- Signs of the Times for Thu, 16 Feb 2006 -





Editorial: The Real Enemy and What YOU Can Do

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Last week I wrote an editorial to kick off our Semi-annual Fundraiser. In that editorial I quoted a popular political action group's fund-raising report that informs us that, from 6,613 contributors, they were able to raise $389,900 in a single DAY. That averages out to $58.00 per person. Not a big expenditure for everyone, but the total is what is amazing. That total is a result of the large base of supporters they have which they have as a result of early advertising and very public and prominent activities where they make a big splash but actually accomplish zilch. They added that "This generosity gives us a great deal of hope." I, on the other hand, did not express much hope at all that pursuing change via political action within the existing system would accomplish a thing.

As I pointed out, "The hoopla about spying on innocent Americans to ferret out terrorists is just a smokescreen; [Bush's illegal spying is] purely and simply, to spy on political opponents, journalists, and to obtain material for blackmail so as to completely control the political process.

And that means that all those hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars even, that are flowing into the coffers of various “Political Action” groups are all going to waste. It's all for nothing. Nothing will change. They will spend your money, make a big show, make a good living off of it, and nothing, NOTHING, will change.

Since the SOTT team regularly has "brain-storming" meetings to discuss what we see on the global stage, this issue has naturally been on the table a time or two. As our readers may know, we scour the web for the news, trying, if at all possible, to create the picture of what is really going on from credible sources. We often contrast one mainstream source against another in order to show the reader how things get twisted and distorted and even misrepresented. We utilize flashbacks and special reports on key issues to show the historical development so that the reader may have a broader and deeper view. This approach to "seeing" is founded on our more esoteric work. We believe that if an individual has a philosophy, it ought to manifest in their life and work across the board. We here at SOTT consider the present state of our world as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. Pierre LaPlace wrote:

Consider an intelligence which, at any instant, could have a knowledge of all forces controlling nature together with the momentary conditions of all the entities of which nature consists. If this intelligence were powerful enough to submit all this data to analysis it would be able to embrace in a single formula the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atoms; for it, nothing would be uncertain; the future and the past would be equally present to its eyes.

Obviously, what LaPlace was proposing is a bit out of reach for most of us, but with a cooperative of researchers who all contribute input to the image of our world we are building, we can go in the direction of such an "intelligence" that can see past, present, and future. And certainly, by seeing past and present in as broad and deep a manner as possible, we are much better equipped to know the future and whether or not we like it, and if we don't like it, to make different choices NOW that will shape that future differently..

And here is where we encounter the BIG PROBLEM.

LIES.

If knowing the truth about reality can help us to make advantageous decisions and choices and take certain actions based on what IS, then certainly, hiding the truth from us can prevent us from making those decisions, choices, and actions that will lead to a positive future.

Those who control information, those who can conceal from us the data that we need to assemble an accurate picture of our reality seem to be working to create a future favorable to themselves, one that is NOT beneficial to all of humanity. So it has always been. From a historical point of view, the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

And maintaining the "status quo" in our world means controlling information.

We have thought about this a lot here at SOTT. As we comb through hundreds of news articles daily, seeing the twists and turns and outright lies and disinformation, tracing each thread to try to find out what is really wrong here, why can't we get - for God's sake - a single source that isn't playing games, lying and distorting - we realize that the BIG PROBLEM is the MEDIA.

Nothing evil that has been done for millennia would have been possible if people truly had the information they needed. And they don't have it because the MEDIA goes to so much trouble to either hide it or distort it or make a big splash about lies, and put the important truths on the inside back page of section D of the newspaper, if it is reported at all. SPIN is everything. Publicity is everything. The masses of people in the United States and elsewhere who simply don't have the time or energy or wherewithal to investigate for themselves, or the inner will to stand against what is presented to them as the "received truth" of all their peers, their families, neighbors and friends, will continue down the Primrose Path to total destruction as long as the MEDIA continues to conceal, to distort, to twist, and spin information in favor of those at the "top of the heap" who are determined to see that they remain at the top.

So our problem - the problem of everyone - is the MEDIA.

Now, certainly, there are quite a few alternative media sites - such as our our own - that try to bring a more balanced picture. But, you don't think that the folks at the Top of the Heap are going to allow anyone to get out there and do a better job of reporting the truth and get away with it, do you?

Of course not.

How are they going to stop it without appearing to do so?

Why, COINTELPRO, of course.

Now, I've written about this subject to the point that I am sure that some of you are sick of it. The problem is, it's everywhere, and it is well-funded. People like us don't have a chance against the backers of these kinds of operations. Not without your help, we don't. And even with help, it's going to be rough going - as it has been for the past five years.

So, not only do we have the MEDIA and its lies to contend with, we have COINTELPRO.

It's not looking good, is it?

For any new readers, let me just briefly recap and give you some links.

COINTELPRO's main weapon of choice is Slander (including libel) and Defamation. There is a reason for this: smearing a person makes it so that their effectiveness is diminished because those people who have little time, energy or wherewithal to do their own investigating won't take the time to find out if the defamatory statements are true or not, and if there is a well organized campaign, they also won't want to "go against" what their family, friends and neighbors believe. There are many recent examples of this tried and true tactic evident in the activities of the Neocons, including the "Swiftboat" nonsense and Plamegate. Those campaigns were directed against individuals and had to be stitched together in a hurry. A more comprehensive campaign, such as the demonizing of Muslims goes on over a longer period of time. Of course, what they want to do with the Muslims is kill them all so the process must be more thorough and broader in scope than just going after someone's personal reputation.

Nevertheless, the main weapon of COINTELPRO still remains Slander and Defamation. We know it all too well because such a campaign was launched against us back in 2001, which was, of course, curious timing, don't you think? At the very time that the Neocons made their big move to lock-down the flow of information, we became one of the first casualties of the Information War. And it hasn't let up since, I should add. As I wrote on my BLOG:

Now, one of the interesting things we have observed about COINTELPRO is the way it shifts and warps in response to possible exposure. I believe that I was the first to realize the extent and nature of the operation, and I began publishing my speculations about it in the Adventures With Cassiopaea series back in early 2002. Not too long after that, individuals that I KNEW to be "agents" of COINTELPRO began to start ranting about COINTELPRO and pointing the finger this way and that way. Up to this point in time, the lid had pretty much remained shut on the subject - I guess they were hoping that people would forget about it, or think that it was over and done with back in the 70s, nothing to worry about now!

But nope, I saw it and wrote about it and they just had to do something. So, in typical COINTELPRO fashion, they started producing endless noise to obscure the signal. [...

And then, in another Blogpost:

Robin Ramsay, Editor of Lobster, writes in this month's issue of Fortean Times:

"[After 1996 was when] the Internet began to take hold of our intellectual lives and conspiracy theories transferred from TV and magazines onto the Net, where - ever since - they appear to have been something of a worry to our masters in Washington.

"The existence of the Internet means that it is no longer as easy to control public perception as it was during the good old days of the Cold War, when mass media were fewer and more manageable, newspaper and TV editors could be recruited or bought by the authorities and stories planted with ease in the press.

"Recently, the US State Department has begun trying to rebut some of the current conspiracy theories about America. Their first targets were a couple of websites - www.rense.com and Conspiracy Planet - and the late Joe Vialls, an Australian. What a boost for the named sites! Attacked by the State Department![...]

"[Y]ou don't have to be a PR genius to see that what you simply mustn't do is launch official attacks: all they do is amplify and legitimise the theories by announcing that they are deemed to be worth attacking." [Fortean Times 206, February 2006, p. 19] [...]

So certainly, we would expect real COINTELPRO operations to be attacked "officially" in order to legitimize them, but as those who have figured out the real answers will not be martyred. It's way too dangerous. Keep in mind that we aren't dealing with stupid people here; they have "motivation masters" working 24/7 to manipulate the public. One of their ideas was the now well-known COINTELPRO "Third Party Attack Protocol." This includes setting up bogus groups and operations - sometimes at HUGE expense - in order to not only be a "Tar Baby" but also, when needed, to launch attacks against bona fide groups and or individuals with no one ever suspecting that it is a State Supported attack.

And, as I noted above, COINTELPRO shifts and warps in response to possible exposure. Let's look at a typical example here:

Fair and Balanced?: Death Threats Hit Prominent Political Columnists

by Todd Brendan Fahey
February 13, 2006

The headline of the story would make you think that Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd or some major international journalistic figure was the subject. Keep in mind, as you read the story, that the author, Todd Brendan Fahey, "has served as aide to former Congressman John B. Conlan, former Arizona Governor Evan Mecham, to CIA officer Theodore L. Humes and to the late Defense Intelligence Agency chief, Lt. General Daniel O. Graham."

James Hall publishes as "SARTRE" throughout the Web. Perhaps the most prolific right-wing columnist on the 'net, he keeps to himself in private life. Long retired as a political strategist, Hall is no longer a believer in organized politics--though very much still a believer in and spokesman for Jeffersonian anti-federalist, limited government ideology.

And so he was surprised to answer his unlisted phone number on January 30th, to the question that was asked three times in succession: "Is this SARTRE?" (His response each time: "Who is calling?"). Finally, the caller shouted, "We know who you are!", followed by a death threat that he has divulged only to the New York state police department in his area, which he alerted immediately.

Says Hall, "No one calls for Sartre on my home phone number."

The *64 function on his phone brought back a Toronto, Canada phone number (416-785-4574) owned by Dr. Laurence B. Shiff, 327 Cortleigh Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario MSN 1R2 CA. Friends assisted Hall in some Google sleuthing, and which reveals Dr. Shiff an officer of the Kaspu Corporation. When relaying the events to longtime SARTRE publisher Jeff Rense, Rense said: "That's the same number I've been getting threats from, and two of my other writers."

The morning of Hall's telephone death threat, he had published an incendiary piece titled "Hamas, Israel and the United States," which went 'net-wide and which, later in the week, resulted in his being dropped from New Media Alliance--ostensibly, a start-up conservative news bureau. The article calls for a complete severing of the "USrael alliance," as a danger to American citizens and an affront to the Constitution.

Two weeks before the threat received by James Hall, fellow Rense.com writer Kurt Nimmo closed down his blog entirely, citing an inability to reconcile death threats received, his publishing life and the safety of his family "Zionist Death Threats: Nimmo Closes Down Blog".

Writes Nimmo:

"The primary reason I have decided to stop posting the blog has to do with threats. I have received many of them, including death threats. Usually, I am able to brush aside threats, since most are not of a serious nature, but lately I have received several that are not to be taken lightly, especially considering the fact somebody has taken the liberty to post my address and telephone number (information easily attained from the domain registry) in various places on the internet. First and foremost, I have a responsibility to my family and posting political commentary obviously comes in a distant second."

On February 2, Rense.com writer Jim Mortellaro received calls from the same Toronto, Canada phone number:

"Beginning three days ago, two more so-called 'men' began their tirade on this writer. Like the first person, they informed me that I was a Rense supporter and that makes me an anti-Semite. Me. Of all people, with a Jewish side to our family in which 2.15% survived the camps. That would be two out of 93 human beings. You picked the wrong person, guys. ...I now have his name and address. The man lives in Toronto. He is the son of a (I won't go there, not to worry), he is a member of a very wealthy family there, with interest in (major interest) in a very large corporation." Zionist Threats and Harrassment Continue".

Mortellaro received the call on his cell phone, which, as he writes: "is extremely hard to obtain. You must have the *authority* to do so and that authority must be high up the food chain. So, whomever called, did so from a "restricted telephone number" and had *access* to cellphone numbers and their owners. A 'restricted' telephone number, being different from a 'restricted call,' makes the case for a governmental, institutional or large and powerful company as having made the call."

Messrs. Hall, Rense, Nimmo and Mortellaro are now coordinating efforts--with state police, FBI and Canadian authorities--for to bring about a Federal investigation. Each writer has been critical in their writings of US/Israeli entanglements; each has received death threats from the same phone source--which has now been identified. All manner of "special interest groups" have been protected from harrassment and seen perpetrators punished. That this group is comprised of prominent writers who hold what are undoubtedly unpopular beliefs, in the eyes of mainstream media and probably within Washington D.C., will prove a test case for the law being "fair and balanced."

Now, let me give you some backstory here. Somewhere around the time that Kurt Nimmo received his "threats," which were never quite fully explained to me, but since I have a lot of respect for Kurt, I didn't pry; I figured that if he felt threatened, that was good enough for me, we had a little exchange about it. I wrote to Kurt as follows:

I have tremendous sympathy for your wife. God only knows I went through hell having our names and addresses published on hate sites. [Websites were set up to defame us, a gang of cyberthugs cruised the net looking for every open BB they could find where they could post their slanderous filth.] We received death threats in the mail, my daughter was run off the road three times, the third time she hit a power pole and her car was destroyed. If it had not been a Volvo, she would be dead. [Another of our children was poisoned and nearly died. She spent three days on life-support and nobody expected her to recover.] When the dog was poisoned while we ran out to Sam's Club, in broad daylight, that was the living end. That's when we made the decision to leave the country permanently. [...]

Of course, no sooner did we get back online [right after publication of "MOSSAD and Moving Companies: Masterminds of Global Terrorism] than Jeff Rense published that awful defamation on the very day he had invited me to speak on his show. I don't think it was accidental. It took three days for us to get him to remove it.

I should mention that the MOSSAD piece went around the world, and was translated into no less than 6 languages within ONE WEEK of its publication. And it was IMMEDIATELY afterward, that a close associate of Rense - Jay Weidner - purchased "cassiopaea.net" for the purpose of publishing slanderous articles about us.

The above article about threats from Toronto was linked from Michael Rivero's "WhatReallyHappened.com" where he wrote the following remarks:

Larry has been an annoyance to this web site as well. When Larry first started attacking my site, hacking the servers, email bombing me, sending death threats, and other assorted dirty trucks, I reported him to both the FBI and to Interpol. Interpol is still investigating him as of my last contact with them, but interestingly enough the local FBI claims that the US Attorney for Hawaii ordered them not to investigate the case. I am putting that on the public record in case Mssrs Hall, Nimmo, Mortellaro, & Rense run into "bureaucratic resistance" in seeking to prosecute this minor irritation. The FBI has known about Larry for years now, because I tracked him down and reported him to the FBI in 2003, and the FBI failed to act to protect US citizens from what the USAPATRIOT act clearly identifies as terroristic activity.

The ball is in your court FBI. What are you going to do now? Look like total failures yet again?

So Jeff, Sartre, Kurt, ya'll are gonna have to come up with something better than a threatening phone call or two. That ain't COINTELPRO. Heck, that doesn't even qualify as a real "attack." I've been getting death threats by phone since I started publishing my material on alien abductions! When I was able to keep a lecture engagement only by having a bodyguard licensed to carry a gun, I knew it was time to quit speaking in public. What's more, guys, you need to have some evidence. You want to see MINE? Have a look at the stack of stuff I've assembled, all of which has been shipped off to the FBI. You know what the FDLE agent told me? He said that since 9/11, they are way too busy to deal with such "petty squabbles" - get a lawyer or quit doing what I'm doing and the attacks will cease. And I pointed out to him that ole Vinnie Bridges, pal of Jay Weidner, pal of Jeff Rense, pal of Michael Rivero, was just dancing with glee at the collapse of the WTC. Not only that, but he was known to hang out with Arabs in Arab costume! His buddy, Melchizidek, had connections to Mujaheedin. Melchizidek's main sugar-daddy has all the earmarks of a CIA frontman. Was the FBI interested? Nope. So, if they are interested in your guy for making a few phone calls, I can assure you that it's a set-up. Take that to the bank.

Now that the reader has a little bit more of an idea of what we are facing here, perhaps you will also be able to figure out that what we are offering here on SOTT isn't just the usual "bill of fare" of alternative News sites. It is obviously quite threatening to the Powers That Be. Since google regularly "penalizes" us while giving incomprehensible advantages to the "flame sites" set up to smear us, since most of the COINTELPRO alternative sites also "conveniently" fail to link to us, despite (or perhaps because of) the superior quantity and quality of our material, it's pretty clear that we are one HUGE THREAT to the PTB. That's again why we need to do more ADVERTISING.

We need funding to do more than advertising. We need to be able to hire full-time researchers and other support staff so that we don't have to work 16 hour days, 7 days a week, driving our health into the ground. We need to be able to identify those alternative news writers who are sincere and honest and offer them a decent compensation for REAL investigative journalism. In short, we need to completely replace the MEDIA, the true dragon of the Portal to knowledge that can help us change our world, in the minds and hearts of all those who thirst for truth and justice.

It isn't going to be easy. It hasn't been easy. It's been an uphill struggle all the way, and we could not have done it without the support of our readers. We need it now more than ever, and we need MORE of it than ever. Look again at what we have to confront: a group that wastes time and money, yet can raise $389,900 in a single DAY. That's a whole lot more than we have received in the past 5 years.

So please, dig as deep as you can. There is much, much more to what we hope to do than just advertising. We cannot, of course, reveal everything because if we do, COINTELPRO will jump on our plans like a duck on a June bug. Read our websites, examine our archives, decide today if you want to keep this information flowing, and if you want to make sure that it is available to more and more people, and if so, help us to make a Quantum Leap in our operation. You won't regret it, and your help may very well be the critical mass that changes the future for All.

Click here to donate now!


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Blair's Anti-Terrorism Law - Throttling The Truth

Signs of the Times
16/02/2006

The race between Tony Blair and George Bush (and their NeoCon backers) to become the first modern Western "Democracy" to transform itself into a de facto dictatorship is heating up. Last night, Tony Blair put in a sterling performance to this end by "promising" (read threatening) that British Police will act on the new "glorifying terrorism" law which, having been rejected by his own Labour MPs and the House of Lords in January, has now been all but passed into law.

Blair claims that the new law will alllow a clear signal to be sent that those that incite or glorify acts of terrorism will be prosecuted. Officially, the law is to allow police to arrest people who indirectly incite terrorism, specifically those who "encourage suicide bombings and beheadings." Of course, no assurances can or will be given that British citizens will still be free to carry a placard denouncing the British government as engaging in terrorism itself, which, of course, both the Bush and Blair governments have been doing for the past 4 years (at least). It is in fact extremely likely that in the very near future anyone engaging in such an act of dissent will be accused of "idirectly supporting of inciting terrorism", the 'logic' being that to label the British (or American) government a terrorist regime is to give support to the terrorists who, coincidentally, say the same thing.

You can see where this is going, or rather, where it has already arrived.

In a stunning departure from traditional Conservative values, former Tory party leader William Hague denounced Blair's legislation, saying that the terrorism laws had been used to arrest 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang, who did nothing more than heckle Foreign Minister Jack Straw at last year's Labour conference, yet it took years for the militant cleric Abu Hamza to be prosecuted. Again, this is simply more evidence of the real point of 'anti-terror' legislation.

Indeed, it is not only ordinary British citizens that are in the crosshairs, non-conforming members of Blair's party are also wont to be labeled 'terrorists' if they refuse to drink the cool-aid. In a wonderful example of an early implementation of the real goal of British anti-terrorism laws, one Labour rebel, Bob Marshall-Andrews, said that Blair's had put MPs in "a terrible position" by suggesting that if they opposed the Government they were "in some way or another endorsing terrorism".

Going further still, even other heads of states may fall foul of Blair's fascist laws; Irish Taioseach (PM) Bertie Ahern was planning to lead the 90th anniversary celebrations of the 1916 Easter Rising by Irish revolutionaries in April this year, but perhaps the threat of being rendered off to Syria in a CIA or MI5 jet as a 'terrorist sympathiser' will now make him think twice.

Of real signifcance in the debate is the fact that British police (on the orders of the British Government) failed to arrest Muslim demonstrators who, at the height of last week's furore over Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammed, marched through London carrying placards praising the July 7 bombings and calling for beheadings, even though British police already had the power to arrest these people. Indeed, existing British laws on incitement to racial and other forms of hatred provide all the scope needed to prevent extremists from encouraging others to support violent attacks. So why do we need further laws?

While Blair failed to explain exavtly why the demonstrators were not arrested, the reason is more than obvious: Blair, like Bush, has a vested interest in allowing renta-crowd 'Muslim fanatics' to prove to the public that Britain needs these Draconian laws. Given that most Islamic terrorism of recent years is a product of UK, American and Israeli intelligence agencies, we then come to the conclusion that legislation like the Patriot Act and the 'glorification of terrorism' law is not designed to combat the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, but rather to quash the real threat to American and British (and therefore Israeli) world hegemony - ordinary Western citizens like you and me standing up and calling Bush, Blair and Benjamin Netanyahu for the terrorists that they are.

Make no mistake, from the point of view of the NeoCons (and their Israeli masters) that have orchestrated this entire phony war on terror, the real enemy is the average Western citizen who still retains the ability to recognise shit from shinola.


