David Phinney

Why? He wants to project a posture of unbiased views, according to the Washingtonian mag. ( In fact, Washington Post reporters were banned from seeing a Bruce Springsteen concert during the 2004 election because Springsteen endorsed Kerry over Bush and put his money where his mouth is.)

Downie isn't the only Beltway journalist to embrace a hands-off attitude. Mark Halperin, ABC's political director -- who has no shyness about hardball politics in the office -- does the same, according to a fawning New Yorker profile.

Could it be that's why circulation and ratings are sinking? Are these the kind of news people who would watch the Titanic go down while asking passengers in the water "how does it feel" for the impartial benefit of readers and viewers?

Whatever. I'm sure the money's good.

I am also sure I may be stretching things (a little). Still there's that sinking feeling for that ilk that we may now be entering into a new age of news coverage that doesn't pretend to mask the human side of journalists.

Michael Kinsley in Slate nails the trend: "Journalists," writes Kinsley, "who claim to have developed no opinions about what they cover are either lying or deeply incurious and unreflective about the world around them. In either case, they might be happier in another line of work."

There's more. Observing the rising ratings of Lou Dobbs and his untiring, self-appointed mission to address how the spreading global economy and illegal immigration is affecting the middle class and blue-collar workers in the United States, Kinsley concludes:

Objectivity is not a horse to bet the (television) network on. Or the newspaper, either. The newspaper industry is in the midst of a psychic meltdown over the threat posed by the Internet. Internet panic is a rolling contagion among the established media. It started with newspapers, now it's spreading to magazines, and within a year book publishers will be in one of their recurring solipsistic frenzies.

Oh, and Leonard, good luck on the new WTWP/Washington Post radio programming. The one like NPR but "with an edge."

As Paul Farhi relays -- in The Washington Post no less -- the slogan for the new marriage of radio and newspaper reporters is: "Because there's always more to the story."

Paul boilerplates:

The venture between The Post and Bonneville comes at a time when most mainstream news outlets are facing declining audiences amid increasingly fierce competition from the Internet and other digital alternatives. By joining forces, the media companies seek to stem circulation and audience erosion.

But the Australian Wheat Board Deal, aka, AWB, totalling $300 million in kickbacks is hard to top. It's a huge scandal Downunder -- but there's more.

After the invasion, the Australians embedded their people to ensure that the wheat deals continued. Virtually unnoticed by the US media, it is no secret to the US Wheat people who summarize the trail:

The fallout from the AWB scandal over kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime continued to escalate over the last two weeks. AWB CEO Andrew Lindberg resigned, twice. New revelations on AWB contracting schemes seemingly emerged daily, the most recent being a Russian deal facilitated by a Minnesota (U.S.) commodities company. We learned about Operation Proton (installing AWB staff in Iraq as advisors in the Coalition Provisional Authority to protect wheat contracts and keeping friendly Baathist Iraqis in high positions to garner more wheat contracts), Project Hunta (a discarded plan to start a trucking company in Iraq),and Project Rose (lobbying the UN and US to head off inquiries). AWB even faces another government probe, this one reportedly on tax claims for bribes.

The Houston Chronicle reported Saturday:

Former first lady Barbara Bush donated an undisclosed amount of money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund with specific instructions that the money be spent with an educational software company owned by her son Neil.

The Los Angeles Times followed today without a knowing nod to The Houston Chronicle's scoop, but adds comments from Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy:

"If everybody started doing that, it would ruin our whole system for tax-exempt organizations, because people would be using them to benefit their business rather than for the public benefit. That's not why our government gives tax deductions for donations," he said. "I hope other donors across the country don't start dictating that their contributions go to their family business. That would be a rip-off of our tax system."

Of course, most of the country works this way these days -- from political contributions to congressional earmarks. Us suckers, who had little other guidance, just wish things were a little more like our elementary school teachers told us they should be.

Thomas asked the president why he ordered the invasion of Iraq. He preferred justifying Afghanistan as a stand in for Iraq:

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

HELEN THOMAS: They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

I was also a little fatigued by the younger, more corporate news person that we have a surplus of these days.

I had just left ABC News where the Disney company was cleaning house of all the experienced news people and replacing its staff with the Mouseketeer club. The thinking was that young, inexperienced people would be best for packaging news for the younger crowd, ie, the crowd that most appeals to Madison Avenue advertisers. (The strategy didn't work of course, as CBS and Bob Schiefer are proving.)

Today, everyone is celebrating Thomas, nearing her 86th birthday, for yesterday's questioning President Bush about his reasons for invading Iraq. And Thomas herself is berating the news media in The Nation:

Of all the unhappy trends I have witnessed -- conservative swings on television networks, dwindling newspaper circulation, the jailing of reporters and "spin" -- nothing is more troubling to me than the obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out--no questions asked.

