Today's Washington Post brings us an article that ostensibly might raise some questions about Gerry Connolly, his supposed opposition to the Iraq war, and his employment at SAIC. Only one problem: it doesn't actually do any of that, except very briefly, followed by the use of multiple column inches applied to slamming the entire issue. That's right, this is a typical Amy Gardner-penned, pro-Connolly/Davis love fest. Here's a breakdown/deconstruction of the article, paragraph by paragraph, to explain exactly what I'm saying.
1. Headline: the word "complicates" is pretty much neutral, doesn't really tell us anything.
2. The subheading says "Antiwar Democrat Running for Congress," presumably referring to Connolly and agreeing with his argument that he's opposed the war since the start. Is this a straight "news" article or an editorial? Very confusing.
3. First paragraph quotes a Connolly campaign flier attacking the "Bush-Cheney Defense Department."
4. The second paragraph raises the question of SAIC -- ok, maybe something interesting coming now?
5. The third paragraph immediately dismisses any Connolly involvement in "SAIC's more controversial contracts," explaining that Connolly's job was all about "community activities and charitable events." Wait, if that's the case, what's the point of this article again?
6. The fourth paragraph has a quote from - surprise surprise! - Gerry's close friend Tom Davis, defending Connolly by claiming that it's "low-hanging fruit to go after a contractor in a war zone." Hmmmmm...Davis might want to read Jim Webb's new book, where he utterly blasts the role of contractors in Iraq (more on this when the book comes out Monday).
7. A statement by Amy Gardner that "All four Democrats seeking the party's nomination in the district's June 10 primary oppose the war in Iraq." But wait, wasn't that part of the Byrne-Connolly disagreement in the first place? Apparently, Amy Gardner has the answer, which she presents as straight fact.
8. A brief mention that there are two other candidates in the race. Guess you gotta do that when you're a "real" reporter.
9. Finally, buried deep down in the guts of the article is a quote from Leslie Byrne, explaining WHY, just possibly, "Connolly's Job With Contractor Complicates Race." Ya know, the supposed subject of the article. (by now, half the readers have drifted off)
10. A paragraph emphasizing that much of SAIC's work has nothing to do with defense. An oblique reference about Connolly "acknowledg[ing] that most of SAIC's contracts are within the defense and intelligence realms," and that "his support for the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 could affect SAIC."
11. Back to Connolly yet AGAIN, defending his job at SAIC, touting his opposition to "large noncompetitive contracts" (perhaps like the Bechtel "no-bid" for Metro to Dulles?), arguing that he's actually "not trying to make the world easier for my employer" (what does SAIC pay Gerry for again?), and adding, "I don't support war profiteering."
12. Another paragraph, yet ANOTHER quote from Gerry, this time about his "'moral outrage' over the war." OK, Amy, we get the point -- you love Gerry Connolly! Why don't you just come right out and endorse him and save us all time?
13. Another paragraph, yet ANOTHER quote from Gerry, this time mentioning the fact that Gerry's "close friend," former Board of Supervisors chair Kate Hanley, had a nephew wounded in Iraq recently. So, "This is personal for me," according to Connolly. Well, so, there you have it!
14. A paragraph talking about how SAIC is not particularly well known or one of the largest Iraq contractors. Again, so why is this worth a front-page Metro section article?
15. A paragraph saying that SAIC is "viewed as politically influential in Washington." Finally, maybe we're getting into some "meat" here?
16. A paragraph raising issues of SAIC coming under "scrutiny" for "several projects, including a $15 million no-bid contract awarded in 2003 to build an Iraq media network..." OK, so NOW we're finally getting into the heart of the article, right?
17. We now get a paragraph of an SAIC spokesperson defending Gerry Connolly. So much for getting into the heart of the article!
18. A paragraph that argues, "opposing the war does not have to go hand in hand with opposing defense spending or contracting." Fascinating revelation, thank you Amy Gardner!
19. A paragraph of Gerry's pal Tom Davis defending the heroic role of defense contracting in life as we know it, and reiterating that "Defending the government's right to outsource that does not have anything to do with the war." I guess that was just in case you had any doubts at this point.
20. A few paragraphs on Tom Davis and how he has "intensely felt the tug in recent years between the district's increasing antiwar sentiment and his support for Bush and the contracting community." Yeah, must be tough being Tom Davis!
21. Finally, the article concludes with...yes, you guessed it, a quote by Gerry Connolly stating point blank, "I oppose the war," and that "Everyone who knows me knows that's true." Case closed.
In sum, we have a headline promising...something. We have a subheading basically dismissing that something. We have one paragraph of Leslie Byrne. And we have 20 paragraphs that either defend Connolly, defend SAIC, praise Tom Davis, or have nothing much to do with anything.
Great article, Amy, I learned so much. Like, er, uh, er....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Given Connolly's high level government position, all his actions and influences as an SAIC VP should be disclosed. We don't know if any serious improprieties are going on between Connolly and SAIC - and that's why there should be full disclosure. Given the potential activities that could be happening with this sort of relationship, it is in the public interest to know exactly what he's doing and if SAIC is benefiting in an unfair manner.
Where are the WAPO investigative reporters when we need them?
According to the Washington Post article "A Question of Conflict", SAIC created the job of "Community Relations Chief" specifically for Connolly. This happened just after SAIC management met with Connolly to discuss development at the proposed SAIC rail station in Tysons. Such development would have to be approved by the Fairfax Board of Supervisors.
Two weeks after Connolly was hired by SAIC he voted as a member of the BOS for this rail station without disclosing his financial ties to SAIC.
So the real story is that SAIC is a major landowner in Tysons and Reston and hopes to realize large profits via rezoning. Connolly controls their destiny in that regard. Is that why he was hired?