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Daniel Pipes and the Danish Cartoon "Conspiracy"

Kurt Nimmo
Wednesday February 15th 2006, 5:42 pm

“There’s a conspiracy theory developing about myself and Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten cultural editor who published the famous twelve cartoons of the Muslim prophet,” Straussian neocon and Islamophobe ne plus ultra Daniel Pipes informs us on his blog. According to Pipes, who is about as tolerant of Muslims as Ahmadinejad is of Jews, Rose decided to publish the offensive cartoons after visiting Pipes. “Flemming Rose and I have not written, spoken, or seen each other since that one meeting. I had nothing to do with the decision to commission or publish the cartoons eleven months later and only learned of their existence from press coverage of them.”

In fact, the original article mentioning Pipes in relation to Rose, written by Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press, does not say that Pipes was involved in the decision to publish the now infamous cartoons; the article simply mentions that Rose traveled to America to interview Pipes. In typical disingenuous neocon fashion, Pipes alleges a “conspiracy theory” but refuses to cite or quote Bollyn’s article.

Indeed, the xenophobe Pipes may have not played a direct role in the Danish cartoon fiasco, however we can assume he is tickled pink about the outcome, as are his Straussian neocon associates Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Rubin, David Wurmser, and all the other “clash of civilizations” warmongering fanatics who should be arrested and locked up immediately before they conspire to invade more small defenseless countries and kill another 250,000 innocent people.


Comment on this Editorial


The propaganda we pass off as news around the world - A British government-funded fake TV news service allows mild criticism of the US - all the better to support it

By David Miller The Guardian 15 Feb 06

A succession of scandals in the US has revealed widespread government funding of PR agencies to produce "fake news". Actors take the place of journalists and the "news" is broadcast as if it were genuine. The same practice has been adopted in Iraq, where newspapers have been paid to insert copy. These stories have raised the usual eyebrows in the UK about the pitiful quality of US democracy. Things are better here, we imply. We have a prime minister who claimed in 2004 that "the values that drive our actions abroad are the same values of progress and justice that drive us at home". Yet in 2002 the government launched a littleknown television propaganda service that seems to mimic the US government's deceptive approach to fake news.
The British Satellite News website says it is "a free television news and features service". It looks like an ordinary news website, though its lack of copyright protection might raise some questions in alert journalists. Broadcasters can put BSN material "directly into daily news programmes". In fact, BSN is provided by World Television, a company that also makes corporate videos and fake news clips for corporations such as GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Nestlé. It also produced Towards Freedom Television on behalf of the UK government. This was a propaganda programme broadcast in Iraq by US army psychological-operations teams from a specially adapted aircraft in 2003/04.

World Television produces the fake news, but its efforts are entirely funded by the Foreign Office, which spent £340m on propaganda activities in the UK alone in 2001. A comprehensive post- 9/11 overhaul means that this figure has probably markedly increased since then.

According to World Television, by November 2003 BSN "news" was being "used regularly by 14 of the 17 Middle East countries". "Over 400 stations around the world receive BSN stories," it claims. "185 are regular users of the stories, including broadcasters in Russia, Germany, Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Australia."

The diet of "news" received by viewers of the service includes an endless pageant of government ministers and other official spokespeople. Recent headlines on Iraq refer to happy news such as "Prime minister in surprise visit to Iraq" (December 22 2005) or "Iraqi ambassador upbeat on elections" (December 14 2005). Often Chatham House provides the venue for policy discussions, as in: "The psychology of terror - experts meet" (December 23 2005).

Questioning the occupation is out of the question, but some criticism of US policy is possible. In an extraordinary apologia for the British occupation of Iraq in 1920, the "suggested intro" reads: "This year is not the first time an outside power has sought to construct a modern, democratic, liberal state in Iraq. Britain tried to do the same in the 1920s". The benevolence of the US and the UK is simply assumed: "Today's USled coalition, like the imperial occupiers of 80 years ago, are trying to free Iraq's government and security services from corruption and abuse."

But the clumsy strategy of the US is potentially "alienating a large section of the population". So the question arises of what "useful lessons could be drawn" from the British experience. In reality the 1920 occupation led immediately to a popular revolt that was ruthlessly suppressed. A puppet monarchy was imposed, which was neither "modern" nor "democratic" but was, as argued by the historian Mark Curtis, one of the least popular in Middle Eastern history.

The BSN strategy seems to be to emphasise Britain's cultural diversity. Bulletins regularly highlight ethnicminority contributions to the UK and interview leading moderate Muslims. But it is possible to hear muted criticism of Israel. One item featured "A leading Israeli academic who has questioned both the wisdom and the effectiveness of the controversial 'separation fence'."

A clue to the thinking behind this lies in a 2003 report for the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) thinktank, coauthored by its then director Mark Leonard. He advised the Foreign Office on its Public Diplomacy Review in 2002 and was later appointed to the resulting Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, which directs Foreign Office propaganda strategy. Leonard wrote in 2002: "If a message will engender distrust simply because it is coming from a foreign government then the government should hide that fact as much as possible." The FPC report suggests the British government should not be afraid of "bloodying the Americans' noses" in its propaganda messages on Israel/Palestine. They must "ensure that the differences between UK and American positions and thinking are emphasised". The point is to tackle the perception that Britain "apishly follows every American lead" so the "usefulness" of "UK support for the US" is increased.

This strategy of criticising the US, in order to support it better, conforms to Blair's wider Iraq strategy. It is clear from documents leaked over the past year (such as the Downing Street memo) that the plan was to use the UN as a device for gaining legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq. All this makes a mockery of Blair's claims to progressive values. Indeed it suggests that such claims are themselves cynical propaganda.

David Miller is professor of sociology at Strathclyde University

www.spinwatch.org

Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Comment: Duuh! We've been saying all along that this is what is happening. Not only that, the pretended adversarial attitude between google and the US gov is also phoney.

Comment on this Article


Quick Rise for Purveyors of Propaganda in Iraq

By DAVID S. CLOUD NY Times 15 Feb 06

WASHINGTON — Two years ago, Christian Bailey and Paige Craig were living in a half-renovated Washington group house, with a string of failed startup companies behind them.

Mr. Bailey, a boyish-looking Briton, and Mr. Craig, a chain-smoking former Marine sergeant, then began winning multimillion-dollar contracts with the United States military to produce propaganda in Iraq.

Now their company, Lincoln Group, works out of elegant offices along Pennsylvania Avenue and sponsors polo matches in Virginia horse country. Mr. Bailey recently bought a million-dollar Georgetown row house. Mr. Craig drives a Jaguar and shows up for interviews accompanied by his "director of security," a beefy bodyguard.
The company's rise, though, has been built in part by exaggerated claims about its abilities and connections, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former Lincoln Group employees and associates, and a review of company documents.

In collecting government money, Lincoln has followed a blueprint taught to Mr. Bailey by Daniel S. Peña Sr., a retired American businessman who described Mr. Bailey as a protégé.

Federal contracts in Washington can supply easy seed capital for a struggling entrepreneur, Mr. Peña says he advised a youthful Mr. Bailey in the mid-1990's when the two men started a short-lived technology company. "I told him, 'When in trouble, go to D.C.,' and the kid listened," Mr. Peña said.

Mr. Bailey defends his company's record, saying, "Lincoln Group successfully executes challenging assignments." He added that "teams are created from the best available resources."

Lincoln won its contracts after claiming to have partnerships with major media and advertising companies, former government officials with extensive Middle East experience, and ex-military officers with background in intelligence and psychological warfare, the documents show. But some of those companies and individuals say their associations were fleeting.

Lincoln has also run into problems delivering on work for the military after its partnerships with more experienced firms fell apart, company documents and interviews indicate. The firm has continued to bid for new business from the Pentagon and has hired two Washington lobbying firms to promote itself on Capitol Hill and with the Bush administration.

"They appear very professional on the surface, then you dig a little deeper and you find that they are pretty amateurish," said Jason Santamaria, a former Marine officer whom the company once described as a "strategic adviser."

The company's work in Iraq, where Mr. Bailey and Mr. Craig visit from time to time to direct operations, is facing growing scrutiny.

The Pentagon's inspector general last month opened an audit of Lincoln Group's contracts there, according to two Defense Department officials. A separate inquiry ordered by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, after disclosures late last year that Lincoln Group paid Iraqi publications to run one-sided stories by American soldiers, has been completed but not made public, military officials said.

A spokesman for General Casey, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, declined to comment on Lincoln Group, citing the ongoing investigation.

In interviews, Mr. Bailey, 30, and Mr. Craig, 31, said they had succeeded by anticipating the military's need for help communicating with and influencing the Iraqi public, just as the insurgency was building. "We saw that it was very hard for the U.S. to do that work," Mr. Bailey said. "They didn't do media and outreach very well. We had local offices in a tough environment where traditional U.S. contractors would not operate."

He disputed suggestions that Lincoln had experienced difficulty delivering on work for the military, saying the firm had "successfully executed" more than 20 contracts from the Defense Department.

Lincoln's roster of advisers and other businesses assisting it has continually changed, Mr. Craig said, because "our work in often hostile environments has occasionally proved to be too risky or challenging for some of our partners."

Little in Mr. Bailey's background indicated he would end up doing propaganda work in Iraq. Born in Britain as Christian Jozefowicz, he changed his name when he graduated from Oxford University and moved to San Francisco during the late-1990's dot-com boom.

There he founded or advised several companies and plunged into the Silicon Valley social scene, according to Mr. Bailey and several friends and former business associates. Among the companies were Express Action, a company that planned to develop an Internet service to calculate duties on overseas purchases, and Motion Power, which intended to invent a shoe that would generate its own electrical power to run portable consumer devices.

"You would have been proud had you seen this 23-year-old kid pitching, with no product, no customers, no business plan," Mr. Bailey wrote in a letter to Mr. Peña, describing how he raised $15 million from investors for Express Action.

Mr. Bailey later moved to New York and sought investors for an investment fund, according to documents filed with the National Futures Association. In 2003, he moved to Washington.

Mr. Craig's path to the capital began when he dropped out of West Point to pursue, he says, his interests in business and national security.

Enlisting in the Marines in 1995, he began working in military intelligence. He earned an undergraduate degree in information technology while stationed in Okinawa and Australia through the University of Maryland and a masters in business administration from National University, which runs academic programs on military bases. He left the Marines in 2000.

By 2004, Mr. Bailey had moved into Mr. Craig's house near downtown Washington, and the two had formed the company that eventually became Lincoln Group.

Their original goal was to make money exploiting Iraq's most obvious surplus — its shattered infrastructure. But those efforts faltered.

A project to export scrap metal fell apart after the Iraqi government banned scrap exports in 2004, Mr. Bailey said. A pile of scrap metal, purchased with a loan from an Indonesian bank, has been sitting in Basra ever since, according to two ex-employees. Like several other former Lincoln workers, they asked to remain anonymous because they had signed confidentiality agreements with the company or still dealt with the firm.

Lincoln also spent about $50,000 for two portable brick-making machines from Texas. The company had hoped to set up a brick plant near Mosul, where the demand for construction materials was vast, according to a presentation Mr. Bailey made to potential investors in Dubai. The machines, though, were principally designed for homeowners or small contractors. Lincoln would not comment on the project.

Eventually, Lincoln began working with the American military, which was spending millions on contractors for a broad range of services. The firm rented a one-story house inside the Green Zone, the heavily fortified government compound in central Baghdad. Furnished with two sofas and a sheet of plywood that served as a desk, the house had a single telephone and an overloaded electrical outlet.

Lincoln formed a partnership with The Rendon Group, a Washington company with close ties to the Bush administration, and won a $5 million Pentagon contract to help inform Iraqis about the American-led effort to defeat the insurgency and form a new government. One contract requirement was to get Iraqi publications to run articles written by the military, according to several ex-Lincoln employees.

Rendon soon dropped out and Lincoln handled the contract alone. But the company had fewer than two dozen workers and little experience with public relations, according to several ex-employees.

Problems arose from the start. In a 2004 briefing to the military, Lincoln conceded that it was "not yet fully staffed" and that "media monitoring software" required by the contract was "not ready."

And the government did not provide that much work at first. The military's public affairs office produced only a few articles a day during that period, one Lincoln ex-employee said. A small State Department contract to assist small businesses had just been cancelled, he said, and the firm was having difficulty making its payroll.

Lincoln lacked the armored vehicles or security guards employed by more established contractors. When venturing outside the Green Zone, employees would grab weapons and climb into one of two beat-up Proton sedans, which employees were told were chosen to blend in with dilapidated Iraqi vehicles on the streets.

After winning a small contract from the Marines to do polling, the company hired Iraqis to go door-to-door in Anbar Province with questionnaires. To protect themselves from possible insurgent reprisals, they were told to say they were working for an Iraqi university, according to a former Lincoln employee.

Last August, gunmen came to the home of one of the Iraqi workers, killing him and three others, according to an ex- employee. Mr. Bailey said it was not clear whether the killing was related to the polling, but the company decided to move a Lincoln office staffed by Iraqis in downtown Baghdad to a less noticeable location.

Back in the United States, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Craig worked to drum up more business.

In late 2004, Mr. Craig traveled to Fort Bragg, N.C., to meet with officers of the 18th Airborne Corps, which was preparing take over management of Lincoln's public affairs contract in Iraq, according to a former employee and company documents. Despite the problems with the existing work, Lincoln said it could assist the military in the more secretive realm of "information operations," according to a transcript of the briefing. Unlike public affairs work, information operations are meant to influence and help defeat foreign adversaries, using deception, if necessary.

The briefing also touted the firm's "strategic advisers," including Mr. Santamaria, the former Marine officer, who received a master's degree from the Wharton business school and was co-author of a business book called "The Marine Corps Way."

Mr. Santamaria said he reviewed several investment proposals for Lincoln during a two-week association in late 2004. But after becoming "concerned about their methods," he said, "I severed ties with them as quickly as I could."

A Lincoln spokesman, William Dixon, said "it was a mistake" to include Mr. Santamaria's name in the December briefing because he was no longer affiliated with the company.

Lincoln may simply have been following another principle taught by Mr. Peña. "How do you create an instant track record?" Mr. Peña says he told Mr. Bailey. "You joint-venture with someone who has a track record."

Early last summer, military commanders made Lincoln Group the main civilian contractor for carrying out an aggressive propaganda campaign in Anbar Province, known as the Western Mission project. Over the next several months, the military transferred tens of millions of dollars to Lincoln for the project, records show.

The company hired dozens of employees, including academics and former military personnel, as well as hundreds of contract workers in Iraq and elsewhere, a number that fluctuates by contract requirements, according to Mr. Dixon, the Lincoln spokesman.

With the new duties came substantial new requirements, including producing television and radio ads, buying newspaper ads and placing many more articles in the Iraqi press. The military also approved paying Iraqi editors to run stories, according to ex-Lincoln employees.

Lincoln also enlisted the New York advertising executive Jerry Della Femina, chairman of Della Femina Rothschild Jeary & Partners. Mr. Della Femina said he was introduced to Mr. Craig last spring by a Washington lobbyist.

Mr. Della Femina said his firm "did a great deal of work" on advertising ideas for Lincoln to present to the military's Special Operations Command, which last summer was soliciting bids for contracts, potentially worth millions, for psychological operations.

Lincoln listed Mr. Della Femina as a "creative director" in materials presented last spring at a meeting with Special Operations officers in Tampa. But Mr. Della Femina said his firm pulled out before executing any of the ideas. Three months after ending the collaboration, Mr. Della Femina said, he discovered that Lincoln's Web site listed him as one of its partners.

"I was surprised that they had our name on their Web site in the first place," he said.

After he asked that his name be removed, Mr. Craig said, "we honored his request within the week."

By that time, Lincoln had already been notified by Special Operations Command that it and two other companies had been chosen to compete for work under the contract.

Lincoln later told Special Operations Command that one of its principal subcontractors was Omnicom Group Inc. of New York, an advertising and marketing conglomerate. A proposal signed by Mr. Bailey in October said Lincoln "has exploited the extensive experience and expertise of the Omnicom Group."

But Pat Sloan, an Omnicom spokeswoman, said she could find no evidence it has ever worked with Lincoln Group. "We're not aware of any relationship with Lincoln Group," she said. She noted that Omnicom had once owned 49 percent of Mr. Della Femina's agency but had sold the stake in early 2005. Michael J. Jeary, president of Mr. Della Femina's agency, said Lincoln's claim of Omnicom as a subcontractor was an "honest mistake" because he had never told the firm Omnicom had sold its minority stake.

Although Lincoln Group's work in Iraq is now under scrutiny in two Pentagon investigations, the firm is hunting for more government work. Last month, Mr. Bailey attended a going-away reception at the Virginia condominium of a mid-level government employee on her way to a new job at the American Embassy in Baghdad. Her job: overseeing contracts.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company



Comment on this Article


Flashback: So, just who is Christian Bailey?

By Andrew Buncombe 17 December 2005 UK Independent

A 30-year-old Oxford graduate with no public relations experience was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.
The office building situated at 1420 K Street NW has nothing obvious to commend it other than its prime location. Just a couple of streets from the north-west gates of the White House, it sits in the heart of lobbying land - the K Street corridor that represents one of the most crucial centres of power, influence and money in the United States.

This grey building, neighboured to one side by an off-licence and to the other by a travel agent, is home to the Lincoln Group, a previously little-known "business intelligence" company headed by a heretofore little known young Briton, Christian Bailey, an Oxford graduate and consummate net worker. He is at the centre of a mounting storm of controversy surrounding the Bush administration's covert propaganda war in Iraq.

It was recently revealed that Bailey's company was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.

As part of the project - in which the US military hid its involvement - Lincoln Group staff paid Iraqi journalists to write similarly misleading stories about US forces and the Iraqi government that ignored anything negative about the occupation. One headline read: "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism."

The revelations have created a furore. President Bush is said to be "very troubled" by the news, while on Capitol Hill members of both the Senate and House armed services committees demanded inquiries. The Pentagon said it would launch an immediate investigation.

Much is unclear about the Lincoln Group, its youthful executive vice-president and his string of previous companies that have left only the faintest paper trail. Indeed, Christian Bailey may not be his real name: a number of student associates said at some point during his four years that he changed his name from Yusefovich - an unlikely surname for someone called Christian.

The Independent has been unable to confirm this. Yet the details known about Bailey and the contract his company won provide a remarkable insight into the way influence and power operate in Washington. Just two years after arriving here, Bailey, 30, who has a penchant for socialising, has apparently developed contacts both within the Republican establishment and the world of private intelligence.

Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said of the false news operation: "I remain gravely concerned about the situation." Since the controversy broke Bailey has kept a low-profile and has offered just the fewest public words about his organisation and what it does. (He failed to respond to requests for an interview.) It also appears a number of internet references linking him to the Republicans can no longer be found.

Yet it is clear the Lincoln Group and its contract with the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, part of the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, is inextricably linked with Bailey. He apparently named the company and its various offshoots after Lincoln College, Oxford, from which he graduated in 1997 with an MA in economics and management.

Many observers have been surprised Bailey, from Surrey, has been awarded such a sizable contract, give that he appears to have no experience in public relations. Indeed, since he moved to the US in the late 1990s, he has spent much of his time in private finance, working in hedge funds in San Francisco and New York.

It appears he has been especially interested in new technology markets. A brief biography presented by the organisers of a conference held earlier this year in Dubai at which Bailey was listed as a speaker, said he had worked in Palo Alto, California, "where he advised portfolio companies and identified, evaluated and developed emerging technology investments".

The Briton has always enjoyed a reputation for business. Several Oxford associates said it was rumoured that the popular student kept two computers in his room to monitor the stock markets. Bailey has said he founded and sold two companies while an undergraduate. "He was quite enterprising, I believe," said Graham De'ath, of Winchester, who was in the same year.

Kate Smurthwaite, who is now a stand-up comic but shared a flat with Bailey in his third year, told The Independent that the young entrepreneur hired a personal assistant to work for him in his student digs as he ran an operation selling self-help advice on cassettes.

He also had a reputation as a hard-working networker. While in New York he became treasurer of the Oxonian Society, a club for graduates of Oxford and other universities, which invites high-profile figures to speak. He was involved in at least one charity fundraising effort with other hedge-funders. Perhaps of more significance, Bailey became the co-chairman of the New York chapter of Lead21, a networking group for young Republicans. At least a dozen of its members have gone on to work for either the Bush administration, Congress or the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

During a Lead21 trip to the Republican National Convention in New York last autumn, Bailey said of his colleagues to one reporter: "These are going to be the big supporters, the big donors, to the Republican Party in five years."

According to other members, Bailey was very popular. Auren Hoffman, chair of Lead21 and chairman of the Stonebrick Group, a San Francisco-based consulting firm, said Bailey was a good friend. "Christian is a terrific guy personally. Everyone I know that has ever met him instantly likes him. He is very likeable and charming. Very intelligent. Very interesting."

