Rep. Duncan Hunter slipped into the recent military spending bill a provision to eliminate the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The deed had to be done
with stealth, because everybody of sense opposes this loss of oversight in Iraq. Several members of Congress say they plan to reverse the provision. Hunter tried to portray it as a "return to a non-wartime footing in which inspectors general in the State Department, the Pentagon and elsewhere would investigate American programs overseas."
But in Congress, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, there have long been accusations that agencies controlled by the Bush administration are not inclined to unearth their own shortcomings in the first place.
And there is the rub.
The stunt pulled by Hunter shows why we need to ensure
in particular that the next Inspector General of the Department of Defense is competent, independent, and non-partisan. Bush's current nominee for that post, David Laufman, is none of those things. As I wrote in June, Laufman is a partisan hack who has no background that would really qualify him for such a critical post. Now more than ever, his nomination needs to be derailed.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
Fortunately, this summer Senator Carl Levin temporarily blocked Laufman's nomination until after the election. Levin's reasons for opposing Laufman perhaps were much like my own. Now is the time to give the issue some publicity on line, and to begin organizing to urge the Senate when it reconvenes to reject Laufman once and for all.
The Senate should demand a nominee who can fully be trusted to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse in every corner of the DOD. David Laufman is very far from being the best candidate for this critical job.
Even if the Special IG for Iraqi Reconstruction is restored by the new Congress, there will be little hope of gaining an accurate and full picture of the debacle in Iraq if Laufman is confirmed to the top job.
What's worse, Laufman might be in a position to scuttle the most sensitive part of the "Phase Two" investigation of pre-war intelligence, which Sen. Pat Roberts has been trying for years to kill off on behalf of the White House. In the words of investigative reporter Robert Parry, Laufman is a Republican "cleaner". He has a track-record of killing off embarrassing investigations. I don't want him controlling the Office of the Inspector General in the Pentagon, and neither should you.
In the first section of this report (originally posted as a series at Unbossed), I'll provide some background on what I and others have uncovered about David Laufman's partisan career, and the reasons he's unqualified to serve as IG. In the second and third parts, I'll assess Bush's earlier appointments to this post (hint: they're disturbing); Laufman's statements to the Senate Armed Services Committee and his nomination hearing in July; and the significance of today's sacking of Donald Rumsfeld.
Clearly it's a good sign that Laufman's nomination is already five months old, and that progress has been stalled now for more than three months. Yet a recess appointment by Bush is a distinct possibility, even in his politically wounded condition.
~~~~ Part one ~~~~
On June 1, when George Bush nominated David H. Laufman, the WH announcement indicated nothing about the man's career that would show why he was qualified for the job. No mention that he'd ever worked in the Pentagon; no degree in finance or accounting; no experience in an inspector general's office, nor in investigating fraud, waste or abuse; not even the slightest background in government contracting.
I try keep an eye on WH appointments, looking for unqualified cronies, and boy did this announcement scream crony with a capital K. So I investigated Laufman's career, and the more I learned the worse he looked. At Daily Kos I posted my first assessment of the nomination, How is this man qualified to be Inspector General of DoD? Several commenters added more information, so I reworked the piece for Inconvenient News. Another commenter there highlighted information that I'd excluded from my analysis, and he took the story even further.
I reference all this partly because it's a good example of on-line collaboration. Perhaps more significantly, the post at Inconvenient News seems to have seduced a lot of eyeballs this summer (to judge by the love it's getting from Google). It's a tad surprising when an obscure blog post on a dull (yes) topic gets heavy-ish traffic. So maybe Laufman's nomination is of concern to more than just a single Senator in DC.
To summarize the concerns raised by David Laufman's career:
(i) Laufman has no background in the military.
(ii) Laufman has no background or training in the kinds of investigations he would oversee as Inspector General of the Defense Department.
(iii) Laufman earned a reputation as a Bush family cleaner, when as an attorney for House Republicans he helped to turn investigations of two scandals involving George H. W. Bush into whitewashes: the October Surprise investigation, and then the inquiry into the leak of Clinton's passport information. As Robert Parry reported:
At the urging of the State Department's inspector general, the passport case also prompted the appointment of a special prosecutor. But the conservative-dominated three-judge panel that picks special prosecutors named a trusted Republican, Joseph diGenova, to head the probe.
Also luckily for the Bush legacy, diGenova was hiring staff in early 1993 just as the House October Surprise task force was disbanding....DiGenova snapped up six veterans of the October Surprise staff, including ... associate independent counsel David Laufman, who had worked for the CIA....
