Our last edition of Bits N Pieces generated many comments including an email from Adrian Cronauer, Special Assistant to Mr. Jerry Jennings, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/MIA Affairs. Mr. Cronauer confirmed everything we wrote was true. He did, however, take exception to certain terminology and expressed his concern that we did not present the entire picture.

In the interest of fairness and our continued attempt to bring the most accurate information to our readers, we are printing Mr. Cronauer's email in its entirety. We will also print our response and our readers can draw their own conclusions.

Cronauer Email Begins

Date: Monday, 13-May-02 01:13 PM

From: Cronauer, Adrian, Special Assistant DASD, O \ Internet: (adrian.cronauer@osd.mil)

To: dolores@nationalalliance.org \ Internet: (dolores@nationalalliance.org)

cc: Lynn OShea \ Internet: (lynnpowmia@prodigy.net)

Subject: Our Meeting

Hi, Dolores,

Please put me on your mailing list for Bits & Pieces. Since I'm not on the list, the following was forwarded to me and, after reading it, I thought I ought to point out that I told you I would never lie to you -- you may not like what I say and it may not be what I'm sure you want me to say, but it will be the truth as I know it. Well, I've been keeping that promise and everything I told you, as outlined below, is the truth.

Bits N Pieces May 11, 2002

DPMO Meeting - On April 5th, Dolores Alfond, Michael Benge and Lynn O'Shea met with Adrian Cronauer, Special Assistant to Mr. Jerry Jennings, the new head of DPMO. Although the meeting was pleasant in tone, we were left with the feeling that it is business as usual at DPMO. We were particularly concerned with the dismissal of so much of the information recently published on the Speicher Case.

I question the way you use the word "dismissal" because of it's implication that what you said was rejected without serious consideration. That's not really honest journalism, is it? (See my comments below at item 3) As to "business as usual" you listed what I said that was totally true but with the implication that is was less than true. Come on, Dolores, you know that's not fair. I don't lie and, by now, after knowing me for many years, you should know that. That's why I resent the way my comments were presented in a way that could easily lead someone to infer I was less than truthful with you.

I'm not here to "whitewash" anything nor to deceive anyone -- but I'm not going to just tell you what you want to hear, either, if I don't believe it's true.

Here is some of what we were told regarding the Speicher Case:

1. There was no new information on the case. Nothing had changed in spite of recent reports.

Well, that's the truth. We've been doing everything we can think of to achieve some progress but, so far, with little or no success.

2. The recent reports to British and Dutch intelligence reports of Cmdr. Speicher being alive were not confirmed.

And that, also, is the truth. What's the problem?

3. The source who picked Cmdr. Speicher's photo out of a photo array was dismissed.

When you use words like "dismissed" it implies that the item was rejected without any serious consideration. That's not the case. I went into detail with you as to why the photo ID was VERY questionable.

(When Lynn O'Shea pointed out that the source had passed two polygraphs, the results were dismissed with the following quote "there is a reason polygraphs are not admissible in court."

Again, ABSOLUTELY TRUE -- but that was not the sum total of my comments -- I explained about how polygraphs can be misleading or, even, outright false.

4. There is no evidence he survived the crash. He probably got out of the aircraft but that does not mean he survived. Absolutely true. But I'm a media scholar and have worked in the news

business and I can say with conviction that reporting that one part alone to your readers simply is not responsible journalism in that you deliberately omitted the next sentence I uttered which was "There also is no evidence he died, either. We just don't know. The only thing we are certain of is that Iraq knows more that it's telling us."

5. The CBS report contained many inaccuracies. DPMO sent them a letter, after the program aired, pointing out inaccuracies. CBS ignored it.

Absolutely true. And your point is?

6. There was no man made symbol picked up by overhead satellite. The only man-made symbol in the area were "tire tracks if you consider that man made"

Absolutely true. So, you conclude what from that statement?

7. The Washington Times articles by Bill Gertz contained many inaccuracies.

Not necessarily "many" but some "key" inaccuracies and one "key" omission that permeated the entire series of news items: the "reports" Gertz refers to are all unconfirmed or unverified.

In fact, your "Bits & Pieces" makes the same omission. As I've told you, and as you certainly are aware, the government gets all kinds of reports about all kinds of things all the time. But we can't set National policy on such reports until we do some preliminary checking to see if any of them has any validity to it. Otherwise, we'd be running around like a herd of cats with all speed and no directi on and wasting our limited resources on one wild goose chase after the other.

I also told you how we are doing everything in our power to check out each and every report we get. So far, as I told you, we've only run into reports that proved to be false, or second- and third-hand hearsay and gossip. We're still trying to track down the sources of the hearsay reports and we don't "dismiss" anything until we've finally been convinced it is useless to continue.

Anyway, Dolores, there's my "chop" on your article. Perhaps, you'd like to share it with your readership?

End of Cronauer email.

Our Response - was sent on Monday, May 13^th, late in the evening.

Response Begins

Adrian, per your request, we will add you to the distribution list for Bits N Pieces.

As I write the newsletter I will be responding to your concerns regarding the May 11th edition of Bits N Pieces.