When he moved to Washington, his reputation as a networker continued. He often hosted parties at home and mixed with a set of young, up-and-coming journalists and congressional staffers. He enjoyed a reputation as a good cook, a welcoming host and for making cappuccinos with a machine in his kitchen. He also enjoyed flying: Federal Aviation Administration records show that he is qualified to fly aeroplanes and helicopters.

How and when did Bailey make the switch from hedge funds to private intelligence and PR? One clue is provided by the Alternative Investment News newsletter of 1 March 2003, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. It reported Bailey's hedge fund, Lincoln Asset Management Group, had launched a buyout fund to start buying companies in the defence and security industries. Bailey said he had obtained commitments of $100m from six institutional investors, whom he declined to name.

Apparently with an eye to the preparations for war being made in the deserts of northern Kuwait, he added: "[The] timing is extremely good to look at defence companies." Shortly afterwards, a subsidiary called Lincoln Alliance Corp was established, offering what it called "tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with critical intelligence challenges".

By last autumn Bailey had formed another Lincoln subsidiary, called Iraqex, which seems to have formed a partnership with another American PR firm called Rendon, famous in Washington for having promoted Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress.

At some point Bailey also went into business with Paige Craig, 31, a former US Marine who served in Iraq and elsewhere. [Bailey and Craig are flatmates in a fashionable part of Washington, close to U Street. The flat is just yards away from Café Saint- Ex, popular with young professionals.]

In September, Iraqex won a $6m Pentagon contract to design and execute "an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the Coalition's goals and gain their support". It appears one project was an attempt to persuade the Iraqi and US public that Iraqi troops played a vital role in last year's effort to clear Fallujah.

A strategy document obtained by ABC News revealed the Lincoln Group was seeking to promote the "strength, integrity and reliability of Iraqi forces during the fight for Falujah". In reality, most assessments suggest the small number of Iraqi troops present were minimally involved.

But the real breakthrough came this summer when Bailey's company, having again changed its name to the Lincoln Group, secured a $100m contract for information and psychological operations. Part of the contract was for placing "faux" news stories in some of the 200 Iraqi-owned newspapers that now exist.

Pentagon officials have said that, while not factually incorrect, these stories only presented one side of the story and would not include anything negative about the occupation. It was reported this week that the $10Om was part of a larger $300m "stealth PR effort" in a number of countries around the world.

One PR consultant with experience of the private-intelligence sector, said: "Doctrinally, this is all part of what the military calls information superiority. It is part of the plan for what they call, rather upsettingly, full-spectrum dominance. The truth is that it is just propaganda. And there has always been propaganda in a war. And this is a war, so ... thus runs the thinking."

According to reports from former Lincoln employees, their main task was to take news dispatches, called storyboards, which had been written by specially trained psy-ops troops, have them translated into Arabic and then distribute them to the newspapers. They would also deal directly with members of the Iraqi media through something called the Baghdad Press Club, a group of journalists who were paid to write and publish positive stories. Typically, Lincoln paid newspapers between $40 and $2,000 to run the articles as either news or adverts.

To help it carry out its work, Bailey and Craig - the latter is apparently responsible for most of the Iraq-based end of the business - have reached out to some of the foremost specialists in security and intelligence. Among "advisers" listed on their website is Andrew Garfield, a former British military-intelligence officer and specialist in psychological warfare who has advised the Ministry of Defence. In an e-mail to The Guardian Garfield confirmed his collaboration with Lincoln but gave no details.

Another adviser is Colin Rees Mason, who two years ago received an OBE for his service as a lieutenant-colonel in the Territorial Army, and who for almost 20 years has been a consultant to the Centre for Operational Research and Defence Analysis, a subsidiary of BAE Systems.

The Lincoln Group also has Republican links. Among lobbyists registered to represent it are Charles Black, an adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr and Marlin "Buzz" Hefti, who served as a director at the Pentagon.

Lincoln Group also lists as a partner the Virginia-based private intelligence group WCV3 Security. Last year that company's executive vice-president took unpaid leave to produce Stolen Honour: Wounds That Never Heal, a film that, at a critical time in the presidential election campaign, condemned the Democrat John Kerry and questioned his version of events in Vietnam.

Despite the concern on Capitol Hill about the placing of false stories in foreign media outlets - a practice that dates back to the Cold War - it is unknown what will be the outcome of the Pentagon's investigation. It is also unclear how the controversy has affected the ability of the Lincoln Group or Bailey to fulfil its contract. In a statement the company said: "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq. We counter the lies, intimidation, and pure evil of terror with factual stories that highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and their struggle for freedom and security."



Comment on this Article


Flashback: Godalming geek made millions running the Pentagon's propaganda war in Iraq

The Times December 24, 2005 By Patrick Foster and Tim Reid in Washington

IT WAS astounding enough for Washington’s political elite: last month they discovered that the man at the heart of a scandal over the planting of US propaganda in Iraqi newspapers was a dapper but unknown 30-year-old Oxford graduate who had somehow managed to land a $100 million Pentagon contract.

What is even more remarkable however, after an investigation by The Times, is that just ten years ago Christian Bailey, whose US company is under investigation for planting fake news stories in Iraqi newspapers, was a nerdy, socially awkward English school-leaver called Jozefowicz.


The transformation of the geeky but ambitious Christian Jozefowicz, who just a few years ago was growing up in a modest terraced house in Godalming, Surrey, to the charming, baby-faced multimillionaire Christian Bailey now rubbing shoulders with some of the most powerful figures in Washington — and who next year will probably face questions on Capitol Hill about his company — is one of the more extraordinary stories to have emerged from the Iraq war.

This month it was revealed that Mr Bailey’s US company, the Lincoln Group, was the recipient of a Pentagon contract to help to fight the information war in Iraq. It then emerged that the company was paying Iraqi journalists to plant optimistic news “stories” in Iraqi papers that had been written by the US military.

Interference with the press touches a raw nerve in America. The fake stories revelation provoked a furore among Republicans and Democrats. President Bush said he was “very troubled” by it. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has promised a Pentagon investigation. Congress plans hearings into the scandal.

The journey from the Royal Grammar School, Guildford, which Mr Bailey left in 1994, to the heart of K Street in Washington, the centre of money and influence in the US capital, has been remarkably rapid. Today he has a reputation in Washington for being a socialite with links to influential Republicans. He is a helicopter and aircraft pilot and his home is in a fashionable area.

Through a Lincoln Group spokesman, Mr Bailey answered questions from The Times to help to explain how, at just 30, he landed the Pentagon as an important client. He was born Christian Martin Jozefowicz on November 28, 1975, in Kingston upon Thames, to Jerzy and Anne Jozefowicz.

His father, a Polish architect, died in April 1998. His mother, who has since reverted to her maiden name of Seifert, was born in West Germany. The family lived in East Molesey, southwest London, before moving to Godalming, Surrey.

Mr Bailey’s Royal Grammar School contemporaries recall a business-obsessed, “geeky” individual with few friends. “He was a nerd at school,” one told The Times. Another described him as a “school joke” who told everyone he was going to be a millionaire. He was the first at school to have a mobile phone and was interested in early versions of the personal computer.

He founded a Young Enterprise company, Chameleon, which led to his selection as one of the top six Young Enterprise participants in Britain.

His school yearbook records Christian Jozefowicz as “Mr Business himself” and that he was elected vice-president of the International Student Forum, a business gathering in the US. In 1994 he won a place at Lincoln College, Oxford, where he read economics and management. He kept computers in his room, thought for monitoring the stock markets.

In his third year at Oxford he hired an assistant to help him to run his first proper company, Linck Ltd, which sold self-help tapes. In 1998, he changed his name to Bailey. “Following his father’s death, Bailey assumed the name for family reasons, something which children commonly do,” a Lincoln Group spokesman said. In the late 1990s he moved to San Francisco to try his hand as a dotcom entrepreneur, and then to New York, where he became treasurer of the Oxonion Society, a club for intellectual Anglophiles. He became co-chairman of a networking group for young Republicans. With his Republican contacts growing, Mr Bailey moved to Washington, where he spotted a golden business opportunity: the looming war in Iraq. He formed a partnership with Paige Craig, a former US Marine who served in Iraq.

In early 2003, just before the invasion, Mr Bailey formed a Lincoln subsidiary, the Lincoln Alliance Corp, offering “tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with intelligence challenges”. He also formed another subsidiary, Iraqex, which won a $6 million Pentagon contract to launch “an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the c oalition’s goals and gain their support”.

The big breakthrough came in June this year when the Pentagon awarded the Lincoln Group a contract worth up to $100 million over five years to support the US military’s “joint psychological operations”, known as “psyops”.

Lincoln group defended the planting of stories and the company has emphasised that none of them were factually incorrect. “By not speaking through the local media, the coalition would allow a vacuum for rumours and untruths perpetrated by the insurgents’ thuggery and threats,” a spokesman said.

LIFE AND WORK

November 28, 1975: Born Christian Jozefowicz, Kingston upon Thames

1987-94: Attends the fee-paying Royal Grammar School, Guildford

1993-94: Listed on electoral roll as Christian Jozefowicz-Seifert

1994-97: Obtains a 2:1 in economics and management from Lincoln College, Oxford. While at university, runs Linck Ltd.

October 1998: Founds Linck Corporate Finance under the name of Christian Bailey. Fails to declare previous surname or other directorship

1999: Moves to America

2003: Co-founds Lincoln Group, now subject to investigation into planting of US military propaganda in Iraqi newspapers



Comment on this Article


Flashback: Jack Idema Case: Shredding Propaganda: Mariah Blake/Tin Soldier

cao's blog

I have read this over numerous times and I just have to laugh at what passes for "journalism" these days. I thought I'd start picking apart the inflammatory lies of "Tin Soldier" by Mariah Blake from Columbia Journalism Review–you know, just for kicks. Again, her piece is going to be in bold type because I’ll be quoting from other articles and sources to punctuate certain points.
Let's begin by acknowledging up front that Zalmay Khalilzad was an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University from 1979-1986, which might explain quite a bit about this piece to begin with.
Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad was confirmed on June 16, 2005 and sworn in on June 22, 2005 as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.

Dr. Khalilzad was U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and also served as Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan.

Before becoming Ambassador to Afghanistan, he served at the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Islamic Outreach and Southwest Asia Initiatives, and prior to that as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East, and North African Affairs. He also has been a Special Presidential Envoy and Ambassador at Large for the Free Iraqis.

Dr. Khalilzad headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Department of Defense and has been a Counselor to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

Between 1993 and 1999, Dr. Khalilzad was Director of the Strategy, Doctrine and Force Structure program for RAND's Project Air Force. While with RAND, he founded the Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

Between 1991 and 1992, Dr. Khalilzad served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning. Then-Secretary of Defense Cheney awarded Dr. Khalilzad the Department of Defense medal for outstanding public service.

Dr. Khalilzad also served as a senior political scientist at RAND and an associate professor at the University of California at San Diego in 1989 and 1991.

From 1985 to 1989 at the Department of State, Dr. Khalilzad served as Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs working policy issues, advising on the Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. From 1979 to 1986, Dr. Khalilzad was an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University.

Dr. Khalilzad received his bachelor's and master's degree from the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. He went on to earn a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Dr. Khalilzad is the author of more than 200 books, articles, studies, and reports. His work has been translated in many languages including Arabic, Chinese, German, Japanese, and Turkish.
Ok, now for some fun.
In April, 2004, a former US Special Forces Soldier named Jonathan Keith Idema started shopping a sizzling story to the media.
Is that so? So in those few sentences you have set the stage and have pinned him as some sort of of a con man "shopping a sizzling story"…
He claimed terrorists in Afghanistan planned to use bomb-laden taxicabs to kill key US and Afghan officials, and that he himself intended to thwart the attack.
So he if I'm to swallow what you're saying here, I'm to follow the assumption that Jack had a crystal ball and planned all this out head of time? Where is your proof that he was saying this before the fact or are we to accept what you're saying merely at face value?

That's the problem with so much of this, the statements are made but no verfiable facts are offered so we're just supposed to blindly believe and go along with it.
Shortly thereafter, he's headed to Afghanistan, where he spent the next two months conducting a series of raids with his team, which he called Task Force Saber 7. By late June, he claimed to have captured the plotters, and started trying to clinch a deal with television networks by offering them "direct access" to one of the terrorists who, he said, had agreed to tell all.
hmmm. My recollection of these early events are that Idema was in Afghanistan in 2001, before these events and it was reported by your buddies in the AP. You know, Nahrin Earthquake (where he was depicted as a hero), Anaconda (where he was depicted as a hero), etc.

But all that aside, here's the true story in a nutshell: Gulumsaki was nabbed getting off a bus, and was caught red-handed with a letter from his brother at Gitmo in his pocket. The real news is what all of that intelligence led to.

And contrary to news reports and blogging frauds, CBS had a representative present who was recording everything in addition to Caraballo. You see, CBS originally had an interest in this story. They were interested in reporting on how Idema's methods were different than those demonstrated by the idiots at Abu Grhaib. In essence, their intention was to report that Abu Ghraib was the exception and not the rule.
In exchange for footage and access, Idema wanted a minimum of $250,000 and prominent play. He asked that ABC send Peter Jennings or Cristopher Cuomo to cover the story. Ultimately ABC turned the story down, as did CNN, a CBS spokesperson, Kelli Edwards, says the network "never seriously considered" it, although Idema was regularly e-mailing Dan Rather's office and in June, the network sent two employees to Idema's Kabul headquarters to pick up the sample tape.
That's interesting, because Idema didn't talk to anyone but CBS about this. It was Caraballo who had a relationship with ABC and nobody talked with CNN. And to be sure, there is so much more to CBS's involvement in this story!

CBS wanted to confirm reports that Idema and his team had captured the brother-in-law of bin Laden's chief of security and the terrorists responsible for the murder of Canadian ISAF Corporal Jamie Brendan Murphy. Corporal Murphy had been murdered in a bombing on Darlaman Road in Kabul on January 27, 2004. Once CBS confirmed this, they saw it as an important story against the war on terror.

Idema told CBS that approval for the story would have to be obtained by the Department of Defense before he could discuss his relationship with Bagram or Task Force 180. Idema told CBS that any story should focus on the United Front Military Forces' continued efforts to combat Al Qaeda and why Massoud's UFMF needed continued American supported in their counter terrorist operations.

CBS's bureau chief, with the approval of Andrew Hayward and others, were inside Sabre 7's compound during the period when several terrorists were in custody an awaiting transfer to Bagram. CBS's Michael Brandenberg was at the compound on numerous occasions, and even spoke directly with Osama Bin Laden's chief of security's brother in law.

CBS said they wanted to show how co-opting a terrorist accomplished more than humiliation by untrained interrogators. Idema allowed CBS to transmit interrogation video back to the US from the CBS Kabul office.
Idema, who was paying an Emmy Award-winning cameraman to document his activities, even distributed a sample tape of himself arresting people and interrogating hooded suspects. In one scene he is shown blocking a road and emptying passing vehicles. "Put your fucking hands up or I'll blow your fucking brains out," he screams at a group of men who have shuffled bewilderedly off a bus and are standing with their flimsy tunics whipping in the wind.
Jack did not pay Caraballo to be a cameraman in Afghanistan. My sources tell me that Jack did not even want to bring Caraballo, or any journalist, and the Army asked him to bring three different journalists, all of which Jack turned down.

Wow, Mariah, pretty dramatic screenplay you're writing there. I wonder why you completely turned around on this. You didn't mention how impressed you were with Idema and how you were talking about how great Idema was after viewing those tapes.

Jack dictated a legal contract and within a day or so, there was a response from Columbia Journalism review that it didn't meet with their "objective" hoity-toity "truth telling" standards. HA! And that they would not comply. AND, they contacted Polaris images to get the same photographs licensed for use that Stacy Sullivan had used (if I'm not mistaken) ILLEGALLY in HER hit piece. So someone is trying to cover for Stacy Sullivan's putting her neck out there on this one.

The clip where their robes were 'whipping in the wind" (if I'm not mistaken) was the one where Ghulamsaki was caught red-handed with the Red Cross letter from his brother at Gitmo in his pocket as he got off a bus. The only reason that Idema and his men got the guy was because they had excellent intelligence on where he would be and when. Some guys claim they just drive around and see what happens. Idema isn't one of those.

These captured terrorists were working with and/or for; Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, Gulbideen Hekmatyar, Hezb-i-Islami, and the Taliban. Specifically, these terrorists had participated in, supported, and/or personally conducted terrorist bomb attacks against foreign and domestic persons in Afghanistan. A prime target of these terrorists was U.S. military forces at Bagram Airbase north of Kabul in Afghanistan. In fact, the American FBI later confirmed Task Force Saber/7's intelligence reports that several of the terrorists were going to drive fuel trucks into Bagram and explode them into U.S. military barracks in a terrorist bomb attack similar to the bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983 in which 244 U.S. Marines were killed. Using a rare incendiary explosive to detonate fuel tanks on the gas trucks entering Bagram daily, and taxis, the terrorists expected to kill more than 500 American soldiers, two ministers, and two ambassadors in at least five separate coordinated attacks. These same terrorists had already made at least one attempt on the Defence Minister, and two failed attempts on the 3rd Corps commander, General Attiquallah Lodeen, a close friend and trusted ally of the United States and a candidate for Parliament.

Several of the captured terrorists were directly involved in the killing of Canadian Lance Corporal Jamie Murphy on January 27, 2004 in Kabul, the killing and wounding of election and aid workers in Nangahar and other provinces in Afghanistan, the attack of NATO ISAF forces in Kabul, and were currently planning and coordinating the assassinations of several of Karzai's key political opponents in the Jamiat Party, including his Minister of Defense, Minister of Education, several Corps Commanders (former Northern Alliance Generals), and at least two Afghan Ambassadors (in Delhi and London) who supported the U.S. War on Terror. The Minister of Education, Yunis Qanooni, was the lead opponent to Karzai in Afghanistan's new election under the Bonn Agreement, and was a prime target of the terrorists, along with Marshall Fahim, the Minister of Defence, and General Rashid Dostum.

All of the terrorists had been arrested by Task Force Saber/7 with either actual explosives, detonators, bomb parts, and/or bomb plans in their possession, as well as documents and correspondence proving their links and association with the Taliban, Hezb-i-Islami, and al-Qaida, including handwritten maps and diagrams of a past bomb attack on General Lodeen, a Shabnama "night letter" calling for a jihad against Americans authored by none other than Mullah Omar himself, and in the case of a terrorist named Ghulamsaki a coded Red Cross letter from his brother (Mohammed Asef), an al-Qaida detainee in Cuba. Additionally, one of the terrorist's taxis tested positive for explosives by German ISAF bomb teams. The physical evidence against the terrorists was irrefutable, conclusive, and backed-up by incriminating videotaped statements, undercover surveillance, informants, and extraordinary physical evidence.

Comment: What Cao doesn't seem to be able to grok is that this is the clue to the real reason Jack Idema was cut loose to dangle in the wind, and then "Swiftboated" when he complained about it. It is obvious that the "Al-Quaeda Terrorists" that Jack Idema was capturing were CIA ASSETS! The U.S. did not want their assets captured! They wanted them to continue to attack the U.S. forces, they wanted them to continue to act as "bogeymen" to scare the American people. And most of all, they did not want it discovered that Osama was dead and there was NO connection between him and Iraq.

Without this key understanding, poor Cao simply has no explanation for his rant. Yes, he see's what happened, but he doesn't understand what is really going on.
It appears that Idema still hadn't sold the taxicab story by July 5, when his situation took a turn for the worse. The Afghan police raided his headquarters and discovered eight prisoners, some of them tethered to chairs in a back room, which was littered with bloody cloth. The men told reporters that they had been starved, beaten, doused with scalding water, and forced to languish for days in their own feces.
Give me a break. The red cross reports showed absolutely no evidence of torture except for one guy–some abrasions on his ankle because the flexicuffs were on too tight, and he was struggling to get out of them. No pictures emerged of the "bloody cloth", either. And do you think if there were pictures of actual torture that the media wouldn't have had a field day broadcasting them?

As far as I recall, the actual complaint was that he wasn't allowed to take a PISS for 12 hours, and that violated Islamic law. That's a little bit different than languishing "for days in their own feces". All of the other things were later done to Jack and his men at Saderat after they were taken into custody on July 6.

Of course, there was one picture that was put up at ABC Australia that showed Jack stitching up the terrorist Sherajan. Someone wrote that what he was doing in that picture was some weird kind of Nazi torture technique of removing brain tissue or some garbage. Actually, people at Bagram said he had fixed up that wound rather well and it was healing nicely. So those reports of Jack "torturing innocent Afghans" is so far off the mark it's breathtaking. Sharajan was also captured in May, long before the events that led up to their arrest on July 6.

CBS' Michael Brandenburg was at the compound on numerous occasions, and witnessed the interrogation of Al Qaeda terrorists at the compound. Idema allowed CBS' representative to watch the interrogation of Corporal Murphy's killers, and view each of the terrorists in custody. Brandenburg was also allowed to speak directly with the brother-in-law of Bin Laden's Chief of Security, who was cooperating fully and willingly. CBS employees saw the methods of interrogation, the physical condition of the terrorist, and the conditions of the terrorists' detention, and knew that no torture was occuring.