Funny, Helen had just left UPI and joined Hearst Newspapers as a columnist. She was having trouble transitioning as a columnist, she said. "I don't know about him," she told me of Bush. "Why does he think he should be president?"

I suggested she just write as though she were talking to friends.

I mentioned that the NPR's VP of news, Bruce Drake, at the time. "Yeah, she's not columnist material," he said.

Well, she is now:

My concern is why the nation's media were so gullible. Did they really think it was all going to be so easy, a "cakewalk," a superpower invading a Third World country? Why did the Washington press corps forgo its traditional skepticism? Why did reporters become cheerleaders for a deceptive Administration? Could it be that no one wanted to stand alone outside Washington's pack journalism?

More than a few are dredging up words from The Washington Post's editorial writers:

"The evidence he (Secretary of State Colin Powell) presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them," Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote Feb. 5, 2003, on the eve of the invasion. "Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise."

Chris Matthews on April 9, 2003, the man who launched a career on red-faced screaming about Monica Lewinsky that helped drive Clinton to impeachment:

"We're all neocons now."

A few weeks later, media watchdog Norman Solomon notes of Matthews:

Matthews was still at it, making categorical declarations: "We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple."

Well, you get the idea. Try Solomon or Robert Parry for more.

QUESTION: Mr. President, on immigration, yesterday you answered a question from a woman and said, the tough question here is what happens to somebody who has been here since 1987. Will you accept a bill that allows those who have been here a long time to remain in the country permanently --

THE PRESIDENT: I also said that -- let me make sure, Steve, that you -- first of all, I'm impressed that you're actually paying attention to it. The people I saw in the press pool weren't. They were, like, Elisabeth was half-asleep -- (laughter) -- yes, you were. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, I wasn't.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, the person next to you was. (Laughter.) They were dozing off. I could see them watching their watches, kind of wondering how long he's going to blow on for. Let's get him out of here so we can go get lunch, is what they were thinking. (Laughter.) So at least you paid attention. Thanks.

"U.S. CONFUSES INSURGENTS WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN
Military Launches 'Operation Incomprehensible Program' Across Iraq"

From the Borowitz Report

In an effort to confuse Iraqi insurgents, the Pentagon announced today that the U.S. had begun bombarding insurgent positions with copies of President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan. .

Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, ground zero neocon land, calls for a total makeover of the Bush administration's leadership, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

The reason? To distract the news media from bombarding the White House's policies now teetering on the precipice of doom in public opinion polls.

Barnes writes for The Wall Street Journal editoriral page:

A broad transformation, playing on the media's overreaction whenever surprised, would do more. Reporters would be forced to write stories about new officials, cover confirmation hearings, show up at press conferences they might have ignored, assess new policies, and--this is most important--take a fresh look at the president. It would be like the beginning of a new presidential term. Sure, the press and politicians would be cynical about Mr. Bush's bold moves, especially since he wouldn't be uprooting any policy or hiring Bush critics. In truth, there would be a large element of smoke and mirrors in his actions. The trade-off is that Mr. Bush might revitalize his presidency.

Just ignore the "might revitalize" and the specter of rats fleeing a sinking ship with resumes in hand; Barnes may be right about the news media and how it frequently drops the ball to respond to new events.

AND it's certainly more benign than invading Iran.

On Thursday, a federal jury in Alexandria, Va., determined that Custer Battles engaged in massive contract fraud in Iraq and ruled that the defendants must shell out more than $10 million in penalties and damages.

Run by Michael Battles and Scott Custer, the firm was swimming in contracts worth tens of millions of dollars just months after the Iraq invasion. One was a $16 million deal to guard Baghdad's airport. A second $21 million contract called for protecing the multi-billion program that issued new Iraqi dinars to replace money printed with Saddam Hussein's profile.

The verdict raises some interesting questions:

1. Why didn't the US Justice Department join in the lawsuit? The plaintiffs invited them. After investigating under closed seal, the department decided against it. BUT, I did notice a Justice official sitting in the courtroom quietly taking copious notes on the trial proceedings.

2. Will there be criminal prosecution of Michael Battles and Scott Custer now that they have been found guilty of fraud in a federal civil case?

The plaintiff's attorney Alan Grayson thinks not: "This is a huge embarrassment for the Bush administration and they don't want to do anything to publicize it," Grayson said. "It's just another example of corruption and fraud that the administration does nothing about and willingly participates in. The Bush administration had people running around lining up contractors who turned out to be people who stole millions upon millions from the taxpayer."

Keep your head down, Tom. It's CheneyLand, too!

By the way, did you know that the story about the disintegrating Dubai security deal was first reported by the The Corpus Christi Caller-TimesWeb site? First the Chney shooting, now this! You couldn't miss it sandwiched in between the "Hair Fashion" column and the Dilliard's Bridal Registry advertisement....