First off, we would be happy to share your comments with our readership. Your email, as well as my response will be printed in its entirety in the May 18th edition. We try to bring the truth to our readers and you have confirmed that we have done that. Your objections seem to terminology, phrasing, and our not recalling a comment.

Hopefully, my response appearing in [ ] will clarify any misunderstandings. (For clarity, when this is printed in the newsletter your comments will appear in bold type with the words Cronauer Comment preceding them.)

1. There was no new information on the case. Nothing had changed in spite of recent reports.

Cronauer Comment: Well, that's the truth. We've been doing everything we can think of to achieve some progress but, so far, with little or no success.

[Over the last several months, the media has reported on the Speicher case referring to new information obtained as recently as January of this year. We are simply telling our readers, we were told there is no new information.]

2. The recent reports to British and Dutch intelligence reports of Cmdr. Speicher being alive were not confirmed.

Cronauer Comment: And that, also, is the truth. What's the problem?

[No problem with this. We are simply informing our readers that the media, and DPMO's position on this is at odds.]

3. The source who picked Cmdr. Speicher's photo out of a photo array was dismissed.

Cronauer Comment: When you use words like "dismissed" it implies that the item was rejected without any serious consideration. That's not the case. I went into detail with you as to why the photo ID was VERY questionable.

[Your objection to the word dismissed could be debated. Do you feel the phrase "dismissed as not creditable" would be more acceptable?]

(When Lynn O'Shea pointed out that the source had passed two polygraphs, the results were dismissed with the following quote "there is a reason polygraphs are not admissible in court."

Cronauer Comment: Again, ABSOLUTELY TRUE -- but that was not the sum total of my comments -- I explained about how polygraphs can be misleading or, even, outright false.

[As I remember our meeting, we discussed very little regarding the actual photo ID other than that the source was not creditable. When I brought up the double polygraph, your did discuss how someone could fool a polygraph. I believe that is when you made the statement "there is a reason polygraphs are not admissible in court." Since it is common knowledge that polygraphs are not admissible in court, I saw no reason to go further than the comment quoted.]

4. There is no evidence he survived the crash. He probably got out of the aircraft but that does not mean he survived.

Cronauer Comment: Absolutely true. But I'm a media scholar and have worked in the news business and I can say with conviction that reporting that one part alone to your readers simply is not responsible journalism in that you deliberately omitted the next sentence I uttered which was "There also is no evidence he died, either. We just don't know. The only thing we are certain of is that Iraq knows more that it's telling us."

[Nothing was deliberately omitted. That is an assumption on your part. I do not remember you making the comment "There also is no evidence he died, either." To verify I spoke with both Mike Benge and Dolores Alfond, who were also present at the meeting. Neither remembers that specific comment. Dolores did say that you made that a comment like that or one similar to it during the Family Update meeting in Portland. I do remember you saying, during our meeting, that Iraq knows more than it's telling. I didn't feel the need to print the statement "Iraq know more than it's telling" It's like saying the Vietnamese... North Koreans... Chinese.... Russians know more than they are telling. We all know that. ]

5. The CBS report contained many inaccuracies. DPMO sent them a letter, after the program aired, pointing out inaccuracies. CBS ignored it.

Cronauer Comment: Absolutely true. And your point is?

[The point is clear. The vast majority of our reader viewed the CBS broadcast and believe what they saw. If DPMO sent a letter of rebuttal or correction, our readers should know that and know that CBS ignored it, thus misrepresenting the Speicher case to the American public. Many of our readers have asked if we can get a copy of that letter. Please let us know if that is possible or not, as they would like to know the errors contained in the broadcast.]

6. There was no man made symbol picked up by overhead satellite. The only man-made symbol in the area were "tire tracks if you consider that man made"

Cronauer Comment: Absolutely true. So, you conclude what from that statement?

[Again, all media reports indicate some sort of man made symbol, other than tire tracks. If the media is totally inaccurate, our readers and the American public deserve to know.]

7. The Washington Times articles by Bill Gertz contained many inaccuracies.

Cronauer Comment: Not necessarily "many" but some "key" inaccuracies and one "key" omission that permeated the entire series of news items: the "reports" Gertz refers to are all unconfirmed or unverified.

[If the Gertz articles contain "many" or "key" inaccuracies we need to know. Opinions are formed on what is read and heard. Until now the media has been the only voice.]

It would seem that with the so much inaccurate reporting in the media, DPMO might consider issuing a statement of fact, with the appropriate supporting evidence, to clarify the Speicher case.

I hope this clears any misunderstanding and I thank you for confirming the overall accuracy of our statements.

Lynn

PS Please excuse any typos. It's been a long day

Response Ends

Our response was send Monday evening, May 13^th at approximately 11 PM. As of this writing, we have not had a response to our request for a copy of the letter sent to CBS.

Take This However You Wish - After our May 11^th newsletter circulated, we received an email from an individual with well placed sources inside various government offices dealing with the POW/MIA issue. This individual has provided us with very accurate information in the past. We were told by our source, that one of his/her sources, stated that DPMO has insinuated themselves back into the Speicher case, believe he is dead, and they are hindering current efforts.