Later, one senior Clinton administration official reviewed the whitewashing of the October Surprise issue and similar handling of the passport case. The official shook his head in disgust. "They're the cleaners," he said about the investigative team, a reference to ruthless intelligence experts who are brought onto the scene of a botched operation to clean up the incriminating evidence.
In correspondence earlier this summer, Robert Parry confirmed that Laufman had worked for the CIA from 1980 to 1984 (that is to say, when Wm. Casey was Director), and that Laufman was the senior associate minority counsel for the October Surprise Task Force (which sought mightily to clear Casey's name). In both the October Surprise and Passportgate investigations, Parry told me, Laufman assisted in covering up the facts; the investigations were merely a pretense of searching for the truth.
Laufman and others (some Democratic lawyers, too) joined in sweeping everything under the rug....
The facts went one way and the investigation went the other. They were, in that sense, political investigations rather than serious efforts to ascertain the truth.
It would be hard to exaggerate the damage that these two whitewashes did to the American political system. The failure of Congress to hold the senior Bush accountable for his part in apparent criminal conspiracies to throw two presidential elections to him, has encouraged further criminal behavior and a sense of helplessness in Congress. The malfeasance of the current administration would be almost unthinkable, had Laufman and his colleagues (yes, including some craven Democrats) done their jobs.
(iv) Laufman was extremely cavalier about the legal rights of detainees swept up willy nilly after 9/11/01, while he served in the office of the Deputy U.S. Attorney General. He behaved as if the laws are merely tools to manipulate in order to achieve whatever results the Bush administration wanted.
The DOJ Inspector General later investigated allegations of mistreatment of these detainees, and reported that David Laufman pressured the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to "not be in a hurry" to give prisoners access to communications to their lawyers or family members, and to "take policies to the legal limit" in withholding basic rights from detainees for as long as practicable.
It's long been a principle of American jurisprudence that legal rights have no meaning unless people are actually permitted to exercise them. So Laufman was really advocating that the Director violate the law for a period.
(v) Since late 2003 as Assistant U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia, Laufman has prosecuted several war-on-terror cases for the Bush administration in ways that are so heavy-handed they nearly defy belief. He was one of the prosecutors who put the ten so-called 'Paintball terrorists' behind bars for decades, though there was precious little evidence of actual wrongdoing against most of the defendants. The penalties imposed were draconian according to Judge Leonie Brinkema, who eventually reduced some of the sentences as far as she was permitted under law.
Laufman also prosecuted Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the American citizen who confessed under apparent torture in Saudi Arabia to a plot to assassinate George W. Bush. It was an egregious prosecution, yet Laufman socked this improbable assassin away in the Big House for 30 years. Laufman was later given an award by Alberto Gonzales for his success in shepherding such an outlandish case through the shoals of law, reason, and human decency.
(vi) Laufman has been shamelessly inconsistent in the arguments he's employed in trying to get courts to impose the stiffest possible penalties upon terrorism-suspects. Under draconian federal sentencing guidelines, he played the role of Drakon to the hilt. When the absolute grip of those guidelines was broken by the Supreme Court, he argued that judges are now free to impose sentences even more draconian than the guidelines require. In other words, Laufman is both ruthless and disingenuous with his use of power as a prosecutor.
~~~~ Part two ~~~~
In the first part, I explained several reasons to be suspicious of the President's nomination of David H. Laufman to be the next Inspector General of the Defense Department. There are gaping holes in his qualifications to run such an office. Furthermore, Laufman looks to be a Bush family loyalist and Republican partisan. He has participated in two high profile investigations of Bush pere, which turned into whitewashes.
Besides all that, Congress has plenty of reason to be concerned about the nominee, or any nominee, to the post of IG of the Defense Department. It is a huge and hugely complicated job, with vast implications for national defense as well as for the federal budget.
In any case, Bush's two earlier appointments to this post have behaved in a manipulative and deceptive manner (to say the least). That's where I'll begin this second part.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
The current Acting Inspector General, Thomas Gimble, most notoriously has rebuffed requests for an investigation of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping by pretending that the matter was already under investigation by the IG at NSA. That investigation was a crock, however, as Zoe Lofgren remarked:
The Department of Defense's Acting Inspector General, Mr. Thomas F. Gimble, has refused requests by members of Congress that he investigate this program. Mr. Gimble referred those requests to the Inspector General of the NSA, who he claimed was already actively reviewing this program.