Only months later, they were swimming in contracts worth tens of millions of dollars. One was a $16 million deal to guard Baghdad's airport. A second $21 million contract called for protecing the multi-billion program that issued new Iraqi dinars to replace money printed with Saddam Hussein's profile.

Now, Custer and Battles may be finding themselves living off credit once again.

On Thursday, a federal jury in Alexandria, Va., determined that Custer Battles engaged in massive contract fraud and ruled that the defendants must shell out more than $10 million in penalties and damages.

It was fraud that a company manager had already warned them about in a November 2003 e-mail.

"I don't want to/won't end up in some country club prison," the manager said. "Failure to disclose certain things can get you there."

After being reminded of that warning during the trial, Michael Battles said he attempted to call the manager, but that phones were hard to come by in Iraq.

AND BESIDES, business was REALLY REALLY GOOD, for the new firm, aptly named Custer Battles. Both Custer and Battles soon paid themselves bonuses between $3 million to $4 million in January 2004.

One month later, company managers again fired off internal memos warning the two that the firm was regularly charging for services never rendered or at freakishly inflated prices.

The company founders, both former Army Rangers now in their mid-30s, apparently didn't connect the dots.

The $10 million judgment is only part one of a two-part whistleblower case filed by former Custer Battles business associates, Robert Isakson and William Baldwin. Thursday's verdict stems from fraud charges on the currency exchange program. A second trial is expected for the Baghdad airport deal. On both, Isakson and Baldwin claim that Custer Battles orchestrated a sweeping swindling scheme with the use of bogus invoices, forgery and shell companies in the Cayman Islands to fraudulently pump up their billings.

"What they did is treason," claims attorney Alan Grayson, the lead attorney for the Isakson and Baldwin who filed the suit more than two years ago. "There's no other word for it."

As the de facto poster child for contractor waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq, Custer Battles frequently takes center stage in the news media whenever the topic comes up. Each time the tawdry allegations of profiteering and contract weaseling by Custer Battles are repeated, more and more tales of abuse and misbehavior spill out.

During the three-week trial, Grayson was able to tease out the tale of the $3-million-plus bonuses.

"On January 2nd, 2004, you took a bonus of $3 million out of the company, did you not?" Grayson asked Michael Battles as he sat on the witness stand.

"I didn't take a bonus necessarily, but I took a draw," Battles, a 2002 Republican candidate for Congress in Rhode Island, responded curtly.

Grayson: "What's a draw?"

Battles: "A draw is a disbursement of funds to the principals.... And I was happy to say that, yes, we were successful enough that I took a $3 million draw."

At one point Battles attempted to deflect any responsibility in the management of his company by insisting he was largely involved with business development and "strategic initiatives." He rarely took a hands-on executive role, he said.

"One thing I learned as lieutenant is that the secret to successful leadership is to surround yourself with people smarter than you are," he said.

Later, Battles shared another lesson: "In retrospect, one of the things I've learned is don't put your name on your company," he said.

No court date has been set for the fraud trial involving the Baghdad airport. If found guilty, damages for that claim could top $40 million.

Meanwhile, it looks as though Isakson and Baldwin will be counting their money. Individuals are allowed to sue on behalf of the government when they have knowledge that the government is being defrauded. They may receive up to 30 percent of the money paid by Custer Battles.

Those not counting their money will be the Iraqi people. Much of the money paid to Custer Battles was from seized Iraqi assets. Judge T. S. Ellis III, of the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., had ruled early in the trials preliminary proceedings that the False Claims Act applies only to bills paid directly from the American treasury.

A lot of people view such labor practices as labor trafficking, including the Bush administration. Nevertheless, the US State Department quietly awarded the half-billion-dollar-plus deal -- apparently, no questions asked.

Now, contractors who competed for the embassy project are asking the questions. They are curious about why First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting, aka, FKTC, won the contract. They claim that competing contractors brought far stronger experience to the table and that at least one award-winning company offered to perform the work for much less money.

Now I hear that one US contractor bid on the project for $60 million to $70 million less than FKTC.

"It's stunning what First Kuwaiti has been able to get from the State Department." said on contractor.

Several contractors that competed for the embassy contracts speculate that the embassy contract was a high-level decision at the State Department that favored the Kuwait-based firm in appreciation for Kuwait's support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"It was political," said one contractor.

Mohammad I. H. Marafie, chairman and co-owner of FKTC, is a member of one of the most powerful mercantile families in Kuwait.

But there's more. First Kuwaiti also won the final phase of the embassy work for what was originally earmarked exclusively for a US contractor.

US State Department contract officials initially identified the main building, known as the Chancery, as a classified project for contractors headquartered in the United States. That apparently was pared down so that First Kuwaiti can now build much of that building as well. Only the most classified technology is now reserved for a US contractor, according to those who have competed for the work.

Of course, the US State Department declines comment just as it has routinely done since I began asking questions last summer.