing to me at the time--is backed up by publicly available information. Other details have been confirmed by interviews and research over the past 10 months. At a minimum, it seems some of Mr. al-Khafaji's U.S. associates were useful idiots for a close ally of a totalitarian regime.

Let's start with Mr. Ritter, the former weapons inspector who resigned in 1998 to protest the Clinton administration's weakness in the face of the cat-and-mouse games Saddam was playing with his team. Sometime thereafter Mr. Ritter did an about-face on the nature of the Iraqi weapons threat. Not only has he never explained his change of views, he implausibly maintains they have been consistent all along.
Mr. Ritter acknowledges taking $400,000 from Mr. al-Khafaji to produce the documentary in question, "In Shifting Sands." He acknowledges Mr. al-Khafaji's "instrumental" role in arranging his visit and interviews, as well his September 2002 address to Saddam's rubber-stamp parliament. He acknowledges that Mr. al-Khafaji was "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." But Mr. Ritter says he took extensive precautions to satisfy himself that Mr. al-Khafaji's investment in his film came from clean money and was not regarded as some sort of "quid pro quo."

Omar is not the only Iraqi intelligence source to suggest some of that money may have come courtesy of Saddam. At about the same time I was talking to Omar, London's Daily Telegraph reported the discovery at Iraqi intelligence headquarters of a file referring to the "Scott Ritter Project." The file referred to the purchase of gold jewelry intended for Mr. Ritter's wife and daughter, jewelry that was to be delivered by--guess who?--Shakir al-Khafaji. "The correspondence discussed further ways to come up with money to offer to Mr. al-Khafaji to cover his travel costs," reported the Telegraph. "One letter requests approval to make funds available by siphoning profits from an oil deal, apparently controlled by Iraqi intelligence."

Mr. Ritter spoke with me cooperatively and at length last month. He acknowledged an incident like the one described in the Telegraph, though he says the gifts were offered by someone other than Mr. al-Khafaji, and that he refused them and reported the incident to the FBI on his return. He described the $400,000 not as a grant but as an "interest-bearing loan" from Mr. al-Khafaji's Falcon Management to his own Five Rivers Productions. He said none of the money will probably be repaid because the movie failed to make money. He said the deal was carefully lawyered and information regarding the loan was "voluntarily and proactively provided" to the FBI and Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, who at no time expressed any concern about a violation of U.S. law.

As to the documentary's content, Mr. Ritter is unrepentant: "I could understand people even bothering to call me if we had found weapons of mass destruction. . . . Excuse my language here, but who the f--- was right?" Mr. Ritter would seem somewhat vindicated on the WMD issue, but it remains a mystery how and when he decided that the weapons did not exist. "Iraq today is not disarmed and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace," Mr. Ritter told a Senate committee--under oath--in September 1998.

As for the Democratic congressmen, Mr. al-Khafaji was indeed financing elections, as Omar said--at least in the small amounts permitted by campaign finance law. Public records show a contribution of $500 in 1992 and $1,000 in 1999 to Mr. Conyers, an early and vocal proponent of lifting sanctions on Saddam. Mr. Conyers said through a spokeswoman that he has no recollection of ever having met Mr. al-Khafaji.

Mr. al-Khafaji was a much more regular contributor to Mr. Bonior: $1,000 in 1994, $250 in 1996, $500 and $1,000 in 1998, $1,000 in 1999, $1,000 in 2000, and $1,000 each from Mr. al-Khafaji and his wife in 2001. Mr. Bonior called the suggestion he'd received anything other than legal political contributions from Mr. al-Khafaji "absolutely preposterous and false." Mr. Bonior, until 2002 the second-ranking Democrat in the House, was one of the chief congressional critics of U.S. Iraq policy, calling the sanctions "infanticide masquerading as policy." It's worth noting that many "hawks" agreed that sanctions were morally problematic, but favored regime change instead of retreat.

As war loomed in September 2002, Mr. al-Khafaji escorted Mr. Bonior on a high-profile trip to Baghdad, along with Washington Rep. Jim McDermott and California Rep. Mike Thompson. Mr. Bonior, whose office handled the arrangements, told me last month that Mr. al-Khafaji "was part of the trip and he obviously knew people, and he was connected quite well so we could get the meetings that we wanted." Mr. McDermott's spokesman likewise recalls that Mr. al-Khafaji played a central role, adding that a Michigan-based charity called Life for Relief and Development organized and paid everything. Mr. al-Khafaji told me that he'd been a financial supporter of that organization, too, though he said he couldn't remember how much--not even ballpark--he'd given over the years.

The trip proved something of a propaganda coup for Saddam, with Mr. McDermott suggesting in a televised interview from Baghdad that President Bush "would mislead the American people" while saying "I think you have to take the Iraqis at face value." Mr. al-Khafaji seems to have taken a particular shine to Mr. McDermott, resulting in another contribution--$5,000--to a legal defense fund that had been set up for the congressman in an unrelated case. "He's a friend and he gives me money," Mr. McDermott told Roll Call in February 2003.

The al-Khafaji trail stretches as far as South Africa, where his family's Falcon Trading Group is incorporated and sold food and dry goods to the Saddam regime. A South African paper has reported that Falcon traded upward of $50 million worth of commodities with Iraq since 1993. Recent articles in the South African press say Mr. al-Khafaji facilitated the Iraq visits of top government officials, possibly influencing that country's pro-Saddam stance. They also name him as a beneficiary of an Iraqi oil deal through a South African company--Montega Trading--in which he was allegedly a partner. Montega appears on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list, but Mr. al-Khafaji denies that he was ever a partner or "anything else" in Montega.

It should be reiterated that there is no hard evidence of any wrongdoing on Mr. al-Khafaji's part. Federal authorities were aware, to some degree at least, of his Iraq-related activities. It is possible that he trucked extensively with a corrupt regime while keeping his own hands clean. But a few things are clear. First, he was a well-connected fixer when it came to dealings with Saddam's regime, able to arrange meetings with the likes of Tariq Aziz at the drop of a hat. Second, Iraqi intelligence, rightly or wrongly, perceived him as at least a potential asset. Third, he was intimately involved in facilitating the Iraq trips of some of the most prominent American critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
If there's no fire with all this smoke, as everyone involved maintains, then surely they will welcome the scrutiny it deserves. The U.S. Treasury says it is aware of the Iraqi Oil Ministry documents, and is looking into the matter.

Mr. Pollock is a senior editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal.

opinionjournal.com