Yet, in subsequent news reports, it was revealed that the NSA review to which Mr. Gimble so swiftly deferred was not a new review but a long-standing audit, which would not review the legality of NSA's activities.
Gimble's predecessor, Joseph Schmitz, was to all appearances an out and out crook:
The Pentagon's top investigator has resigned amid accusations that he stonewalled inquiries into senior Bush administration officials suspected of wrongdoing.
Defense Department Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz told staffers this week that he intended to resign as of Sept. 9 to take a job with the parent company of Blackwater USA, a defense contractor.
The resignation comes after Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) sent Schmitz several letters this summer informing him that he was the focus of a congressional inquiry into whether he had blocked two criminal investigations last year.
Who in their right mind would NOT worry, then, that Bush's third nominee to this post will also try to cover up rather than expose wrongdoing?
:: :: :: :: :: ::
That has particular urgency now that the most sensitive part of the "Phase Two" investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been delegated to the Defense Department Office of Inspector General. Sen. Pat Roberts insisted on handing the investigation of this explosive issue over to the IG's Office, no doubt in the hopes that the Pentagon would somehow quash the whole thing.
It is the part of "Phase Two" that looks into whether the Office of Special Plans (in the Pentagon) stove-piped bad intelligence directly to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, bypassing normal intelligence analysts. That was of course one of the purposes for creating the Office of Special Plans in the first place. The charge that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence before declaring war on Iraq is the very thing that Pat Roberts has been so very keen to bury since demands for a Senate investigation began three years ago.
Here is what we learned in June about the status of this part of the "Phase Two" investigation.
This area is virtually the sole project of Sen. Levin, who has been acutely interested in the work of the office's former chief, Douglas Feith. Levin has accused Feith of distorting, exaggerating, inventing, or manipulating intelligence about the connections between Iraq and al Qaeda and about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities -- and then deceiving Congress about it. Committee chairman Pat Roberts has said his panel found no credible evidence to support Levin's charges and referred the matter to the Pentagon's inspector general for review. Now, nothing will be done in this area until the Pentagon gives its findings to the committee -- which could take months.
So the bitter partisan divide on the Intelligence Committee was hanging in mid-air this summer, when Laufman's nomination made its way in July before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Unfortunately for Mr. Laufman, Carl Levin is the Ranking Member of this Committee.
In the advance questions (PDF) that the Armed Services Committee sent to Laufman, he was asked pointedly whether he'd cooperate with the "Phase Two" investigation:
29. The Office of the Inspector General is currently conducting an investigation into the activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy related to pre-war intelligence on Iraq and the purported links between Iraq and al Qaeda. This investigation is being conducted in response to requests from the Senate.
If confirmed, will you ensure that this investigation has the resources it needs, proceeds without hindrance, is conducted in an independent and unbiased manner, and that the results of the investigation are provided promptly to Congress?
ANSWER: I have been advised that this evaluation is being performed within the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Intelligence, and that the draft report is expected in November 2006.
If confirmed, I will review the status of this matter and determine whether it is receiving the necessary resources and is proceeding in an independent manner without hindrance. When the matter is concluded and a report has been completed, I will ensure that the report is provided to Congress.
Rather curiously, Mr. Laufman does not quite say he would ensure the results "are provided promptly to Congress". He assures the Committee only that they would be provided to Congress. Since it was Congress that had requested the investigation, I would put that response down in the column "Things not to say".
It was joined in that column by several more of Laufman's responses to the questionnaire, as I will discuss in the next part.
~~~~ Part three ~~~~
In the second part, I described why the Senate Armed Services Committee ought to be very concerned about the nomination of a new Inspector General of the Defense Department--entirely apart from the worrying facts about David Laufman's career and qualifications. Both of the IGs elevated thus far by George Bush have established a record of obstructing investigations into criminal activity by government officials. In addition, an extremely sensitive investigation of the administration's manipulation of pre-war intelligence ("Phase Two"), pushed strongly by Sen. Carl Levin, has been in the hands of the Office of the IG. Republican operatives have been trying for years to strangle this investigation, and David Laufman appears to be the very man to do the deed.
Fortunately, Sen. Levin was well positioned as the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to scrutinize closely David Laufman's nomination at the July 18 hearing. To judge by Laufman's answers to the Committee's advance questions (PDF), it's possible to surmise that this hearing did not go smoothly.