This type of information would be labeled second hand hearsay, by any agency dealing with the POW/MIA issue and that label would be accurate. Because information is second hand hearsay it does not automatically make the information erroneous. The source and his/her contacts have to be evaluated. Knowing our source and the various sources he/she has access to, we decided to share this information with our readers.

We leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

S 1339 - The Speicher Bill

We need co-sponsors. This week Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Richard Durbin of Illinois signed on. This bring the number of co-sponsors needed by June 30^th to 42.

42 Co-Sponsors in 43 Days

Keep the pressure on. Call and fax your Senators. If you have already done it. Do it again and again and again until they co-sponsor S 1339, the Speicher Bill. For a list of Senators and their fax numbers visit http://nationalalliance.org/gulf/senators.htm

Remember names appearing in GREEN have already signed on as a co-sponsor. There is no need to contact them.

Where Are The Original Co-Sponsors of S 484, "The Bring Him Home Alive Act of 2000" - S 484 has 35 co-sponsors. It passed the Senate and was signed into law, in 2000. Of the 35, 7 are no longer serving in the Senate. Of the remaining 28, 4 have signed on to co-sponsor S 1339, the "Speicher Bill." Where are the other 24 Senators?

We would hate to think they feel that a possible Gulf War POW/MIA is not due the incentives offered for the return of a live American POW/MIA, as American POW/MIAs from the Korean and Vietnam Wars?

If your Senator is among the 24 co-sponsors of the original legislation, please contact them. Ask why they wish to exclude Gulf War POW/MIAs from the incentives offered for the return of a live POW/MIA of previous wars.

The Senators are:

Why Does Johnnie Webb Still Have A Job????

E-mail On Speicher Draws Flak Case Downplayed, Advocates Say - from the Jacksonville Times-Union May 17^th By Paul Pinkham and Rachel Davis - "Family and friends of missing Jacksonville Navy pilot Scott Speicher expressed disappointment yesterday about an e-mail from a Pentagon official with the lead agency investigating the case."

"Adrian Cronauer, special assistant to the deputy assistant secretary of defense for POW/MIA affairs, sent the e-mail Monday to the National Alliance of Families. He was responding to a report in the prisoner of war activist group's newsletter on a meeting he had with its leaders."

"According to the e-mail, he told the group foreign intelligence reports about Speicher being alive were unconfirmed, a photo lineup from which a defector picked Speicher's picture "was very questionable," and news media accounts were inaccurate. "I'm not here to whitewash anything nor to deceive anyone -- but I'm not going to just tell you what you want to hear, either, if I don't believe it's true," Cronauer wrote in the e-mail obtained yesterday by the Times-Union."

"But groups working to bring Speicher home say the e-mail is typical of how the Pentagon has downplayed the Cecil Field flyer's case since he was shot down over Iraq 11 years ago. "That's been their mindset all along. That was their mindset an hour after his plane went down," said Suzanne Hayes, a leader in the group Friends Working to Free Scott Speicher."

"And Speicher's family's attorney said they have had no contact with the Pentagon's POW/MIA office even though it's the lead agency in the investigation. She said the family has expressed its reservations about the POW/MIA office to the undersecretary of the Navy."

"The people in the trenches, the people working this day to day, they're doing a great job, but at the level that can solve the problem, I don't see the engagement or the will," said Cindy Laquidara. "It is our position that this matter should be handled by the State Department."

"Cronauer countered that it is the Defense Department's job to find out what happened to missing military personnel. "Congress has given us this job," he said yesterday. "We're trying to leave no stone unturned."

"The Pentagon declared Speicher dead immediately after he was shot down the first night of the Persian Gulf War over the Iraqi desert. But the Navy changed his status to missing in action last year."

"Cronauer also appears to contradict a report last year by the Central Intelligence Agency that concluded Speicher ejected from his FA-18 Hornet fighter jet, probably survived and was captured by the Iraqis. "There is no evidence he survived the crash," Cronauer wrote. "There also is no evidence he died either ... The only thing we are certain of is that Iraq knows more than it's telling us."

Rolling Thunder - next weekend both Dolores Alfond and Lynn O'Shea will be at Rolling Thunder. Hope to see many of you there.

The National Alliance Of Families Thirteenth Annual Forum is scheduled for June 20th - 22nd, 2002. Our forum is conducted to coincide with the Governments annual POW/MIA Family Briefings. We urge all family members to attend this years government briefings, for Vietnam family members. The government will provide free airfare to two family members to attend the briefings. There is no charge or registration fee to attend the government briefings.

This years meeting will be held at the Crown Plaza Hotel (same as last year) The hotel is located at 1489 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal City Va. Room rates are $106.00 + tax, per night for a single or double room. Parking is $5.00 per night. Transportation to the government briefings will be available. To make your reservations call 703-416-1600. The cut-off date for the special Alliance room rate is fast approaching. Make your reservations, now. Remember to say you are with the National Alliance of Families to get the special rate.

The Alliance is an all volunteer organization. Our meetings are open to all, without charge. At this time of year, we actively seek contributions to finance our forum. If you wish to contribute, donations may be mailed to: