Mediamatters.org: WaPo yet to report on withdrawal of DoD IG report.

You remember those retired military "experts" on the cable news shows who talked up the invasion of Iraq using pentagon talking points? The ones who also happened to work for contractors who stood to make bundles of cash on a new war?

NYT: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=1

In January, the DoD issued a report saying no one violated any rules and everyone thing was A-OK. The WaPo published a story about the report's findings on the front page.

Now, the report has been withdrawn:

Finding of the new IG report:

"We are withdrawing the subject report. Shortly after publishing the report on January 14, 2009, we became aware of inaccuracies in the data concerning retired military analyst (RMA) relationships with Defense contractors that appeared in Appendix K and elsewhere in the report. The discovery of those inaccuracies caused us to conduct an independent internal review of the report and its supporting documentation.

The internal review concluded that the report did not meet accepted quality standards for an Inspector General work product. It found that the methodology used to examine RMA relationships with Defense contractors (searches of public websites) would not reasonably yield evidence needed to address the issue of whether the outreach program conveyed some financial advantage to RMAs who participated. Additionally, the review noted that report findings relied, in part, on a body of testimonial evidence that was insufficient or inconclusive. In particular, former senior DoD officials who devised and managed the outreach program refused our requests for an interview. Our judgmental sample of RMAs interviewed was too small (7 out of 70 RMAs) to allow that testimonial evidence to be used to support conclusions. As a result, no conclusion can be reached in the affirmative or negative regarding the relationship of the Retired Military Analysts and potential competitive advantage."

Mediamatters:

"Although the Post mentioned the report's withdrawal in May 6 posts on its Washington Post Investigations and Federal Eye blogs and in a May 6 online column by media critic Howard Kurtz, the newspaper's print edition has not reported that the January 14 inspector general's report has been withdrawn."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905070006?f=h_top

This isn't news, right?

this one is a biggie.

was inaugurated. Just some last minute house-cleaning before the old regime left town, I guess.

I note it only took the new administration about five months to get thing straitened out. Not too bad considering all the other crap they've got going on.