It may be, then, that Laufman's nomination really can be derailed permanently.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
Let's take a short tour of Laufman's responses to the Senate Armed Service Committee's advance questions. There's plenty of grist here, so I'll concentrate on just a few of things that struck me (not in a good way) about his answers:
(i) Many of his responses are vague or elusive. Repeatedly, he states that as a nominee he doesn't yet have any basis for offering ideas about how to manage or improve the Office of IG. He admits that he has no first-hand knowledge of pretty much anything.
He sounds like a child. He's out of his element. He has no point of reference.
Even when asked a political question, he fumbles.
7. The previous DOD IG has been accused of slowing investigations of senior government officials, improperly appropriated funds on pet projects, and accepting gifts violated ethics guidelines.
7.A. Do you believe that these accusations have undermined in the integrity of the Office of Inspector General?
7.B. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to restore confidence in the integrity of the Office of Inspector General?
Laufman's answer: Gee, I don't know if it has undermined confidence in integrity, but I'll do everything possible to ensure everybody in the Office upholds the highest standards. That answer must have wowed the Committee.
(ii) From my perspective, Laufman's nomination falls apart completely at question number eight:
8. Section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 provides that IG's shall be appointed on the basis of their "demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations."
8.A. What background and experience do you possess that you believe qualifies you to perform the duties of the DOD IG?
Laufman's response is to summarize his CV, which demonstrates no ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, management analysis, or public administration. And the primary evidence of investigative skill he cites are the two notorious cover-ups, the October Surprise and Passportgate investigations.
This is supposed to have prepared him to blow the lid off corruption and incompetence in the younger Bush's Defense Department? Michael Browne's background in Arabian horses springs to mind, somehow or other.
Then things get really goofy:
8.B. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
ANSWER: If confirmed, I plan to become more familiar with statutes and regulations applicable to government contracting in general and defense procurement in particular. I also plan to meet with a broad cross-section of officials and personnel within the Department of Defense, including members of the armed forces overseas, to listen to their concerns and identify issues that might merit action by the Office of the Inspector General.
In other words: Confirm me and I'll figure out how contracting and procurement is done. Oh, and I'm a good listener too.
I can't even muster the appropriate level of sarcasm here. Dear reader, please fill in for me with a few choice words, while I pull myself together.
(iii) Anyhow, Laufman made exactly the right kind of enemies with his answers regarding the independence of the Inspector General's Office.
The DOD Directive (PDF) on the the IG's responsibilities is reasonably clear in stating that the Office is to be "an independent and objective unit" within DOD. The IG is under the "general supervision" of the SecDef and Deputy SecDef, whom the IG keeps apprised of investigations along with the President and Congress, but they have virtually no power to interfere in IG investigations or withhold necessary clearances. The IG of DOD is also required to ensure that the independence of other, subordinate Inspectors General (such as the Office of IG at NSA) are not compromised or threatened. In other words, the Directive stresses the independence of this unit, which is to act as a watch-dog over the DOD even though the IG is nominally supervised by the SecDef.
Laufman, however, showed a rather disturbing amount of deference to the SecDef in his answers to the Committee. There is this, for example:
7.E. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it is appropriate for the DOD IG to consult with officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (or other DOD officials outside the Office of the Inspector General) before issuing a report, regarding the findings and recommendations in the report?
ANSWER: It is essential to maintain not only the actual independence of the Inspector General in accordance with the Act's mandate, but the appearance of independence as well.
With respect to audits and inspections, I believe it is appropriate to provide officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (and other appropriate officials outside the Office of the Inspector General) with an opportunity to review a draft report to ensure that the report is factually accurate and to identify any areas of disagreement concerning conclusions, findings, and recommendations. Whether any changes are made to a report as a result of such a review remains within the sole discretion of the Inspector General.
With respect to non-criminal investigations such as senior official investigations and reprisal investigations, prior consultations generally should occur only if such consultations would not compromise the Inspector General's independence or the integrity of the ongoing investigation. In this regard, it should be noted that in Section 8(b)(1) of the Act, Congress expressly provided that "the Inspector General shall be under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense with respect to audits or investigations, or the issuance of subpoenas, concerning (A) sensitive operational plans; (B) intelligence matters; (C) counterintelligence matters; (D) ongoing criminal investigations by other administrative units of the Department of Defense related to national security; or (E) other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security." Given this congressional directive, I believe that the Inspector General has a statutory obligation to consult with the Secretary of Defense regarding the findings and recommendations of investigations of matters specified in Section 8(b)(1) prior to issuing a report concerning such matters.
You can just hear the alarm bells that answer would have set off. It's one thing to be under the authority, direction, and control of the SecDef. It's quite another to assert that (a) you're obligated to allow the SecDef to have a shot at blunting or reshaping your office's draft reports; and (b) you're required by law to consult in advance with the SecDef about every investigation the Office might undertake in a broad range of areas.
(iv) On this point, there is further information in the only news account I've found about the actual Committee hearing, an NBC report dated Sept. 29:
Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has publicly questioned Laufman's independence. And Levin's staff director confirms that the senator has helped stall any action on the nomination at least until November, when the lame-duck congressional session begins.
"We met with him and we still have concerns," says Richard DeBobes, the Democratic Staff Director of the Senate Armed Services Committee. DeBobes says the senator is concerned that Laufman could "cozy up to" the secretary of defense and consult with him before issuing an investigation or report that deals with national security matters.
"I don't believe it's been the practice of the IG's to consult with the Department of Defense or to feel obligated to consult with the Department of Defense relative to those findings," Levin said at Laufman's confirmation hearing in July. "To do so would be a real impingement on the independence of the inspector general... so that's why I'm very, very surprised by your answer."
Laufman protested, and said that the IG statute requires the inspector general to consult with the defense secretary on certain sensitive national security issues. He insisted, however, that he would never "trim the sails" of any Pentagon investigation. "I do not anticipate taking any course of action that infringes on the actual independence of the IG," Laufman testified.
Well, as long as he doesn't anticipate taking...Wait a minute--"anticipate"? Where did that verb come from?
DeBobes also tells NBC News that the Acting Inspector General for the Pentagon, Thomas Gimble, has played a role in derailing Laufman's nomination. The acting IG -- whose job Laufman would replace -- wrote to Congress and criticized Laufman's belief that sitting IGs must in some way consult with the defense secretary before issuing reports that deal with national security matters.
"They're [the acting IG and his staff] the ones who have provided information to us that is very unsettling," DeBobes says.
So it looks like Gimble wants to keep his job and is willing to throw Laufman under a bus. Although I don't think that Gimble is trustworthy or his motives pure, on the whole it would be advisable to leave him in place a little longer while Bush is made to identify a better-qualified and more independent nominee.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
Today it became even more urgent to block Laufman's nomination, with the sacking of Donald Rumsfeld. A shakeup in DOD will mean some tumult; the Office of the IG might drift undetected for a long time if an unqualified nominee is confirmed now. Besides, an unscrupulous IG such as Laufman appears to be would have plenty of opportunity to undermine necessary investigations.
In any case Robert Gates, the nominee to replace Rumsfeld, is another of the unsavory hacks from an earlier era whom the Bush administration has excavated and dusted off.
Independent Counsel found insufficient evidence to warrant charging Robert Gates with a crime for his role in the Iran/contra affair. Like those of many other Iran/contra figures, the statements of Gates often seemed scripted and less than candid. Nevertheless, given the complex nature of the activities and Gates's apparent lack of direct participation, a jury could find the evidence left a reasonable doubt that Gates either obstructed official inquiries or that his two demonstrably incorrect statements were deliberate lies.
Reasonable doubt about obstruction of justice and perjury. A ringing endorsement, then, of Mr. Gates. Oddly, this gushing tribute to the man's integrity has not figured in the media reports today on Gates' nomination.
What you will hear is that Gates is "a Bush-family friend". The chattering classes prefer to avoid the term 'crony'. Indeed, Gates allegedly took part in the 1980 October Surprise by accompanying Wm. Casey and George H. W. Bush to Paris to negotiate with the Iranians behind Jimmy Carter's back. My hunch is that the chattering classes won't mention that.
As I discussed in the first part, David Laufman served on the congressional investigation of the October Surprise, which he helped to turn into a whitewash. Therefore it is doubly unacceptable that Laufman would be confirmed to serve under the direction of another Bush-family crony, the presumptive SecDef Robert Gates.
~~~~ Coda ~~~~
This has been a long and pretty lonely vigil, warning against the danger that this nominee presents to accountability in government. Relatively few other bloggers have shown an interest in Laufman (most notably Cernig), and so far no journalists whatever. In the NBC article quoted above, senior producer Jim Popkin actually complains about the delay in Laufman's confirmation.
The nominee is well-connected, then. But as we saw today, George Bush will pitch anybody overboard to preserve his own viability. Can the blogosphere help to stiffen the opposition that Democrats have already shown to this travesty of an appointment?
From Unbossed