They didn't, of course, admit this after Idema's arrest because that would have indicated they were present and knew how Idema was conducting the questioning of the terrorists. So instead of telling the truth, they withheld information and proof that these men were innocent of the charges, and instead, put out the same lies the others were reporting.
Afghan authorities determined that none of the detainees had links to terrorism and set them free. Idema, on the other hand, was arrested, along with two other Americans (the cameraman and a former soldier) and four Afghans, and charged with running an unauthorized prison and torturing inmates. After a cursory trial, he was sentence to serve ten years. (This case is on appeal.)
Yes, the taliban kangaroo court allowed the terrorists to go free, and in August, there was a bombing at Bagram. Yeah. No links to terrorism. Ghulumsaki was one of the perpetrators in that bombing.

The taliban judge (in the first trial), the former soviet communist interpreter and all the rest–didn't follow any of the rules of law…and later, the two main guys who were touting the story of abuse (Jalili and Mashal) resigned their posts (to save face) and ran off because they were exposed as the Taliban. Judge Sidiq was exposed as the taliban, linked to Hekmatyar (a buddy of Bin Laden's).

There was a vast difference in the terrorist interrogations done by Idema and the experienced intelligence agents working with him as compared to the young interrogators at Abu Ghraib and other locations. CBS' Bureau Chief said Heyward wanted to compare Idema's effective interrogation techniques with the poor techniques used at Abu Ghraib. CBS said they wanted to show how co-opting a terrorist accomplished more than humiliation by untrained interrogators. Idema allowed CBS to transmit interrogation video back to the US from the CBS Kabul office.

Just a few hours after Michael Brandenburg left for the last time, Idema was arrested by anti-UFMF forces, at the request of Interior Minister Ahmad Ali Jalali (exposed later as Taliban or officially "former" Taliban) of "running a torture chamber", "torturing innocent Afghans", and other illegal conduct. Three other false claims by Jalali were that Idema had "innocent Afghans hung from the ceiling in his basement", that the terrorists were being "abused, tortured and starved" and that Idema and his men were "rounding up innocent Muslims with long beards" (only 3 of 11 had long beards).

CBS and other news networks piled on and reported Jalali's false claims and similar false allegations by Jalali's spokesman Lutfullah Mashal. Ahmad Ali Jalali was a former Voice of America radio news translator in Washington, DC. Jalali, a vehemently anti-UFMF (Northern Alliance) Pashtun from the south, is alleged to have had a prior relationship with CBS News and Fox News. CBS News had also worked with Lutfullah Mashal in the past. Mashal was a former translator for journalists during the 2001/2002 war and had close connections with the Taliban. Idema had warned both CBS and FOX about Mashal's Taliban connections in 2001 and 2002, yet they still employed Mashal and worked with him during that time.

Interestingly enough, since these events have taken place, Mashal and Jalali "resigned".

Don't these so-called journalists realize how transparent their attempts are at this fakery and fraudulent news reporting?

Note how several of these pieces have come out where they use the same terms, and the same so-called "sources" and "experts" who have turned out to be complete lying frauds. It's like a handful of journalists are using a handful of lying sources, and writing the same lies to cover for each other while destroying the reputation of someone who's a legend in SF Ops and deserves much better than this. After what he did–I think he deserves at least a medal! And instead, he got imprisonment and torture with FBI agents laughing in the hallway. Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
For all its outlandish twists, the saga of the taxicab plot was not extraordinary for Idema, who over the years had fed the press a variety of sensational material that seemed to shed light on the shadowy world of secret soldiers, spies and assassins. This time the story never ran, but Idema had been a key source for numerous questionable stories that did. A self-proclaimed terror-fighter who has served time for fraud, Idema took a willing media by storm, glorifying his own exploits, padding his bank account, and providing dubious information to the American public.
Oh that one is rich. Painting Idema with the same brush as assassins and spies really indicates to me that you don't understand the job of a Green Beret, or the work of special forces. Or who we're fighting, or war in general. It didn't seem to me that the AP had any problem with his record before this, when he single-handedly rescued 300 women and children after the earthquake in Nahrin. Take a look at the archived articles here. What this seems to boil down to, Ms. Blake, is media whores talk the line that sells papers. Even if it's a lie.

What happened to journalists doing RESEARCH for a piece –and providing factual information? Idema may have made some money over the years, but he has also spent much of his own money–to the point where he's virtually homeless–to fight terrorism and help the people in Afghanistan. But of course telling the truth about the man isn't as juicy as telling lies that portray him as a 'rogue bounty hunter'. I'm not sure about that, really…I'd rather see the real story told…and unfortunately I'm only seeing it because of my own research. What a sad commentary about the media!
In January 2002, Idema sold CBS sensational footage, which he called the "VideoX" tapes, that purported to show an Al Qaeda training camp in action. The tapes became the centerpiece of the bombshell 60 Minutes II piece, "Heart of Darkness", reported by Dan Rather and touted as "the most intimate look yet at how the world's deadliest terrorist organizaton trains its recruits." Idema also sold video stills to a number of press outlets, including the Boston Globe. MSNBC, ABC, NBC, the BBC, and others later replayed the tapes. Questions are now emerging about their authenticity, some of which were detailed in a piece by Stacy Sullivan in New York magazine in October.
Boy you apologists are really quick to stroke each other off, aren't you? Gotta love that one. There are no "questions about their authenticity" except those in the media, like you, who are trying to perpetrate this fraud on the public. And it would also seem that Stacy Sullivan, up until this point, was hanging out there all alone with that ridiculous piece "Operation Desert Fraud" –so someone at the Columbia Journalism Review had to come in and "rescue" her by printing the identical false accusations, using the same questionable lying fraudulent sources!

Here's Peter Bergen's response to those lies.

Last October, New York magazine raised the possibility that the Al Qaeda videotapes Idema supplied to 60 Minutes II were faked, a seemingly plausible scenario given Idema's previous fraud conviction. But when I visited the town of Mir Bacha Kot, about a half-hour north of Kabul, Deputy Police Chief Mohammed Araf told me that Arabs had indeed used the town as a military base under the Taliban, and the buildings in Mir Bacha Kot match those on the Idema-supplied tapes. A journalist from a leading U.S. media organization who evaluated the tapes told me he had no doubt they were authentic but passed on them only because Idema was demanding tens of thousands of dollars for them.

Now consider that what Bergen is saying about Idema asking tens of thousands of dollars for those tapes is true (I don't believe it for a second.). What do you suppose is the dollar value of the lengths to which he had to go to get that footage? Or the personal sacrifice that he and his family have made in order for him to do this difficult work? Is money any compensation? Probably not.

Do you realize that Idema doesn't have very much at all at present, and do you know the reasons why?

Idema hasn't asked for a dime from any journalist for those tapes. But even if he had–he's virtually homeless because he's been using his own money to fight this war on terror, and to help the Afghan people. To me, the claim that he's in this for a buck is disingenuous at best. As a matter of fact, it also seems to me as though it's the people on the other side who are trying to make a buck off him while he's in prison and can't defend himself.
Idema also served as an expert military commentator on Fox News and was a lead character in Robin Moore's best-selling book "The Hunt for Bin Laden", which was supposed to chronicle the exploits of U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan. And he fielded hundreds of interviews with major newspapers, television networks, and radio stations, which seem to take his swaggering claims–that he was an active-duty Green Beret in Afghanistan, an undercover spy, an explosives expert, and a key player in the hunt for Osama bin Laden–at face value.
He IS all of those things. And for your all of your elitist bluster, you've missed one key point about being a Green Beret. Being a Green Beret is something you earn through your training and courses you've taken. It's an honorary award that President Kennedy began to bestow on SF operatives. IT NEVER GOES AWAY.

From Wikipedia:

Their official motto is De opresso liber ("To liberate the oppressed").

The Green Beret was originally unauthorized for wear by the U.S. Army. It was legitimized by President John F. Kennedy who encouraged the wearing of the beret by the Special Forces. Preparing for an October 12, 1961 visit to the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the President sent word to the center's commander, Brigadier General William P. Yarborough, for all Special Forces soldiers to wear the beret as part of the event. The President felt that since they had a special mission, Special Forces should have something to set them apart from the rest. In 1962, he called the Green Beret "a symbol of excellence, a badge of courage, a mark of distinction in the fight for freedom."

The Green Beret is an AWARD. All other headgear and uniforms are issued when you are assigned to a unit. Dr.'s are not called former doctors, Rangers are not called former Rangers, nor are SEALs called former SEALs, because these are awards which have specific requirements, such as graduating specific schools. I've never seen any article declaring that Idema is active military–to the contrary; he's a Green Beret, and a specialist in several areas as was described in this post.

C'mon, Miss Blake, do your homework. Well actually if you'd done your homework, this piece would have turned out very differently, that is obvious.
Idema used the platform the media provided to spread dubious information, much of it with curcial implications for national security and foreign policy. For example, he claimed to have uncovered a plot to assassinate Bill Clinton; that Bin Laden was dead, and that the Taliban was poisoning the food that the United States was air dropping to feed hungry Afghans. (In fact, people were getting sick from eating the dessicant packed with the food.)
Oh that's interesting, Miss Blake. The Guardian reported on this in 1998 and is it a coincidence that Jack Idema isn't mentioned in the article??? I don't ever quote the Guardian because it's a socialist rag, but listen to this:
Counter-terrorism and intelligence sources say Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York, was due to carry out the killing in Manila.

He allegedly told FBI agents escorting him to New York for his bombing trial that he planned to kill Mr Clinton by blowing up his motorcade with a missile or explosives, but gave up because the security was so tight.

Yousef, it is reported, did not say Mr Bin Laden was behind the plot. But one of his co-defendants, Walk Khan Amin Shah, once a senior aide to Mr Bin Laden, allegedly said the order had come from the Saudi millionaire, who now lives in Afghanistan.
Would those counter terrorism sources be Jack Idema? They don't name their source of that information in the article by name.

BTW, the only place I can find the information about Jack claiming the Taliban was poisoning the people is on the websites which are stupid enough to have spread around your bullshit article.

Ted Kavanau tells me that the dessicant story is actually quite different than you describe. Actually, if you'd bothered to check, it was document in several places. In Jon Lee Anderson's "The Lion's Grave":
His first mission was to provide ground assistance to the air drops of U.S. humanitarian aid rations. He had also conducted an investigation into the rumors circulating among Afghans that the rations were poisoned.

"I found out who did it," Jack said, "and it was not Al Qaeda or the Taliban. And there wasn't any poison. The people were eating the desiccant" –the preservative drying agent—"that comes in little packets in each ration pack. It says "Do Not Eat" in English, French, Spanish and Chinese. But not in Farsi or Pashto. They thought it was spices! So there were some severe injuries and several presumed deaths. One guy who died ate the Handi Wipes, the desiccant—everything. These people, I mean they don't even have napkins, how do they know what a Handi Wipe is? I gather he thought it smelled good, so he ate it." Other people had become ill, Jack found, because many of the ration packs had exploded on impact, and the food inside had been exposed and become contaminated. Jack said that he wrote a report that was sent to DOD, and about a week later the problems were sorted out.
And in Hunt for Bin Laden.
Even though they had six DZs (drop zones) mapped and ready to receive food drops, the Air Force continued to drop the food packs blind, suing what was referred to as "flutter method," an untested procedure where the HDRs were simply dumped out of the back of cargo planes. Idema was not happy with the way food drops were being conducted and started firing off messages to his friends at Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, and the Pentagon. While he waited for a response he started collecting airdropped food packs. Recovering some from the mountains and the desert floor, he paid the Afghans $5 each out of his own pocket so they could purchase rice instead. The Afghans had claims the HDRs were making them ill. Once Idema had a selection of HDR samples from across northeastern Afghanistan, the investigation quickly took an unexpected turn.

The packs had desiccant in them, a drying agent and moisture retardant that was packaged in small paper pouches and looked just like Afghan medicine or the spice packets in Russian noodles. Afghans started eating the desiccant. Sick Afghans started eating even more, thinking the U.S. was kindly dropping medicine. Idema's civilian team fired off a report that Afghans were getting sick from desiccant. One village even claimed a man had died. (HDRs were printed in English, French, German and Spanish, nonexistent languages in remote Afghan villages. Eventually the Air Force started dropping cartoon leaflets that explained how to eat the food.)

Colin Powell received a copy of the team's email and wanted answers. Natick Labs in Massachusetts initiatially denied the report and told the Pentagon and Powell that there was no desiccant in the HDRs. Washington believed them. The message returned to Idema's team from "higher up" said the team was wrong, their intel was bad, and they were basically out in left field and unreliable.

Pissed off, Idema went back to the drawing board. Twenty-four hours later he was emailing digital pictures of desiccant packs via INMARSAT. In the process he discovered something far worse.

The HDRs had been packed in Texas, Indiana, and South Carolina at low altitudes. They had been dropped at altitudes far exceeding ten thousand feet. The sealed packs expanded in the air, and then hit the ground at terminal velocity, exploding the sealed food inside and causing slight tears in the other protective plastic wrapper. Exposed to the rugge Aghan terrain and harsh elements, the food inside rapidly spoiled and became contaminated. Digital pictures were transmitted through INMARSAT to Fort Benning's Battle Lab.

Idema got word that Donald Rumsfeld had demanded answers from Natick. The following day the team was excstatic, a Natick official admitted the presence of desiccant and the more important contamination problem, stating that government contrators had violated DoD (Department of Defense) product specifications.
Yeah, here's a "rogue" warrior criminal guy who a) doesn't care about the Afghan people and b) has no contacts in Washington. Give me a break.

Idema never told anyone that the Taliban was poisoning the food that the Americans were dropping into Afghanistan as humanitarian aid to starving people. You could easily speculate that the American government itself started to talk that way–in the beginning when they were denying that desiccants were in the food.

Here's an SF Operator comment [thanks, Dan]:
I would like to add that ANYONE that doubts your facts can contact ANY member of TIGER 03 (JSOTF Codename for ODA 595- 5th Special Forces Group (ABN), Fort Campbell, KY).

If you check the early October 2001 Reports from the DOD, I think you will find that it was the DOD PAO and an ASD who stated at a PRESS CONFERENCE that THEY believed the Taliban was poisoning the airdrops in Northern Afghanistan (I was already in the ISOFAC preparing to deploy when we were briefed on it).

During the press conference the DOD was defending dropping food and not bombs on Northern Afghanistan, which was of course the RIGHT thing to do because these people were, and are still, our allies, even if the American State Department has now deserted them and has us working with the new ANA (a joke of a Keystone Cop army).

Jack Idema went into Northern Afghanistan with a primary mission to find out who WAS poisoning the food drops and to get more food drops to the Northern Alliance and get the right kind of food landing on actual drop zones instead of USAF "blind drops." This was secretly coordinated by the DAT at both the American and Afghan Embassies in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

Jack Idema found out the real cause of the poisoning and HDR problems. Idema FIXED the problem single handily, through initiative, ingenuity, and pure guts.

Make no mistake about it, four of the men on my team currently here in Afghanistan know for absolute fact that Jack Idema's version of the HDR story is true.
Kavanau called the Pentagon and they denied these packets were packed in that food. PLUS, there were several reporters who claimed they broke the dessicant story FIRST and were pissed that Idema picked it up as though it were his. That's the only problem here–Idema never said the Taliban was poisoning the food. That's utter BS, but it goes along with the rest of the BS flavor of this piece.

I can pick holes in every single paragraph of this thing… I'm going to stop at the piece de resistance…just a few more to go…This next one is priceless…
Idema's career as a media personality reached its peak during the final breathless weeks of the run-up to the war in Iraq. Much of the information he provided during that period echoed the Bush administration's hotly contested rationale for the war. He told MSNBC that the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda was "common knowledge" on the ground in Afghanistan, and claimed in an interview with WNYC radio's Leonard Lopate that "Iraq has been involved in supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with money, with equipment, with technology, with weapons of mass destruction." He told other wide-eyed journalists that there was ample evidence linking "Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to Al Qaeda and to the attacks on September 11," and professed to have firsthand knowledge of nuclear weapons being smuggled from Russia to all three members of the "axis of evil"–Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Few in the media questioned Idema's claims, much to the alarm of some who knew him.
This is too much, . The "rationale for the war" is not, nor has it ever been "hotly contested". An neither is the Saddam/Iraq/Al Qaeda/Bin Laden Connection. Only where the myth plays dramatically–in the no-account clueless world of the media.

Comment: And here, Cao loses the thread that would lead him to the truth again: the Complicity of the U.S. government in the 9-11 attacks and the subsequent use of those events to initiate an illegal war against Iraq. There is no Saddam/Iraq/Al Qaeda/Bin Laden connection.

What familiar about all of this is how FDR was demonized in the press for the war with the nazis. At the time, Joe Kennedy tried to talk him out of it; saying that Hitler had it "in the bag". Clare Boothe Luce was the wife of Time Magazine Founder Harry Luce, and she was also a playright. Clare Boothe Luce said that FDR "lied us into war" with the nazis. So this is all eerily familiar. And as usual, the leftists are on the wrong side of history. Because as it's been pointed out before, they've been wrong about every single conflict we've ever been engaged in.

Comment: Poor Cao! He cannot see the forest for the trees! He sees what was done to his hero, Jack Idema, but he can't let go of his "I'm an Amurrikan and Amurrika is always good and right" brainwashing. It is, indeed true, that FDR lied America into WW II. Fact is, it was the so-called "Leftists" that the Nazi's were really after. It's no different today with Bush and the Neocons - Fascists vs. the Left, and poor Cao has bought the propaganda.

It is also interesting that Cao then goes on to quote from Richard Miniter's book, written to support the Neocon lies, in his arguments agains Mariah Blake, who has also written her flame piece about Jack Idema to support the Neocon lies. Note in Democracynow's inteview how Boykin, a Neocon general, cuts Idema loose when the whole Neocon gang closes ranks against Idema. But Cao apparently can't see that these are all parts of the same elephant.

Cao next struggles with this very issue, but is still unable to see the answer.

Oh yeah. I forgot. Journalism isn't about reporting facts, it's about spinning the news according to the party line. IN this case, it's about furthering "no wmd", "Bush lied, men died", etc.. So the party line on Idema was to paint him as a "rogue warrior", a backyard "paintball" enthusiast who had fantasies of 007, but who was really a criminal. I think that about sums it up.

Comment: Cao conveniently forgets that it was journalists that were "spinning the news according to the party line that there WERE WMDs in Iraq. Now, because there are journalists questioning this, he accuses them of "spinning the news according to the party line" of NO WMDs. It never occurs to him that the truth is not always found by deciding that everything is Black or White. What's more, you can't have it both ways at once.


Blake's piece demonizes one of the greatest patriots of our time; Jack Idema. I'm pretty sick of this, and I'd like to see just one large pundit–just one big blogger to pick up this story–because right now, all "news outlets" are pretty sad in my estimation–as perveyors of truth, as far as reporting anything at home or abroad accurately, fairly, or taking the best interests of our national security at heart.
"The media saw this outfitted, gregarious, apparently knowing guy, and they didn't check him out," says Ed Artis, chairman and founder of the humanitarian organization Knightsbridge International, who met Idema in Afghanistan in late 2001 and later tried to warn the government and media organizations that Idema was misrepresenting himself. "They ran story after story that furthered the cachet of a self-serving, self-aggrandizing criminal."
Whew. Put your boots on, and pull up your pantlegs. Let's take a look at this last paragraph. Who exactly is Ed Artis?

Since I've taken up this story, people are coming out of the woodwork who are surprised he hasn't gotten people killed, surprised he hasn't gotten himself killed, and more importantly, are anxious to see the truth be told.

Knightsbridge International is a supposed "humanitarian" organization that is supposedly doing good deeds. You can read about Artis' and Laws' exploits at several websites online. They talk about how Knightsbridge is a cross between Mother Teresa and Indiana Jones. If that doesn't make you roll your eyes back into their sockets, Artis' talks about being a Knight of Malta, that sounds impressive, doesn't it? But the fact is- Americans don't have Knights of anything. There are no American knights –except for the Knights of Malta, which you can join if you pay them $5,000. There are some definite similarities that I can see between Knightsbridge and George Galloway's Miriam Appeal.

Artis has reportedly taken money people thought they were paying for humanitarian work to hire photojournalists to record his exploits on film. Artis, according to my sources, has a $400,000 or so home in California, which he had quick-claimed deeded to his wife in order to avoid problems with litigation. Miriam Appeal, which was originally put together to supposedly cure a little Iraqi child of leukemia, is still collecting funds, long after the little girl was cured, paying for, in part, Galloway's lavish lifestyle. The Global Coalition to End Human Trafficking NOW has some interesting things going on, not the least of which is an investigation for charity fraud. Curiously, Christine Dolan started up another organization in order to continue defrauding people out of their money, called The International Humanitarian Campaign Against the Exploitation of Children.

Dolan's group claims connection with Knightsbridge.

In addition to that, Ed Artis has claimed -under oath–that the medals he has worn to formal events (like at an event at West Point, for example)–are fake.

During 1994, Artis scammed his way into a war zone and hitched a ride on a C-130, claimed he was "Airborne" so he could get to the capital, broke in and stole documents. He certainly isn't all that he claims to be, and you'd wonder why he'd want to steal documents and what he'd possibly be using them for? Another member of the smear Jack cabal said Artis "has helped more people than you can imagine'. Yeah, I wonder what the definition of "helped" is. Refusing to give the food you've stashed for your flabby self to starving people because all you're really looking for is pictures and movies taken of yourself "rescuing them"? Endangering a man by telling the media about his dangerous (and secret) mission, the times of the flights, etc., in order to brag that "mercs" would meet him at the airport? Supposed "Knights of Malta" who had "vowed" to "help" and would join him at New Orelans, New York, Brusssels, Kanshasa, Goma–who never showed up? But were hungry to get their hands on bloody machetes off the battlefield and sell them at a high price?

Reminds me of the stories of him in Afghanistan–buying black turbans and smearing them with chicken blood and dirt, in order to claim he'd taken them off dead Taliban or Al Qaeda and turn around and sell them. What kind of sick minds come up with this stuff?

Sure, it's sounds heroic to go to third world countries and provide any manner of relief–set yourself up as a "knight" which appeals to the elitists and opens their pocketbooks. Buy yourself a PHD from a papermill and claim you're a "doctor"–But it's also disgusting when the entire reputation–all the medals, the fake vatican passport, etc., are entirely fraudulent. When he went to Africa, he was taken into a combat zone and promising everyone he ran across, apparently not aware how dangerous things were, that he could get them a vatican passport. And from what I gather they didn't look real–they looked childish. He has (over the years) somehow managed to avoid getting people killed–which is something the people he's dealt with in places like Afghanistan still wonder at. Someone that clueless-that determined to pay for photojournalists to film him handing out blankets–and willing to re-shoot it–much like John Kerry–so he could get the best footage–is who the real man is. A man who gets almost a sexual pleasure out of self-promotion, and has a laundry list of fake exploits he's willing to wave in your face.

He is Walter Mitty in the flesh.

In just the first little more than a page–there are lies in every single paragraph of this piece! There is something wrong with this picture.
Idema's U.S. office is tucked inside a hulking brick warehouse in Fayetteville, North Carolina–home to Fort Bragg, America's largest military base and command center for the U.S. Army Special Operations. There's little to distinguish the building from its industrial surroundings except the dark-tinted windows, and the red "Restricted Access" plaque that clings to the front door. Inside, the cavernous space is cluttered with evidence of Idema's Afghan mission: crumpled boxes of medical supplies, a lime-green presentation board bearing an organizational chart for Al Qaeda, a massive topographical map of Afghanistan. Movie posters of scowling, leather-clad action heroes plaster the surrounding walls, including a particular large one from Men in Black over Idema's desk. It shows two movie stars clutching super-sized guns and reads, "Protecting the Earth from the Scum of the Universe".

The decore reflects Idema's decades-long quest to fashion himself an action hero. He joined the army in 1975 and qualified for the Special Forces, but his performance was often lacking. In an evaluation report dated July 7, 1977, Captain John D. Carlson described him as "without a doubt the most unmotivated, unprofessional, immature enlisted man that I have ever known."
In reality, John D. Carlson was a 26-year old captain who was an ROTC guy who spent a year or so in the army and got out…where is he now? And where did that "evaluation report" come from? And who really wrote it? There is no such "evluation report". John D. Carlson doesn't exist anymore and what's a certifiable fact is–John D. Carlson was a guy who might have SAID that, but he didn't write it in any report. If he did, I'd sure like to see it, because I'm certain that it was one of those fakeries made up by a certain "Colonel" who's been very good at contacting the media and feeding them fake military documents to discredit Idema. Carlson wasn't even in a position to "evaluate" Idema.
In 1978 he transferred to a reserve unit where he served until 1981, when he was relieved of his duties, in part for his irrationality and tendency toward violence. His military records indicate that he never saw combat.
Too bad you haven't seen his DD214A. ... Here again, we have a case where just about every line is manufactured by the Smear Jack Cabal or just complete garbage, so I'm going to wrap it up right here.

Comment: Now things are getting VERY interesting. As it happens, in response to the mention of Artis above, an anonymous poster added a comment to Cao's blog:
This is the best we have ever seen on Artis and his gang including Christine Dolan. But you know the old saying, scratch a conman, find a politician underneath. Seems that Charlie Black of BKSH who has a substantial piece of the $300 million Lincoln Group psyops contract for Iraq was involved with both Artis and Dolan through the questionnable child trafficking organization. In fact Black was the chairman. Mianstream media won't touch this will a ten foot pole though. Federal court docs are at: www.kronzer.org/dolan2.pdf
Where have we seen Charles Black before???

It just so happens that we met him while digging around about Simon Gray, owner of Abovetopsecret.com. Seems that Charles Black is a lobbyist for Christian Bailey's outfit, the psyops gang that just got the $100 K contract from the Pentagon. Here's the scoop on Bailey from Laura's Blog:
I'm still amused at the idea that "Simon Gray" of AboveTopSecret.com is obviously a Brit "specializing" in American conspiracies . It seems that this is not exactly an isolated case. In recent times the Pentagon's contract with another Brit, for the purposes of spreading disinformation, came to the attention of the mainstream media. Let's look at the strange case of "Christian Bailey.":
So, just who is Christian Bailey?

A 30-year-old Oxford graduate with no public relations experience was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.

[LKJ: Deliberately ONE SIDED STORIES? Shades of AboveTopSecret!]

The office building situated at 1420 K Street NW has nothing obvious to commend it other than its prime location. Just a couple of streets from the north-west gates of the White House, it sits in the heart of lobbying land - the K Street corridor that represents one of the most crucial centres of power, influence and money in the United States.

This grey building, neighboured to one side by an off-licence and to the other by a travel agent, is home to the Lincoln Group, a previously little-known "business intelligence" company headed by a heretofore little known young Briton, Christian Bailey, an Oxford graduate and consummate net worker. He is at the centre of a mounting storm of controversy surrounding the Bush administration's covert propaganda war in Iraq.

[LKJ: It will be very useful to have read the links to the "Let'sRoll9-11 discussion board given above to see the connection between AboveTopSecret.com and the covert propaganda war in Iraq. VERY interesting connections those folks found!]

It was recently revealed that Bailey's company was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.

[LKJ: Deliberately ONE SIDED STORIES? Shades of AboveTopSecret! And we notice how vigorously they tried to place those stories on our own site! Does this mean that CatHerder is "psy-ops"?]

As part of the project - in which the US military hid its involvement - Lincoln Group staff paid Iraqi journalists to write similarly misleading stories about US forces and the Iraqi government that ignored anything negative about the occupation. One headline read: "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism."

The revelations have created a furore. President Bush is said to be "very troubled" by the news, while on Capitol Hill members of both the Senate and House armed services committees demanded inquiries. The Pentagon said it would launch an immediate investigation.

Much is unclear about the Lincoln Group, its youthful executive vice-president and his string of previous companies that have left only the faintest paper trail. Indeed, Christian Bailey may not be his real name: a number of student associates said at some point during his four years that he changed his name from Yusefovich - an unlikely surname for someone called Christian.

[LKJ: Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]

The Independent has been unable to confirm this. Yet the details known about Bailey and the contract his company won provide a remarkable insight into the way influence and power operate in Washington. Just two years after arriving here, Bailey, 30, who has a penchant for socialising, has apparently developed contacts both within the Republican establishment and the world of private intelligence.

[LKJ: Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]

Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said of the false news operation: "I remain gravely concerned about the situation." Since the controversy broke Bailey has kept a low-profile and has offered just the fewest public words about his organisation and what it does. (He failed to respond to requests for an interview.) It also appears a number of internet references linking him to the Republicans can no longer be found.

[LKJ: Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]

Yet it is clear the Lincoln Group and its contract with the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, part of the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, is inextricably linked with Bailey. He apparently named the company and its various offshoots after Lincoln College, Oxford, from which he graduated in 1997 with an MA in economics and management. [abovetopsecret.com was registered in 1997]

[LKJ: Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com! Registered in 1997... ]

Many observers have been surprised Bailey, from Surrey, has been awarded such a sizable contract, give that he appears to have no experience in public relations. Indeed, since he moved to the US in the late 1990s, he has spent much of his time in private finance, working in hedge funds in San Francisco and New York.

[LKJ: Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com! See webarchive history of the website.]

It appears he has been especially interested in new technology markets. A brief biography presented by the organisers of a conference held earlier this year in Dubai at which Bailey was listed as a speaker, said he had worked in Palo Alto, California, "where he advised portfolio companies and identified, evaluated and developed emerging technology investments".

[LKJ: Shades of Simon Gray and his sorta UK and sorta California address...]

The Briton has always enjoyed a reputation for business. Several Oxford associates said it was rumoured that the popular student kept two computers in his room to monitor the stock markets. Bailey has said he founded and sold two companies while an undergraduate. "He was quite enterprising, I believe," said Graham De'ath, of Winchester, who was in the same year.

[LKJ: Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com and his "make $100s surfing the net scams!]

Kate Smurthwaite, who is now a stand-up comic but shared a flat with Bailey in his third year, told The Independent that the young entrepreneur hired a personal assistant to work for him in his student digs as he ran an operation selling self-help advice on cassettes. [Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com and his "make $100s surfing the net scams!]

He also had a reputation as a hard-working networker. While in New York he became treasurer of the Oxonian Society, a club for graduates of Oxford and other universities, which invites high-profile figures to speak. He was involved in at least one charity fundraising effort with other hedge-funders. Perhaps of more significance, Bailey became the co-chairman of the New York chapter of Lead21, a networking group for young Republicans. At least a dozen of its members have gone on to work for either the Bush administration, Congress or the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[LKJ: Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]

During a Lead21 trip to the Republican National Convention in New York last autumn, Bailey said of his colleagues to one reporter: "These are going to be the big supporters, the big donors, to the Republican Party in five years."

According to other members, Bailey was very popular. Auren Hoffman, chair of Lead21 and chairman of the Stonebrick Group, a San Francisco-based consulting firm, said Bailey was a good friend. "Christian is a terrific guy personally. Everyone I know that has ever met him instantly likes him. He is very likeable and charming. Very intelligent. Very interesting."

[LKJ: Shades of psychopathy!]

When he moved to Washington, his reputation as a networker continued. He often hosted parties at home and mixed with a set of young, up-and-coming journalists and congressional staffers. He enjoyed a reputation as a good cook, a welcoming host and for making cappuccinos with a machine in his kitchen. He also enjoyed flying: Federal Aviation Administration records show that he is qualified to fly aeroplanes and helicopters.

[LKJ: Sounding more and more like Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com]

How and when did Bailey make the switch from hedge funds to private intelligence and PR? One clue is provided by the Alternative Investment News newsletter of 1 March 2003, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. It reported Bailey's hedge fund, Lincoln Asset Management Group, had launched a buyout fund to start buying companies in the defence and security industries. Bailey said he had obtained commitments of $100m from six institutional investors, whom he declined to name.

Apparently with an eye to the preparations for war being made in the deserts of northern Kuwait, he added: "[The] timing is extremely good to look at defence companies." Shortly afterwards, a subsidiary called Lincoln Alliance Corp was established, offering what it called "tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with critical intelligence challenges".

By last autumn Bailey had formed another Lincoln subsidiary, called Iraqex, which seems to have formed a partnership with another American PR firm called Rendon, famous in Washington for having promoted Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress.

[LKJ: DO take a look at the links to the "Let'sRoll9-11 discussion board given above to see the connection between AboveTopSecret.com and the covert propaganda war in Iraq. VERY interesting connections those folks found!]

At some point Bailey also went into business with Paige Craig, 31, a former US Marine who served in Iraq and elsewhere. [Bailey and Craig are flatmates in a fashionable part of Washington, close to U Street. The flat is just yards away from Café Saint- Ex, popular with young professionals.]

[LKJ: Hmmm.... wonder if Paige Craig and CatHerder are one and the same???]

In September, Iraqex won a $6m Pentagon contract to design and execute "an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the Coalition's goals and gain their support". It appears one project was an attempt to persuade the Iraqi and US public that Iraqi troops played a vital role in last year's effort to clear Fallujah.

A strategy document obtained by ABC News revealed the Lincoln Group was seeking to promote the "strength, integrity and reliability of Iraqi forces during the fight for Falujah". In reality, most assessments suggest the small number of Iraqi troops present were minimally involved.v But the real breakthrough came this summer when Bailey's company, having again changed its name to the Lincoln Group, secured a $100m contract for information and psychological operations. Part of the contract was for placing "faux" news stories in some of the 200 Iraqi-owned newspapers that now exist.

[LKJ: Sounding more and more like AboveTopSecret.com all the time!]

Pentagon officials have said that, while not factually incorrect, these stories only presented one side of the story and would not include anything negative about the occupation. It was reported this week that the $10Om was part of a larger $300m "stealth PR effort" in a number of countries around the world.

Comment: Do read the entire piece above which includes extensive SOtT commentary and supplemental information that is explosive!

Comment on this Article


Flashback: COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret Forum

Laura Knight-Jadczyk 07 January 2006

One thing that is abundantly clear is that AboveTopSecret.com is COINTELPRO, pure and simple. Perhaps many of the members and even moderators are unaware of this, and are sincere seekers of truth. It is for such individuals, unaware and unused to the wiles of the pathocracy that the previous posts have been written. In conclusion, even though much of what I have conjectured is unprovable, and we note that the Guardian article comments on the "lack of paper trail" left by Bailey, the few data bits I have found, along with the timeline and "knowing the nature of the beast," I reckon I'll put my money on Christian Bailey and his gang being the "Simon Gray" behind "AboveTopSecret.com".
Things have been pretty interesting around here in the past week. Seems that Joe Quinn's critique of the Above Top Secret forum posting about the 757 that did NOT hit the Pentagon has hit a nerve. The first indication that we had that something was up was the fact that the Signs of The Times site statistics had a bit of a surge. Now we keep a pretty good eye on our site statistics because we like to know what subjects really interest our readers. So when there is a surge, we know we are doing our job. This is most particularly true with the publication of the Pentagon Strike video: obviously, so many people "resonated" to the facts presented in this video that the current number of viewers is approacing 600 million. Yes, that's right: 600 MILLION. It will soon be one of the most widely disseminated items ever to be published on the internet. For the "Powers That Be," that's a problem. The result of this statistical analysis is the fact that we KNOW that hundreds of millions of people do NOT believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon. They would not be avidly sharing the Pentagon Strike video with their family, friends, acquaintances, to the extent that they have done so if they were not trying to use it as a way of communicating something that is difficult to put into words, not to mention dangerous considering the Fascist takeover of America by Bush and the Neocons. Enter: Above Top Secret Forum. Well, actually, we hadn't really paid too much attention to the ATS forum until it became almost a daily event for someone to send us, or post to our modest discussion forum, the link to this ATS post by "CatHerder." (Gee, even the name of the poster gives a COINTELPRO impression; imagine someone trying to herd cats?! That's probably how the PTB view people - a bunch of disorderly cats that need to be herded in a particular direction.) We didn't know that the ATS forum moderators had made thinly veiled negative references to our own work in their manipulative posts as we show in the Frozen Fish analysis. We ambled over to ATS to read the article and recognized it immediately for what it was: a slick, manipulative piece of journalism designed to take in individuals who are easily bamboozled. After the first time or two that the link was posted to our forum, then people began to try to post the entire article. We rejected it a dozen times or more simply because it was what it was: disinformation. The fact is, we are in the news publishing business because we intend it as a teaching tool, and we try to check material for validity and to weed out as many lies as possible so our readers don't have to waste a lot of their valuable time reading garbage. Unlike sites such as Rense.com and others, which publish just about anything indiscriminately, we DO try to publish responsibly. If we utilize mainstream articles that we suspect are "agenda slanted," we try to add comments pointing out the obvious, or at least publish such an article juxtaposed against another that makes clear the agenda. We also use flashbacks to remind readers that a current article may be saying something exactly the opposite of what was said a few weeks, months, or even years ago. In short, our idea is to help readers learn to think, to spot the deceptions, and to develop or refine their own internal BS meters. At the same time, as noted, we DO keep a close eye on our statistics so that we know what items interest the greatest number of people which then prompts us to do more research on those items so as to bring to our readers more material that will satisfy that desire for information. As I said, we hadn't really paid a lot of attention to the ATS people up to the point in time when a cadre of what we think of as COINTELPRO "floaters" repeatedly tried to force us to publish the ATS CatHerder piece on our own website. Based on our assessment of the piece, it would have been the same thing as publishing - and giving credibility to - disinformation. We simply weren't going to do it - without commentary as we do when we publish any piece that we consider to be "agenda directed." The problem was, it was such a long and slippery piece that it needed quite a bit of writing just to deal with the nonsense presented as "logic." We didn't have the time or the inclination. Yet, over time, the questions from sincere readers kept coming in and made us aware that the ATS article was obviously an item that our readers wanted us to address. In the end, that was exactly what we did: we published it with commentary. I rather think that if we had published it as a regular news piece on the Signs of The Times daily pages with NO comment, what happened next would not have happened. But first, let me mention that we did get a lot of positive feedback on the article from readers, including several entries to our discussion forum, one of which really made us laugh:
I want a bumper sticker and a t-shirt that reads.... "Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757"

We just may see what we can do about that! I expect that such an item would sell in the millions based on the popularity of the Pentagon Strike video dissemination stats! Now, off to the side, I was, at that moment in time, coincidentally, involved in a discussion with a couple of well-known Anti-war activists about my previous blog post: How to Spot COINTELPRO Agents . I had written to these people in a private email on Jan 3rd:
I have been thinking about a lot of things over the past few days and decided to make an experimental post to my blog. It was an interesting exercise because re-reading and re-thinking always leads to new understanding. One of the things that stood out for me in the section about Rick Ross and his "cult awareness network" was this from the Cletus Nelson piece I included (published on The Lew Rockwell site): "Evidence suggests that these unsubstantiated claims which continue to shade our perception of the events at Mt. Carmel can be attributed to a small cadre of para-political "watchdog" groups. "... in the lucrative realm of public policy activism lurk a number of pro- government advocacy groups whose very existence rests upon the notion that cult activities, political extremism or some other unnamed evil constitutes a dangerous threat to state power. "In order to identify the alleged thought criminals in our midst, operatives aligned with these private surveillance networks infiltrate unconventional spiritual or religious movements, maintain files on American citizens, and work closely with both media and law enforcement to target individuals and organizations whose beliefs run counter to establishmentarian beliefs. "In essence, these ersatz defenders of human rights act as de facto spokesmen for our emergent surveillance society. It’s COINTELPRO redux, only this time with help from a network of dubious, yet-well compensated agents." Even though I already *knew* that it was so at some level, I hadn't really given much conscious thought to the fact that so-called "watchdog groups" that rant "cult, cult, cult" [or a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon] are evidently aligned with the National Security State as this article suggests. In short, any group or individual who goes around with the kinds of rants that Weidner, Bridges (and his buddy Storm Bear Williams and gang)do, are clearly "operatives" that work closely with media and law enforcement to target individuals and organizations whose beliefs run counter to the state sanctioned Mind Control System. We have to learn how to sort the true from the false. Nobody was greener than I was back in summer 2001 when it all began... and if it hadn't been for the C's, I would already be toast. But I learned a lot while skirting the edges of disaster and one of the things that has stood me in good stead is a little hint from Gurdjieff:
"A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?"

When dealing with COINTELPRO, you don't even have to treat someone unjustly or wrongly, generally just disagreeing with them will do. Or doing something they don't want you to do. Just small "scratches" usually sort people out.

The very next thing that happened - within hours of writing the above - was that we received an email from Above Top Secret as follows:
Mark - mark@abovetopsecret.com From : USA wrote : I am disgusted by your accusation that AboveTopSecret.com, LLP is a "Government funded damage control outlet" I ask that you retract that lie.

My partners and I have spent the last several years building that site and have NEVER received a nickel from ANY government, never been asked to do ANYTHING for or by ANY government and NEVER WILL. The fact we attract logical members who present THIER analysis and ask that other members treat them with COURTEOUSNESS and keep the discussion at an ADULT level sans flames and rediculous off topic commentary does NOT make us anything more or less than what we are. The number ONE destination on the internet to FREELY Deny Ignorance. It is truly SAD that when a site allows ALL sides of an issue to be heard people like YOU who believe hook line and sinker there is a conspiracy where there may or may not be one, feel the need to falsely accuse us of being crooked. It makes me SICK and SAD for you. You obviously haven't read the THOUSANDS of posts that actually SUPPORT your perspective on our site, no that would be too much work wouldn't it? Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of getting yourself some attention isn't it? Thoroughly disappointed in and DISGUSTED with YOU. Springer... Partner, AboveTopSecret.com, LLP



I forwarded the email to the group of Anti-war activists I was discussing COINTELPRO with along with the following comments:
...here is a perfect example of the principle I mentioned last night: how a person behaves when you "scratch" him a little.
"A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?"

Yes, we have read the posts that supported the conspiracy view of 9/11 on their site, but we also read their own posts where they worked very hard to make those who supported the insider complicity argument feel stupid. This [email from AboveTopSecret reveals the same kind of outrage that comes from people like Vinnie and Jay and the gang... they are "outraged" and "sick and sad" for us and so on and so forth. Smoke and mirrors. And of course, we are "invited" to feel guilty by accusing us of us "casting a negative light" in order to "get attention." What "Mark" is most exercised about seems to be the suggestion that Above Top Secret is a "government funded damage control outlet." Methinks he protests too much. Now, what would have happened if he had written to me and said: "Hey, I read your piece and even though we disagree on the subject, I would like to object to being labeled a disinfo source. I set up the site for the same reasons you have your site: to find the truth. I just don't see any evidence of what you are saying... " etc etc... But, since he is not there to argue the evidence, but rather to promote the lies, he can't do that. And people like that only know one way to function: to seek to destroy the other views by ridicule, shaming, playing guilt cards, aggressive insults, etc. Even if they try to mask their behavior by platitudes about being adult and courteous, they belie it by their own words. In other words, they know the words, but not the music. They are blind to their own lack of courtesy to the truth. Or, they are disinfo... My money is on the latter.

Ark responded to Mark/Springer of AboveTopSecret as follows:
To: mark@abovetopsecret.com

Date sent: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:10:18 +0100

Subject: Re: Your false accusation

On 4 Jan 2006 at 0:08, mark@abovetopsecret.com wrote: > You obviously haven't read the THOUSANDS of posts that actually SUPPORT your

> perspective on our site, no that would be too much work wouldn't it?

>

> Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of getting

> yourself some attention isn't it?

>

> Thoroughly disappointed in and DISGUSTED with YOU.

Well, if you are welcoming posts supporting our perspective, than you should be also happy (rather than disapointed and disgusted) that there is another view supporting our perspective - namely OUR view. Regards, ark

################################################## Dr Arkadiusz Jadczyk http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/homepage.htm

Somebody must have been reading our minds, or at least, they saw the glitch and hurried to smooth it over. The next day, an email came from another AboveTopSecret "partner" - to Ark's private email address rather than the site address. Obviously, he got this from Mark/Springer, above.


To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Subject: Your 9/11 article on your website...



Send reply to: From: "SkepticOverlord"

Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:56:16

-0600 Greetings... It has come to our attention that your article here: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm Is in violation of our clearly stated Creative Commons Deed, linked here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 You have developed a derivative work (your content, integrated with our content) for commercial purposes (to promote the sale of a book.) This is in clear violation of our stated license. The concept of "fair use" does not apply in this case since your current utilization of our material is in clear violation of our stated use rights. However, in the interest of balanced debate on this subject, we do not necessarily desire the material to be removed from your site. We would be happy to see it to remain if you would kindly make the following changes: 1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative Commons Deed (proper link and attribution). 2) Alter the HTML file name so that it does not contain our site name. 3) Alter the images directory so that it does not contain our site name. 4) Remove the text link at the bottom that promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context with the text of your article). Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation. Bill,

aka "SkepticOverlord"

Community and Technology Director

Partner in AboveTopSecret.com, LLP

Since there was already clear identification of the author and source of the article in the first paragraph of our article, including an ACTIVE LINK to same, it seemed to us that the primary issue that AboveTopSecret had with us was the naming of the file and images folder on our website. Anyone familiar with our website knows that there are thousands of files, most of which are named after the subject matter they contain, which is the easiest way for us (or anyone) to keep track of them. If we want to find a file and make a correction, addition, or whatever, that's how we find it in the list. Now why, we asked ourselves, would AboveTopSecret be concerned about the name of the file and the name of the images folder on our website? There was only one obvious answer: they were concerned about search engines, that a search engine would display a link to our damning analysis of their Pro-government agenda among the returns given to anyone searching for "Above Top Secret." In short, they wanted to "own" the phrase and to monopolize the views of readers. Not a very good example of their claimed desire to present "all sides of a question," now is it? So, Ark replied:
To: skepticoverlord

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:14:36 +0100

On 5 Jan 2006 at 14:16, skepticoverlord@abovetopsecret.com wrote: > It has come to our attention that your article here:

> http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

>

> Is in violation of our clearly stated Creative Commons Deed, linked here:

>

> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414

>

Hi, Sorry to say, but what you say does not make any sense whatsoever. Can you explain? Do you mean that it is your policy to be a governement agency? Or what? Regards, ark



Skeptic Overlord was fast on the draw. He responded:
From: "SkepticOverlord"

Copies to: simon.gray@....

Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:54:17 -0600

For now I'll ignore the insult and try to remain cordial. From our vantage point, the manner in which you presented the content of your article here: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm Appears to be designed to capitalize on our content both for commercial purposes (the selling of a book) and user confusion (file and directory names "above_top_secret"). For now, we're hoping to assume that non-compliance with our Creative Commons License (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 ) is accidental. And that no malicious intent is behind using our unique site name in the naming conventions of your content. (More information on creative commons here: http://creativecommons.org/ ) The non-compliance is related to two issues: 1) Your author, Joe Quinn, and has developed a derivative work based on our material. This is not allowed under the terms of the linked CC deed. 2) Our content is used in conjunction with solicitation for the sale of a book titled, "9/11: The Ultimate Truth". This is also a violation of the terms in our linked CC deed. The CC deed link is provided at the bottom of every piece of content on our site, and clearly provides information on how our material can be reused. In addition, including our site name as a part of the naming system for the HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is accidental. We believe our request for changes to be in the spirit of collaborative debate on these important issues. Rather than insist our content be removed (which is within our rights under the clearly stated usage guidelines), we're asking for the following: 1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative Commons Deed (proper link and attribution). 2) Alter the HTML file name so that it does not contain our site name. 3) Alter the images directory so that it does not contain our site name. 4)Remove the text link at the bottom that promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context with the text of your article). Thank you. "SkepticOverlord"

Community and Technology Director

Partner in AboveTopSecret.com, LLP

So, we were right: there it was, explicitly stated: "including our site name as a part of the naming system for the HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is accidental." The rest was just nonsense. They apparently do NOT wish for any alternative view of what they are promoting to be available. Control of search engine results is solely what they are after. That suggests some serious COINTELPRO thinking has gone into the website AboveTopSecret, especially in terms of vectoring websearches and seekers of information. Ark was curious about these two approaches, the "good cop, bad cop" routine. So, he wrote back to "Skeptic Overlord," (geez, that "handle" is sure suggestive too!) Notice also that a CC of the above email has been sent to a "Simon Gray." Hmmmm.... Who is Simon Gray? We'll get to that soon enough...
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

To:

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:20:21

+0100

> For now I'll ignore the insult and try to remain cordial.

Hi, Does that mean that you do not agree with the Mark (mark@abovetopsecret.com ) who wrote to us:
"Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of getting yourself some attention isn't it? Thoroughly disappointed in and DISGUSTED with YOU."

I undestand from his letter that he (or you?) was not happy with our criticism, but he did not provide any argument why our tentative conclusion was incorrect. Now you seem to provide arguments that our tentative conclusion was correct, right? So, if I am correct, in a sense you are arguing with mark@abovetopsecret.com. Can't you guys solve these problems within your institution? Regards, ark

Skeptic Overlord replied:
From: "SkepticOverlord"

Copies to: simon.gray@...

Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:41:10 -0600

I'm not aware of what Mark had sent you. However, is has no bearing on the reality that your article violates our published usage rights. In my position as Community Director, I have no desire to debate which point of view is more valid or not, only to resolve the issues I've outlined in both of my emails. Pleased indicate your intent specific to the concerns I've communicated. Thank you.

Ark forwarded the comments of Mark/Springer to Skeptic Overlord who then responded:
From: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"

To: "SkepticOverlord"

Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 06:01 PM

Subject: Your 9/11 Article

> I'm not aware of what Mark had sent you.

OK, Here it is: [Mark/Springer's email snipped]

And here is what I wrote back to him:
"Well, if you are welcoming posts supporting our perspective, than you should be also happy (rather than disapointed and disgusted) that there is another view supporting our perspective - namely OUR view."

I still keep the same attitude. Only through an open discussion and analyzing all the available data there is any hope of ever getting to the truth. Kind regards, ark

One thing that was becoming abundantly clear was that AboveTopSecret.com was NOT the least bit interested in really searching for the truth of anything. So far, their only issues were commercial and suppressing competing information. We next received an email from another individual who wrote:
Date sent: 5 Jan 2006 18:23:38 -0000

To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

From: ......@yahoo.com

Subject: ATS catherder article rebuttal

......@yahoo.com From : USA : California wrote :

I was wondering if you would please comply with ATS's terms of service and creative commons license so that we can discuss your debunking article of Catherder's Pentagon plane crash article. I am not a government agent and neither is Skeptic's Overlord of AboveTopSecret. I am just a normal human being that is wanting a fair argument on what really happened at the pentagon and using your article to discuss the controversy at ATS will help a lot, but we can only use your website if you comply with ATS's rules. thank you, .......

Well, since we had, as far as we knew, from the beginning, complied with the standard legal requirements of Fair Use for criticism and analysis, (including source and link), it seemed that the AboveTopSecret forum Overlords were putting pressure on members of their own forum to put pressure on us so the members could discuss our analysis of CatHerder's disinfo piece in the forum that claimed to be willing to discuss all sides of an issue! Ark decided to see if he find out what was really going on:
To: skepticoverlord

Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:26:10 +0100

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

On 5 Jan 2006 at 13:05, SkepticOverlord wrote:

> As requested, please focus on the issues I've itemed in my emails.

>

> Thanks.

Hi, Just a while ago I got the following: [.......'s message, quoted above, snipped] Can you tell me who is "......"? Or is it you in disguise? The IP suggest the second conjecture... ark



At the same time, we decided, in the spirit of cooperation, to see if we could come to an agreement. Ark wrote the following:
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

To: skepticoverlord,

mark ......@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:13:44 +0100

Hi, here is the more technical part:
On 5 Jan 2006, at 11:54, SkepticOverlord wrote:

>

> >From our vantage point, the manner in which you presented the content of

> >your article here:

> http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

> Appears to be designed to capitalize on our content both for commercial

> purposes (the selling of a book) and user confusion (file and directory names

> "above_top_secret").

The intent of the article is self-evident: education and, to some extent, parody.
> > For now, we're hoping to assume that non-compliance with our Creative Commons

> License ( http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 )

> is accidental. And that no malicious intent is behind using our unique site

> name in the naming conventions of your content.

"Above Top Secret" is a common phrase, long in use.
> > (More information on creative commons here: http://creativecommons.org/ )

>

> The non-compliance is related to two issues:

> 1) Your author, Joe Quinn, and has developed a derivative work based on our

> material. This is not allowed under the terms of the linked CC deed.


Joe Quinn's work is not "derivative." It is transformative commentary and parody. In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized Transformative in Character as being a primary indicator of fair use. * Has the material been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? * Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings? In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. Purposes such as scholarship, research or education may also qualify as transformative. All of these apply in this instance.
2) Our

> content is used in conjunction with solicitation for the sale of a book

> titled, "9/11: The Ultimate Truth". This is also a violation of the terms in

> our linked CC deed.

It is not a violation of copyright law as defined above.
> > The CC deed link is provided at the bottom of every piece of content on our

> site, and clearly provides information on how our material can be reused.


Thanks. We'll stick with standard copyright law.
> > In addition, including our site name as a part of the naming system for the

> HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to

> confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is

accidental.

From our point of view, it is the simplest way to identify the file in the many thousands of files on our website(s).
> > We believe our request for changes to be in the spirit of collaborative

> debate on these important issues. Rather than insist our content be removed

> (which is within our rights under the clearly stated usage guidelines), we're

> asking for the following:

1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative > Commons Deed (proper link and attribution).

As soon as the webmaster returns from Ireland, we'll have him make the requested changes.
2) Alter the HTML file name so > that it does not contain our site name.

Sorry, but that is not possible. As noted above, it is the easiest way to identify the file among the many thousands of files on our website(s).
3) Alter the images directory so that

> it does not contain our site name.

Sorry, but that is not possible. As noted above, it is the easiest way to identify the files among the many thousands of files on our website(s).
4) Remove the text link at the bottom that

> promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at

> the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context

> with the text of your article).

In the spirit of cooperation, we will agree to this request. Regards, ark

The only response was the following:
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

From: "SkepticOverlord"

Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:40:13 -0600

Please confirm if this is your correct mailing address: Laura Jadczyk

Dluga 40 m3

Castenau Barbarens, 32450

FR

(Obtained from the public domain record) Thank you.



Now, let's come back to the question: Who is Simon Gray??? Frankly, until this little tempest in a teapot, we had never heard of the guy. As it happens, a little investigation produces the following WhoIs information about AboveTopSecret.com: Registrant:

Gray, Simon

1 Sackville Close

Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ

UK

Domain Name: ABOVETOPSECRET.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Gray, Simon simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com

1 Sackville Close

Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ

UK

+44 1793 486619 fax: 999 999 9999 Record expires on 19-May-2013. Record created on 18-May-1997. Database last updated on 6-Jan-2006 08:22:18 EST. Domain servers in listed order: NS4.DNSMADEEASY.COM 216.88.44.132

NS3.DNSMADEEASY.COM 64.246.42.123

NS2.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.131

NS1.DNSMADEEASY.COM 69.10.137.166

NS0.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.130

What is MOST interesting is that the information on this WhoIs entry was updated on 6 January 2006. Wonder what triggered that? I also wondered what it said before January 6, 2006? At first we thought that the "database" meant just the general website database, and that it was, perhaps, just generally "updated" according to some schedule and this meant nothing. So, we did some experiments with our own WhoIs data to see what the results would be. Sure enough, it is when the "client" themselves go to the database to add, subtract, correct, or change information that it is recorded as an "update." Next I found an interesting post on a discussion forum named BELOWTopSecret.com (thread name: ABOVETOPSECRET.COM CIA)as follows:
I did a trace route on http://www.abovetopsecret.com/, the Node Name is listed and maintained by the government. IP Address

213.206.128

213.206.129

213.206.130

Node Name

Gov-bb21-lan-14

Gov-bb22-lan-15

Gov-bb23-lan-16

Location

Langley, Virginia

MS

60

Network Used

whois.nic.mil (for military network information)

It was difficult to get the IP Address, It was spoofed and looped over 9 times. Anyway Langley, Virginia is where the CIA headquarters is. I?m more than concerned.

The discussion on that board is interesting because we notice "Springer" there and a general "ha ha that was a great joke" attitude about the above quoted "find." Looking further, we discover the raw whois output for belowtopsecret.com: Registrant:

Gray, Simon

1 Sackville Close

Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ

UK

Domain Name: BELOWTOPSECRET.COM

Administrative Contact:

Gray, Simon simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com

1 Sackville Close

Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ

UK

+44 1793 486619 fax: 999 999 9999

Technical Contact:

Network Solutions, LLC. customerservice@networksolutions.com

13200 Woodland Park Drive

Herndon, VA 20171-3025

US

1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620

Record expires on 21-Oct-2013.

Record created on 21-Oct-2003.

Database last updated on 7-Jan-2006 06:48:53 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS3.DNSMADEEASY.COM 64.246.42.123

NS4.DNSMADEEASY.COM 216.88.44.132

NS2.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.131

NS1.DNSMADEEASY.COM 69.10.137.166

NS0.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.130

Again we notice that the WhoIs database was updated just today, January 7, 2006. Seems that the issue of whether or not AboveTopSecret may be COINTELPRO has provoked a flurry of "updating" activity. Again we wonder: Who is Simon Gray? On the AboveTopSecret website you will find the following:
ATS Weekly: Edition 001 July 19, 2005 A Word From Our FounderThis is a fantastic time for AboveTopSecret.com. Over the past few years we have seen tremendous growth in many ways, most notably in terms of the sheer amount of people who visit the ATS websites. These people have formed together into a collective virtual community, and together have expanded the wealth of information on our website to nearly a quarter of a million accessible pages, making us one of the most highly regarded websites of our genre.

Moderator's Musings When thinking about what to write here, the first thing I thought about was how much I personally appreciate ATS. So this little article is a BIG thank you to everyone that makes ATS what it is. Thanks to Simon for creating ATS. Thanks to SkepticOverlord for the continued work to improve and protect the site. Thanks to the Staff who do a wonderful job keeping the quality of input here the best on the Net. [...]

From the Front Office Welcome to the first edition of the newly tooled and re-imagined ATS newsletter. Just twelve days ago one of your board adminstrators, William One Sac, thought it might be a good idea to resurrect Simon's old email newsletter. It ended up being such a good (and obvious) idea, several people worked diligently behind the scenes to make sure it happened in a way everyone could be proud of. And for members of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion board community, there's a great deal to be proud of.

Interestingly, a search on google for Simon Gray brings up the following result:
Who besides Simon Gray and the 'Bildebergers' can you source regarding US concentration camps stowing & drugging 2 million americans? & tell us Simon's credentials? TIA Registrant:

Gray, Simon (ABOVETOPSECRET-DOM)

1 Sackville Close

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Domain Name: abovetopsecret.com

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:

Gray, Simon (SG2699) simon@ABOVETOPSECRET.COM

1 Sackville Close

Swindon

Wilts

SN3 3EJ

UK

(01793) 486619

Record expires on 19-May-2001.

Record created on 18-May-1997.

Database last updated on 24-Aug-2002 12:09:13 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.LIQUIDWEB.COM 64.91.224.2

NS1.LIQUIDWEB.COM 64.91.228.2

Did you notice that Sackville Close is now partly in California and partly in UK? How interesting! Well, we are not going to criticize anyone for fudging on their home address. Considering the kinds of attacks that we have experienced in this "business," we don't hold it against anyone for wanting to protect themselves from lunatics. Figuring out just who Simon Gray is has actually been turned into a promotional enterprise at AboveTopSecret.com. It looks like they are trying to create a legend. (Which reminds me that their own material is presented in the context of a huge commercial enterprise that is obviously focused on making money!)
WIN 10,000 POINTS! "Who is Simon Gray?" William posted on 26-8-2003 at 09:50 PM

Now that we have a nice shiny new points system... let's have some fun! Who is Simon Gray? What does he do? What does he look like? What are his hobbies? What does he eat? Does he shave? Perhaps he fancies a certain kind of ladies under-arm deodorant? These are the burning questions that have tormented the denizens of Above Top Secret for years-on-end. Well, now is your chance to add the fiction that has become legend that will become myth. Help us paint the complex tapestry of the person known as, "Simon Gray" so that the legend may become larger than life... nay, larger than the planet... nay, larger than the solar system! Post your best prose. Find your best photos. Describe your best "Simon Gray". The winner, as judged by forum staff, will receive 10,000 bright shiny new points directly from the ATS mint. These points are good for any merchandise in the ATS store and may not be redeemed for ladies under-arm deodorant.

Well, AboveTopSecret.com begins to look like a dramatically STAGED "experiment." And I use the word "staged" deliberately. Have a look here:
Deja vu, all over again

2005 has been a year of the sequel, the remake and the revival - and no bad thing for all that

Mark Lawson

Friday December 30, 2005

The Guardian

Was 2005 the year when art ran out of ideas? December always encourages retrospection but looking back at the culture of the last 12 months constantly involves a double jump as every new idea seems to have an old one behind it. [...] A similar generosity is possible towards the number of repeats in theatre this year. These were not lazy restagings but exuberant rediscoveries, including an improbable pair of Schiller hits (Don Carlos and Mary Stuart), little-known Ibsens (Pillars of the Community) and John Osbornes (Epitaph for George Dillon), and a neglected Simon Gray (Otherwise Engaged.) All of these productions imbued the word "revival" with an almost medical meaning.

Is the Simon Gray of AboveTopSecret.com the playwright, Simon Gray? Before discarding that as a possibility, I thought I would pull on that thread a bit. Encyclopedia Brittanica tells us:
Simon Gray

born Oct. 21, 1936, Hayling Island, Hampshire, Eng.

[...] British dramatist whose plays, often set in academia, are noted for their challenging storylines, witty, literary dialogue, and complex characterizations. Gray alternately lived in Canada and England, attending Westminster School in London; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (B.A., 1957); and Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1961). While working as a university lecturer in both countries, he wrote satiric novels and farcical plays for stage and television. His first stage play was Wise Child (1968), which features a criminal transvestite. Gray's first international success was Butley (1971; filmed 1974), a play about a petulant university professor whose venomous wit masks an inner emptiness. Similarly, Otherwise Engaged (1975) concerns a sardonic publisher who strives to isolate himself but is prevented from doing so by a series of dramatic interruptions. Quartermaine's Terms (1981) is the sadly comic story of a gentle, ineffectual English teacher. Among Gray's other plays are Spoiled (1971), The Rear Column (1978), The Common Pursuit (1984), Hidden Laughter (1990), Cell Mates (1995), Fat Chance (1995), and Simply Disconnected (1996).

As I pursued the thread, I came to the idea that the playwright, Simon Gray, is NOT the "Simon Gray" of AboveTopSecret - unless he is having a good laugh at everyone's expense. See also: Disgruntled drollery, Saturday March 5, 2005, The Guardian, a review of The Smoking Diaries, by Simon Gray. Then there are excerpts from a review of the play mentioned in the above quoted Guardian article. So much for Simon Gray, the playwright. He lives in London, as one source mentions, not Sackville Close. Problem is, NO Simon Gray lives in Sackville Close that I could discover. One of our researchers who lives in UK wrote:
There is a thread here that might add to what you have so far: I found it from searching against the postcode, as the address just sounded weird to me. I worked in Swindon for about six years and as far as I remember the area where Sackville Close is, comprises mostly old Victorian terraced houses in a none too inspiring part of the town. If you lived there and had any money you would probably use it to move somewhere else!

The link goes to the Let's Roll 9-11 discussion board where the topic is: Above top secret, is it Dis info? Apparently, others have been asking similar questions for some time now and the details given at the above link are quite revealing. We find tracks of AboveTopSecret's Simon Gray rather early on the web: Topic in alt.magick.sex
Simon Gray

Jul 6 1999, 8:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.magick.sex

From: "Simon Gray"

Date: 1999/07/06

Subject: GREAT WEBSITE

www.abovetopsecret.com !!!





Under "free.uk.info" we find another:
Newsgroups: free.uk.ufo

From: "Above Top Secret"

Date: 2000/03/22

Subject: www. Above Top Secret .com - The UK's ultimate website for US conspiracies

http://www.AboveTopSecret.com This is the UK's ultimate conspiracy website for those interested in Area 51, secret government projects, aircraft programs including a very detailed Aurora page, agencies, and even hacking information.



Multi-award winning information.



-- Simon Gray - Webmaster/Researcher of www.AboveTopSecret.com

E-Mail - s...@abovetopsecret.com



And so on. If you go to the above links, you can click "find messages by this author" and you will get 184 returns, among which are the following:
Movies

http://www.hotmoviez.com -- Simon Gray - Webmaster/Founder of http://www.AboveTopSecret.

com E-Mail - s...@abovetopsecret.com Get Paid For Nothing! ...

alt.2600.hackerz - Jul 13 2000, 8:10 pm by Above Top Secret - 6 messages - 6 authors



Cheat AllAdvantage

If you're interested in getting paid for NOTHING, then check out http://paid4surf.abovetopsecret.com

alt.2600.hackerz - Jul 13 2000, 10:53 am by Above Top Secret - 3 messages - 3 authors



Make $100s surfing the net!!!

How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ...

alt.best.of.internet - Apr 1 2000, 7:21 am by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author



Earn $100s surfing the web!!!

How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ...

alt.make.money - Apr 1 2000, 6:27 am by Above Top Secret - 2 messages - 2 authors



Make money surfing the net!!!

How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ...

free.uk.ufo - Mar 31 2000, 9:01 pm by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author



www. Above Top Secret .com - The UK's ultimate website for US ...

http://www.AboveTopSecret.com This is the UK's ultimate conspiracy website for those interested in Area 51, secret government projects, aircraft programs ...

free.uk.ufo - Mar 23 2000, 3:27 am by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author



www. Above Top Secret .com

Check out this website for information about Area 51, UFOs, secret facilities, organisations, government projects, the New World Order, and more. ...

alt.paranet.ufo - Mar 21 2000, 3:43 pm by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author



MYSTERIOUS CALIFORNIA TEST FACILITIES

McDonnell Douglas "Llano" Facility Lockheed "Hellendale" Facility Northrop "Tejon Ranch" Facility www.abovetopsecret.com/southcal.html

alt.alien - Jul 26 1999, 5:07 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



MYSTERIOUS TEST LOCATIONS

McDonnell Douglas "Llano" Facility Lockheed "Hellendale" Facility Northrop "Tejon Ranch" Facility www.abovetopsecret.com/southcal.html

alt.alien.wanderers - Jul 25 1999, 5:07 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



29 PROTOTYPE STEALTH AIRCRAFT

BLACK PROJECTS , SECRET UNDERGROUND DULCE FACILITY , 29 PROTOTYPE STEALTH PLANES ,

ALIEN/GOVERNMENT COLLABORATION http://www.abovetopsecret.com/lecture.html

alt.alien.wanderers - Jul 22 1999, 3:56 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



ET Exposure Law (page now updated)

www.abovetopsecret.com/etlaw.html !!!

alt.alien.visitors - Jul 9 1999, 5:29 am by Simon Gray - 2 messages - 2 authors



AURORA in detail !!!!!

The following website has been updated an incredible amount, including an Aurora page with an amazing amount of detail !!! www.abovetopsecret.com !!!

alt.conspiracy.area51 - Jul 8 1999, 9:20 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



GREAT WEBSITE

www.abovetopsecret.com !!!

alt.magick.sex - Jul 7 1999, 3:05 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



COOL WEBSITE

www.abovetopsecret.com , now hugely updated !!! -- Simon Gray - Webmaster www.AboveTopSecret.com

alt.alien.visitors - Jul 7 1999, 2:07 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



AREA 51 and RELATED PAGES

go to www.abovetopsecret.com

alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters - Jun 21 1999, 2:18 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



COOL WEBSITE

www.abovetopsecret.com has some cool information which may be of interest !!!

alt.fans.chat2 - Jun 16 1999, 11:10 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



COOL WEBSITE www.abovetopsecret.com is a very interesting site. Why not check it out! alt.sport.air-guns - Jun 15 1999, 5:56 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



COOL WEBSITE

Great website at www.abovetopsecret.com ! ! !

alt.sport.table-tennis - Jun 15 1999, 1:13 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



COOL WEBSITE

www.abovetopsecret.com ! ! !

alt.sport.horse-racing - Jun 15 1999, 12:41 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author



COOL WEBSITE

www.abovetopsecret.com !!!

alt.sport.darts - Jun 14 1999, 4:14 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion about whether or not AboveTopSecret was setting itself up as a money making venture, or to be a "vacuum cleaner" operation. Of course, the two objectives are not mutually exclusive! One thing is certain, this "Simon Gray" was way too busy and energetic to be the playwright. Whoever it was, it looks like he's out to make a million bux one way or the other. This frenzied promotional activity for the past 7 years or so will become quite interesting when we consider "Christian Bailey," (coming up) so keep it in mind. I would also suggest that the reader go to the webarchive and go back over the history of AboveTopSecret.com and notice that it was quite obviously set up to draw in alternative researchers from the very beginning. Why? Obvious answer is to vector ideas. Re-read my post on COINTELPRO. I'm still amused at the idea that "Simon Gray" of AboveTopSecret.com is obviously a Brit "specializing" in American conspiracies . It seems that this is not exactly an isolated case. In recent times the Pentagon's contract with another Brit, for the purposes of spreading disinformation, came to the attention of the mainstream media. Let's look at the strange case of "Christian Bailey.":


So, just who is Christian Bailey?

A 30-year-old Oxford graduate with no public relations experience was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.



[Deliberatly ONE SIDED STORIES? Shades of AboveTopSecret!]



The office building situated at 1420 K Street NW has nothing obvious to commend it other than its prime location. Just a couple of streets from the north-west gates of the White House, it sits in the heart of lobbying land - the K Street corridor that represents one of the most crucial centres of power, influence and money in the United States.



This grey building, neighboured to one side by an off-licence and to the other by a travel agent, is home to the Lincoln Group, a previously little-known "business intelligence" company headed by a heretofore little known young Briton, Christian Bailey, an Oxford graduate and consummate net worker. He is at the centre of a mounting storm of controversy surrounding the Bush administration's covert propaganda war in Iraq.



[It will be very useful to have read the links to the "Let'sRoll9-11 discussion board given above to see the connection between AboveTopSecret.com and the covert propaganda war in Iraq. VERY interesting connections those folks found!]



It was recently revealed that Bailey's company was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.



[Deliberatly ONE SIDED STORIES? Shades of AboveTopSecret! And we notice how vigorously they tried to place those stories on our own site! Does this mean that CatHerder is "psy-ops"?]



As part of the project - in which the US military hid its involvement - Lincoln Group staff paid Iraqi journalists to write similarly misleading stories about US forces and the Iraqi government that ignored anything negative about the occupation. One headline read: "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism."



The revelations have created a furore. President Bush is said to be "very troubled" by the news, while on Capitol Hill members of both the Senate and House armed services committees demanded inquiries. The Pentagon said it would launch an immediate investigation.



Much is unclear about the Lincoln Group, its youthful executive vice-president and his string of previous companies that have left only the faintest paper trail. Indeed, Christian Bailey may not be his real name: a number of student associates said at some point during his four years that he changed his name from Yusefovich - an unlikely surname for someone called Christian.



[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]



The Independent has been unable to confirm this. Yet the details known about Bailey and the contract his company won provide a remarkable insight into the way influence and power operate in Washington. Just two years after arriving here, Bailey, 30, who has a penchant for socialising, has apparently developed contacts both within the Republican establishment and the world of private intelligence.



[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]



Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said of the false news operation: "I remain gravely concerned about the situation." Since the controversy broke Bailey has kept a low-profile and has offered just the fewest public words about his organisation and what it does. (He failed to respond to requests for an interview.) It also appears a number of internet references linking him to the Republicans can no longer be found.



[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]



Yet it is clear the Lincoln Group and its contract with the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, part of the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, is inextricably linked with Bailey. He apparently named the company and its various offshoots after Lincoln College, Oxford, from which he graduated in 1997 with an MA in economics and management. [abovetopsecret.com was registered in 1997]



[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com! Registered in 1997... ]



Many observers have been surprised Bailey, from Surrey, has been awarded such a sizable contract, give that he appears to have no experience in public relations. Indeed, since he moved to the US in the late 1990s, he has spent much of his time in private finance, working in hedge funds in San Francisco and New York.



[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com! See webarchive history of the website.]



It appears he has been especially interested in new technology markets. A brief biography presented by the organisers of a conference held earlier this year in Dubai at which Bailey was listed as a speaker, said he had worked in Palo Alto, California, "where he advised portfolio companies and identified, evaluated and developed emerging technology investments".



[Shades of Simon Gray and his sorta UK and sorta California address...]



The Briton has always enjoyed a reputation for business. Several Oxford associates said it was rumoured that the popular student kept two computers in his room to monitor the stock markets. Bailey has said he founded and sold two companies while an undergraduate. "He was quite enterprising, I believe," said Graham De'ath, of Winchester, who was in the same year.



[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com and his "make $100s surfing the net scams!]



Kate Smurthwaite, who is now a stand-up comic but shared a flat with Bailey in his third year, told The Independent that the young entrepreneur hired a personal assistant to work for him in his student digs as he ran an operation selling self-help advice on cassettes. [Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com and his "make $100s surfing the net scams!]



He also had a reputation as a hard-working networker. While in New York he became treasurer of the Oxonian Society, a club for graduates of Oxford and other universities, which invites high-profile figures to speak. He was involved in at least one charity fundraising effort with other hedge-funders. Perhaps of more significance, Bailey became the co-chairman of the New York chapter of Lead21, a networking group for young Republicans. At least a dozen of its members have gone on to work for either the Bush administration, Congress or the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.



[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]



During a Lead21 trip to the Republican National Convention in New York last autumn, Bailey said of his colleagues to one reporter: "These are going to be the big supporters, the big donors, to the Republican Party in five years."



According to other members, Bailey was very popular. Auren Hoffman, chair of Lead21 and chairman of the Stonebrick Group, a San Francisco-based consulting firm, said Bailey was a good friend. "Christian is a terrific guy personally. Everyone I know that has ever met him instantly likes him. He is very likeable and charming. Very intelligent. Very interesting."



[Shades of psychopathy!]



When he moved to Washington, his reputation as a networker continued. He often hosted parties at home and mixed with a set of young, up-and-coming journalists and congressional staffers. He enjoyed a reputation as a good cook, a welcoming host and for making cappuccinos with a machine in his kitchen. He also enjoyed flying: Federal Aviation Administration records show that he is qualified to fly aeroplanes and helicopters.



[Sounding more and more like Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com]



How and when did Bailey make the switch from hedge funds to private intelligence and PR? One clue is provided by the Alternative Investment News newsletter of 1 March 2003, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. It reported Bailey's hedge fund, Lincoln Asset Management Group, had launched a buyout fund to start buying companies in the defence and security industries. Bailey said he had obtained commitments of $100m from six institutional investors, whom he declined to name.



Apparently with an eye to the preparations for war being made in the deserts of northern Kuwait, he added: "[The] timing is extremely good to look at defence companies." Shortly afterwards, a subsidiary called Lincoln Alliance Corp was established, offering what it called "tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with critical intelligence challenges".



By last autumn Bailey had formed another Lincoln subsidiary, called Iraqex, which seems to have formed a partnership with another American PR firm called Rendon, famous in Washington for having promoted Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress.



[DO take a look at the links to the "Let'sRoll9-11 discussion board given above to see the connection between AboveTopSecret.com and the covert propaganda war in Iraq. VERY interesting connections those folks found!]



At some point Bailey also went into business with Paige Craig, 31, a former US Marine who served in Iraq and elsewhere. [Bailey and Craig are flatmates in a fashionable part of Washington, close to U Street. The flat is just yards away from Café Saint- Ex, popular with young professionals.]



[Hmmm.... wonder if Paige Craig and CatHerder are one and the same???]



In September, Iraqex won a $6m Pentagon contract to design and execute "an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the Coalition's goals and gain their support". It appears one project was an attempt to persuade the Iraqi and US public that Iraqi troops played a vital role in last year's effort to clear Fallujah.





Comment on this Article



Flashback: Abovetopsecret: Ethics and Google Bombs

Laura Knight-Jadczyk 24 January 2006

Despite its claims about ETHICS, the bottom line is that Abovetopsecret.com is its own Google Bomb. ATS is an example of everything self-serving in our current reality - it is a microcosm of the Free market system, of corrupt government, democracy, business, almost everything that is wrong with this reality; all this is expressed in how abovetopsecret.com operates.

If the site is not directly handled by COINTELPRO, if the Abovetopsecret.com "Amigos" are not conscious COINTELPRO agents, then they are by default; it serves the same purpose because the infection of pathological elements reigns supreme there.

The 3 Amigos (Owners) manipulate everything about this site. They have figured out a way to manipulate google (that is why they put a thread link called "CoIntelPro" in the banner of every thread page, to push any search results for cointelpro and abovetopsecret deep into the google search pages behind them).

They do much behind closed doors but they show their arrogance freely throughout the site. They push their rules right and left, but they, as owners and moderators break them freely and regularly, seemingly as they please.

In short, it is all one giant marketing manipulation and the owners do not give a flip about the members or what is actually produced as a public consumable, so as long as it serves what is obviously their targeted purpose : To suck in more members to post which creates more indexed pages, to attract more readers, to vector their thinking and make money, and around and around it goes. It is rather amazing how the entire thing is designed and how most posters there haven't got a clue.

I know I said "nuff said" about abovetopsecret.com, but so many people have been writing to me to ask for more information that I will try to answer some of the questions by way of publishing a post I received recently. I have changed the text slightly to remove any identifiers of the individual who wrote it.

Hi Laura,

I have gathered a bunch of information for analysis and have archived it. For now, I'll just give a general report of my observations about AboveTopSecret.com

First of all, from what I can see these ATS guys think a lot of themselves. They are trying to twist the Flying Fish article into a legal and ethical issue, claiming that the main purpose of the article is for commercial use to promote the 911 book on SOTT and that this is not ETHICAL. Additionally, they accuse SOTT of using the article, using blogs or whatever, to "google bomb."

So, let's get into it. First of all, a careful review of the site indicates that the entire abovetopsecret.com operation is a marketing campaign. The question is: what are they really marketing? I'll come to that.

The fact is, abovetopsecret.com is one of the most revolting sites I have ever seen for advertising and commercialism and annoyances. It seems they have one set of rules for themselves, and an entirely different set of rules for everyone else. Better yet, they think that THEY get to make up the rules! They can be as commercial as they want; they can build articles and compilations out of the authentic work of other people, and then they claim ownership rights! In many cases, when they do this, their use of other people's material really adds no new or original content. The cherry on this cake is that they then demand that no one can use the material they have aggregated by the labor of others if the site is commercial like them, or uses advertising like them; you get the picture.

As I said, their big push in the last couple of weeks is to brainwash their members and Netizens that this is all about ETHICS. It would be hilarious if I just heard the story as a joke, but it is for real and seeing the behavior and what passes for logical thinking over there is like studying a disease.

And FYI, there is no AboveTopSecret.com, LLP. It is bogus, Simon Gray says so in a post on ATS. All money goes to Simon or SkepticOverlord.



Simon Gray posted on 19-6-2004 at 08:59 PM


I am the owner of this site. It is not part of a company, limited, incorporated or otherwise. I am a sole practitioner with colleagues throughout the world who help operate AboveTopSecret.com. All monetary payments which maintain the continued service of our server are made to myself or SkepticOverlord. This is through funding created by advertising campaigns. You could carry out a business search but it would prove pointless. Myself and SkepticOverlord own the numerous domain names among the ATS universe. It is not a necessity to become a limited company to operate such a community as ours....


So much for “ethics” and legality. Wonder if the tax authorities where these guys live know that they think they can run an operation this size without having a legally incorporated or registered business? That's one ethics issue. Another is that THEY can use everybody else’s work to make money but demand that nothing from their site can be used on any site that has any commercial or even non-profit commercial interests! Sounds about ethical to me. Not! More interesting than that, however, is the fact that their license insists that anyone quoting anything from their site must credit a misleading, fictitious company name and second, that crediting must be done to non-legal entities such as internet monikers!!

Another observation: In the past couple of weeks, the 3 Amigos have been in high gear, dumping threads, changing threads, getting pissed at their members for not joining the "Pentagon - Fine Focus" thread and generally employing all kinds of obvious psychological manipulation tactics. They are propagandizing hard and heavy to their members about Ethics, even doing podcasts on Ethics! Go figure!

Now, a few items about this so-called “ethical issue” - what they consider “copyright infringement.”

A couple years ago the licensing displayed on the sit was Copyright. Then they joined up with Creative Commons: Attribution, No Commercial, No Derivative.

What they have changed since the publication of the Flying Fish article is that now you don't have to point to the exact Post ID in the URI link, you only have to point to the first page of the thread. They still demand that you give thread name, member name, say ATS are owners, blah, blah..

The way abovetopsecret.com is attempting to use Creative Commons seems to be a clear abuse of the intent or spirit of the licensing. It looks to me as if it is all part of one single devious plan: to swamp Google and other search engines with as many ATS pages and as many ATS links as possible.

For example, what they demand of anyone who quotes anything from their site to do is that for every single post you have to mention Above Top Secret twice, you have to give the named title of the thread, the name of the person posting and then the URL. This means that if I wanted to quote just one page of a discussion with say 15 posters on it, I would have to say Above Top Secret 30 times, and provide 30 linkable URL's . That is 15 links and 30 mentions of their name for the search engines to hit. It is free advertising. It is designed to force anyone who wants to quote threads or discussions to do advertising for AboveTopSecret.

There are some interesting corollary questions. One of these is: how the Commercial for-profit, mega-billion dollar search engine Google can be allowed to display their information in search results without displaying any CC information or licensing? One might think that abovetopsecret.com’s – and every other website, for that matter - content certainly helps Google earn money. Are search engines implicitly exempt? In any event, studying this Creative Commons issue has raised this question: search engines get the use of everyone's material scot-free.

Getting back to ATS: My overview indicates that everything abovetopsecret.com - including their "ethical" use of Creative Commons - does is designed explicitly to spam the search engines. They rant on and on about fair use, but – and this is the thing that smells bad about this Creative Commons thing - if copyright laws work, and copyright contains fair use clauses already, then Creative Commons is just making things a mess. As Creative Commons is worded, the owner can list their 'requirements' for attribution. Who determines what is fair and reasonable in what an owner is allowed to require? Bottom line is, none of it is legal. It is simply a tool for intimidation.

Another very disturbing thing about abovetopsecret.com’s Creative Commons “requirements” is the Non-Commercial clause.

ATS says: "Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. This includes display on any website that contains advertising, accepts member donations, or any other form of monetary compensation."

That is almost like saying that only THEY have the right to sell anything and collect any money! A site that has adsense for charitable donations is also excluded, though I am sure they wouldn't try to intimidate such a site if that site posted something that they agreed with. Bottom line is, they assert that no one – except them - can do anything commercial at all. You can’t advertise your grandmother's potholders; you cannot accept member donations; if a charity has member donations link, NIX.

But that is not even the best part. The best part is the last part "or any other form of monetary compensation". What in the heck is that? How broad and how vague is that? Contributing your time to a charitable organization can in some cases be considered as a charitable tax deduction under certain guidelines and in those cases it is considered a form of monetary compensation (because you get a tax benefit). This is a form of monetary compensation. They could use that last phrase to attempt to intimidate just about anyone they wanted, most especially if that other individual or site published something they didn’t agree with.

So on the one side, abovetopsecret.com uses their CC “requirements” to require the spreading of their name and links throughout the Internet and on the other side, they leave the Non-commercial clause so ambiguous that they could try to use it to intimidate anyone, anytime, for any reason they wanted. And obviously, they are arrogant enough to think they can get away with this stuff.

My impression is that the abovetopsecret.com gang is downright psychotic. I am flabbergasted at what they say officially on the site and what they are actually doing with the site that can be uncovered by anyone with a modicum of technical skills and a little time. They talk out both sides of their mouths at once and it is plainly visible to anyone with, as Laura says, two neurons firing. But they also have a group of Renfield types (see Dracula) who strut around like “Cool Cats”, swallowing whole almost everything the owners and admins feed them.

Now, as I said, abovetopsecret.com has been its own “google bomb” from its inception. What is even more curious, based on a bit of data collecting and analysis is that google seems to actually HELP them. Things that ATS does, if other sites did them, they would be penalized by the search engines if not entirely erased. That is an interesting observation all by itself and will require more data collection over a period of time.

But for the moment, let me try to explain what I mean: It seems that the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) rules don't apply to AboveTopSecret. Not only do they have adverts posted to Google groups but also all over the Internet in bookmark resources, business directories, you name it. Their very own Forum Tagging system should act against them, but instead, for abovetopsecret.com, it only seems to help put more searchable hits into google! They have changed servers 4 times in three years which is a big negative according to search engine criteria. They have content cached under IPS and domain names. There are plausible explanations for many of these things (website owners change servers, websites have mirrors, etc.), but the enormity of it all put together with the obvious favors that google bestows upon them is significant.

Every action the owners take for what Simon calls "User Experience" is actually designed for one reason and one reason only, and that is to fill Google and search engines with pages and pages and pages.

By utilizing the psychological dependency that they have induced in their members, (it's almost cult like!) they get free labor to accomplish any marketing strategies that they come up with. They go on and on about poor ATS and how well-meaning and benevolent they are and have been and want to be, so now everyone must come out and show the world all the great work they do by putting the greatest threads in this new thread. Then, like robots, everyone comes obeys. In fact, that is what their whole COINTELPRO thread is about: it is designed to shove SOTT out of the search results, lure people to their site, and then present them with this great advertising page where they can slurp up more money.

What is sick is observing that the owners clearly know what they are doing. They know how they can manipulate the members to do whatever they want to accomplish as a business and marketing strategy. They know what they are doing in a fully conscious and evil way, from how they create and manage threads, to how they manipulate and use the forum members as tools to create more pages which are indexed in google, which in turn, by “thread targeting”, they seek to attract more users to control, who they manipulate to create more indexed pages, to get more people, to make more money, and around it goes.

Their thread management as stated by Simon Gray, is designed for the same purpose as everything else - pages. Pages and pages and more pages.

It's also obvious that they don't really care what is in the pages. Content is not the issue as it is to SOTT. The ATS directive is - PAGES. If a thread is not going anywhere - kill it. Get people to look at something else. If a thread is steaming along and gets too long, find a way to split it up into additional threads (many people get pissed off) so as to make more PAGES; add features to the site touting them as 'User Experience", when it is really just for pages for the search engines and that is all it is. It is obviously a full time job. No wonder the Amigos hide behind Monikers. If anybody found out where they really live and checked on them in their own towns, it might be very interesting.

Not all the members appear to be fooled, but most of them are so into it psychologically that they could never see it if it was put right before them. As I mentioned, it is more like a cult than an internet discussion. Only thing is, the members don't even realize that. There is no "teaching" nothing to really "believe in," but most definitely, Simon Gray is being subtly promoted as some kind of cultic object of adulation.

For example: To build prestige in self and allegiance to Simon, for abovetopsecret.com, the point system has been created. The Point System is used for reward and Punishment. They have contests to earn points and reinforce their self worth within the forum community. If Simon or the other owners approve, they get points. If they don't approve, they lose points. Can you imagine it? An internet discussion where people are lining up like little children in nursery school to get gold star stickers?

Recently, in early January, ATS turned on a new feature they call member tags. Member tags immediately added 37,000 pages to Google.

Coincidentally, this was right after the publication of Joe Quinn's article on SOTT, Dec. 31st.

What we notice about these 37,000 pages is that they are worthless as far as I can tell. No content. All the tag pages are basically just another form of indexing and advertising thread names. So they added 37,000 pages to Google with thousands of words, all pointing just to a set of intermediate pages listing thread names in categorizations (whether meaningful or not).

It looks as if they may have hundreds of thousands of pages in Google that all they are different presentations of index pages whose endpoint are all the same threads and posts. They self-reference voluminously. They may have ten pages or more all pointing to the same thread link, each one just sorted a different way. And the members think it is all real cool, but they haven't got a clue (most of them anyway). The owners currently are rewarding points for creating new member tags all the time.

They have a another new feature recently that lists last threads posted in by user. Click on a member name now and you get another type of index page all pointing to the same end points again! These things do not have to be indexed by Google and other search engines - it's basically search engine spam. The webmaster could be ETHICAL and use robots.txt to prevent all the garbage from getting into Google, but it appears to be all a part of the ATS marketing strategy. And Google does not seem to penalize them one bit for having 10 or 20 or 30 or more self-referencing pages all with the same internal endpoints! Figure that one out!

Just one user on their forum that does a moderate amount of posting can generate dozens of pages in Google just by their presence because of all the auto-generating self-referencing indexes created by their system. Some may even call this clever. I am sure many of their members would think so. It just builds pride in those members who are being manipulated (reminds me of the Nazis and their “pride building” programs) and if the owners arrogance could possibly go any higher, I am sure they would be proud of all their cleverness that they think no one can see, especially their utilization of the free labor. Bottom line is, it is not ETHICAL. No part of it.

Abovetopsecret.com is quite simply using its members as a free labor force to do work for them: Get more pages in Google which will draw more people to the site which will increase the labor force which will create more pages to get more people, to make more money.

Despite its claims about ETHICS, the bottom line is that Abovetopsecret.com is its own Google Bomb. ATS is an example of everything self-serving in our current reality - it is a microcosm of the Free market system, of corrupt government, democracy, business, almost everything that is wrong with this reality; all this is expressed in how abovetopsecret.com operates.

If the site is not directly handled by COINTELPRO, if the Abovetopsecret.com "Amigos" are not conscious COINTELPRO agents, then they are by default; it serves the same purpose because the infection of pathological elements reigns supreme there.

The 3 Amigos (Owners) manipulate everything about this site. They have figured out a way to manipulate google (that is why they put a thread link called "CoIntelPro" in the banner of every thread page, to push any search results for cointelpro and abovetopsecret deep into the google search pages behind them).

They do much behind closed doors but they show their arrogance freely throughout the site. They push their rules right and left, but they, as owners and moderators break them freely and regularly, seemingly as they please.

In short, it is all one giant marketing manipulation and the owners do not give a flip about the members or what is actually produced as a public consumable, so as long as it serves what is obviously their targeted purpose : To suck in more members to post which creates more indexed pages, to attract more readers, to vector their thinking and make money, and around and around it goes. It is rather amazing how the entire thing is designed and how most posters there haven't got a clue.





Comment on this Article


Flashback: Iraqi clerics are paid to spin for US

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 03 January 2006

A company headed by a young British businessman at the centre of a controversy over the Pentagon's information war in Iraq has been making payments to Islamic clerics in exchange for advice on how to target Sunnis with pro-American propaganda.
Since early last year the Lincoln Group - set up by Christian Bailey, an Oxford graduate - has been consulting Sunni clerics on how to write messages that would persuade Sunnis to participate in national elections and oppose the insurgency. Three or four have been retained by the company to advise US troops preparing "positive spin messages" as part of a propaganda campaign.

Lincoln Group secured a contract worth more than $100m to place stories written by US troops in Iraqi newspapers and make cash payments to Iraqi journalists to write similarly uncritical stories for their newspapers.



Comment on this Article


US deal said to let India expand nuclear arms

By Carol Giacomo Diplomatic Correspondent Reuters 15 Feb 06

A landmark new U.S.-India nuclear agreement would enable New Delhi to expand atomic weapons production and encourage Pakistan and China to do likewise, according to critics of the controversial deal.
In analyses to be made public on Wednesday, non-proliferation experts expressed grave concerns about a proposed "separation" plan that would open India's civil nuclear facilities to U.N. inspections, while permitting military facilities to remain off-limits.

The plan is central to whether the U.S.-India nuclear deal, agreed last July, goes forward. U.S. business leaders say the deal could open the door to billions of dollars in non-nuclear and civilian nuclear-related contracts while government officials say the agreement commits India to play a larger role in halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

But the two governments are at odds over details, and it is unclear if they can reach agreement before President George W. Bush visits New Delhi in early March.

But even if the Bush administration deemed the plan credible and all civilian facilities were placed under permanent international monitoring, the sale of U.S. and other foreign fuel to India "would still free-up India's existing capacity to produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons and allow for the rapid expansion of India's nuclear arsenal," the experts said in a memo to the U.S. Congress obtained by Reuters.

"A sober analysis reveals the non-proliferation benefits of the original proposal are overstated and the damage to the non-proliferation regime is potentially high," said the memo, prepared by Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association and five others.

For 30 years, the United States led the effort to deny India nuclear technology because it tested and developed nuclear weapons in contravention of international norms. Both India and its neighbor and nuclear-armed rival Pakistan have refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But Bush now views India, a rising democratic and economic power on China's border, as an evolving U.S. ally and the new nuclear deal -- allowing India to purchase nuclear reactors and fuel -- is central to that vision.

Kimball told Reuters on Tuesday he believed the deal may "fall apart" over the separation plan because India wants to exclude a large number of civilian facilities and spent fuel from international inspections.

The plan aims to ensure U.S. nuclear technology is never used for military purposes and in theory would make civilian facilities less susceptible to proliferation.

But if India buys U.S. and other foreign nuclear fuel and continues to expand its nuclear arsenal, this would force Pakistan to increase its arsenal and encourage China to continue modernizing, Kimball said.

Leonard Weiss, a chief architect of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act of 1978 when he was staff director of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs from 1977 to 1999, said in his analysis that if the deal enables India to ramp up its weapons production, this was a violation of U.S. obligations under the NPT, the bedrock arms control pact.

Weiss, Kimball and other experts told Congress that 11 operating power reactors in India may have produced as much as 9,000 kilograms of plutonium, which could be processed to make 1,000 nuclear weapons.

India has an estimated 50 nuclear weapons now and a goal of 300-400 weapons in a decade, the experts said.

The administration has been worried about the nuclear deal's fate, but a senior official told Reuters late on Tuesday he is more optimistic than he was two weeks ago.

Aiming to move away from the controversy and set a positive tone for Bush's visit, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected to address Parliament on relations with the United States on February 20 and Bush two days later will make a speech to the Asia Society with a focus on India, U.S. and other sources said.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited

Comment: But oh, no! Not Iran!!

Comment on this Article


Pilots Report Seeing Laser Lights While Flying

ClickOnDetroit.com Tue Feb 14, 2:16 PM ET

Police are on alert after more than a dozen pilots reported someone shining a laser light at the plane while descending into Metro Airport.

The incident occurred in the Dearborn and Dearborn Heights areas, where 16 pilots reported seeing the laser pointer lights near the tower at Metro Airport, Local 4 reported.
Apparently the lights were being flashed at planes on their final approach into the Detroit area. The first instance reported was near the Home Depot in Dearborn Heights, then a short time after the light originated from a neighborhood near Telegraph Road and Lehigh Road, according to police.

Police say shining a laser pointer at a plane is a felony and could lead to a dangerous situation.

"Just be a small laser, when it goes up into the cockpit, then it really can blind the pilot," said Capt. Lee Gavin, Dearborn Heights Police Department.

The same incident occurred about six months ago, Local 4 reported.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the FAA are investigating, and local police have assigned additional patrol vehicles to the reported areas, according to the station's reports.



Comment on this Article


U.S. Embassy Ready To Evacuate As Nepal's King Plan For Exile

By D.MICHAEL VANDEVEER ICH 15 Feb 06

KATHMANDU, NEPAL remains tense as the 7-Party agitation against the Monarchy gains strength and the Maoist continue to have success on the battle-field.Sources within the Palace report the King and his family are preparing for exile.
The recent Municipal elections proved to be a rebuff to the Nepalese King and have been denounced by the 7-Party Alliance, the Maoist, the UN and the International Community as un-democratic.

US Ambassador James Moriarty in a “Town Hall Meeting” for the American Community stressed, “the need for maps to everyone’s homes”, and promised GPS readings for all homes of US Citizens by February 20th.
“Things are going to get worse in the coming months so please have your “go-bag” ready so that you can evacuate in a minutes notice”, the Ambassador warned and described the situation in Nepal as , “a mess and getting worse”.
“The Maoist may take advantage of there being no government, and come in and take it over”, cautioned the US Ambassador.
The Ambassador said the Maoist are threatening Nepalese employees of the US Gov., as well as Nepalese in US funded projects.

On February-1, 2005, King Gyanendra suspended all civil and democratic rights in Nepal and has ruled with an Iron-Fist from the throne.
Journalist, peace and trade union activist, representatives of civil-society, and members and supporters of the 7-Party Alliance have been beaten, arrested, brutalized on a daily basis.

Human-Rights Organizations and the UN have condemned the Nepalese King and the
RNA ( Royal Nepalese Army) for Crimes Against Humanity and demanded a return to Constitutional Democracy .

The US, a major arms supplier, and trainer of the RNA has steadfastly condemned any peace-talks between the Maoist insurgents and the 7-Party Alliance, while paying lip-service to peace.
A Senior US Military advisor, retired Army Lieutenant General Edwin P. Smith, President of the Honolulu-based Asian Pacific Center for Security Studies was rushed to Kathmandu last month to access the deteriorating situation. Without US arms and aid the Kingdom would be bankrupt. Economist estimate that after June there will be no possibility of paying civil-servants and the 150,000 strong RNA and police.

The Maoist have threatened the King with execution for, “crimes against the Nepali people”.
It is not if, but when King Bir Bikhram Shah will leave the Himalayan Kingdom for exile. The major question is, will the Rana controlled RNA support the New Republic and allow the Maoist to lay down their arms and join the 7-Party Alliance in democratic elections, or will the RNA continue to suppress the democratic aspirations of the Napali people ?

D.MICHAEL VANDEVEER Freelance Journalist (SAJA), contributor to Pacifica’s Free Speech Radio News & United We Blog(Voice of Democratic Nepal)

Host OUT OF THE BOX KKCR-FM www.kkcr.org , P.O. Box:21218 Thamel,Kathmandu, Nepal




Comment on this Article


Clearing the Jordan Valley of Palestinians - Down the Explusion Highway

By AMIRA HASS Ha'aretz 15 Feb 06

Someone who apparently had an especially sarcastic sense of humor decided to officially name the Jordan Valley Road, Route 90, the "Gandhi Road." The reference is not to Mahatma Gandhi, but to Rehavam Ze'evi, who advocated "transfer"--the expulsion of the Palestinians from their land. Perhaps he understood that this was indeed the appropriate name for the eastern road. For not only on this road, but throughout the enormous and beautiful expanse of the Jordan Valley and the eastern slopes of the hills, there is an oppressive sense of absence, loss, and emptiness.
The Palestinians have disappeared from the valley, aside from a few thousand who live there plus some to whom Israel agrees to give daily entrance permits for various reasons. It is not even possible to include the approximately 35,000 residents of Jericho among those remaining, because the Israel Defense Forces forbids them to travel northward of Area A, where they live.

Thousands of residents of the neighboring towns and villages in the northern West Bank, which are sometimes only a few kilometers away, are absent from the valley, even though they have relatives and friends, privately owned land, houses, commercial ties and jobs there. Also missing are the Palestinian cars that in the not so distant past used to transport these absentees. Missing as well are the thousands of potential travelers to Jordan, the vacationing families and school students. These potential customers are absent from the colorful stalls at the crossroads.

Israeli soldiers control this absence via four principal checkpoints that divide the valley from the rest of the West Bank. They obey the orders of their commanders: It is forbidden for any Palestinian--in other words, some two million people (the 1.4 million residents of Gaza are already forbidden to come to the West Ba nk in any case)--to enter the valley, except for those whose official address, in their ID, is the Jordan Valley.

Some will say that these are security measures, whether legitimate or excessive, citing the attacks on settlers in the region over the last five years. But primarily, this is a direct continuation of a long-standing Israeli policy that intensified during the Oslo period. This policy has turned the Palestinian Jordan Valley, about one-third of the West Bank, into a story of lost opportunities from the point of view of its Palestinian potential: a potential for agricultural development and tourism, for improving and expanding existing communities or building new ones, for enabling a variety of lifestyles--urban, rural and semi-nomadic, modern and ancient, almost biblical.

The Israeli Oslo architects were careful to ensure that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to develop the valley during those fateful years when many believed that rehabilitating the economy was the proper basis both for a peaceful solution and for increasing support for such a solution.

The Oslo architects designated most of the eastern West Bank as Area C (full Israeli control), which is off-limits to Palestinian development. Only the settlements were allowed to develop, thanks primarily to the theft and exploitation of Palestinian water sources. A military training zone, where the IDF has conducted exercises ever since it conquered the West Bank, occupies 475 square kilometers of the valley and impairs the traditional lifestyle of thousands of semi-nomadic or Bedouin shepherds in the area. These shepherds are frequently turned out of their tents or forbidden to graze their sheep on these expanses or to raise a little wheat and produce for food.

At one time the explanation was that this is a firing range; once it was an issue of illegal construction. Just last Thursday, civil administration personnel demolished the tents, tin huts and sheepfolds of some 20 agricultural families in five different places in the valley. It is clear what scares the Israeli planners: A significant portion of the Palestinian communities in the valley turned from seasonal extensions of villages in the northern West Bank into permanent communities in the middle of the last century. Jews are encouraged to settle in the valley, but every conceivable method is used to deter Palestinians from doing so.

Preventing development and halting a long-standing natural process of construction and population expansion is a form of emptying out. But over the last few months, this effort expanded to include active measures: From time to time, soldiers come during the night and remove to the other side of the checkpoint those who live or work in the valley but whose official address is elsewhere. In the morning, these people return via the hills, evading the soldiers, taking the risk of stepping on a dud artillery shell.

And in October, people were given another reason to become fed up with life in the valley: Palestinian farmers were prevented from selling their produce to Israeli farmers at the nearest border crossing between the valley and Israel.

Instead of traveling five kilometers, they were forced to travel 50, to a distant cargo terminal (Jalameh), and to wait endlessly at the internal checkpoints, knowing that a large portion of their vegetables would be spoiled by the sun and the bumping around. Knowing that there would be no reward for their labor.

The army swears that these prohibitions bear no relation to the politicians' declarations that the valley will remain in Israel's hands forever. But in practice, they are helping to empty it of Palestinians, in preparation for its official annexation to Israel.

Amira Hass is the author of Drinking the Sea at Gaza.



Comment on this Article


Washington hopes to improve ties with Venezuela: envoy

www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-16 12:11:00

CARACAS, Feb. 15 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States has indicated itis willing to improve ties with Venezuela after the two countries expelled diplomats this month in a dispute over charges that a U.S. naval attache was spying, a U.S. diplomat said on Wednesday.
Though U.S.-Venezuela relations were not at their best as the two countries were divided on some issues, Venezuela and the U.S. have cooperated in fields such as energy, trade, as well as anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts, U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield told a local television channel.

The envoy hoped that through negotiation, the two countries could establish mature relations.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Tom Shannon, and Venezuela's ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, met earlier for the possibility of establishing dialogue over the disputes between the two countries, said Brownfield.

The U.S. and Venezuela have already shown that they can cooperate in effective ways, said Brownfield. He hoped the two countries could meet again to make new progress in bilateral efforts.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who took office in 1999, has clashed frequently with the Bush administration, which he accuses of trying to topple his government.

U.S.-Venezuela relations hit a new low earlier this month after Venezuelan authorities accused a U.S. naval attache at the embassy in Caracas of spying and expelled him from the country. Washington responded by sending home a Venezuelan diplomat.



Comment on this Article


Analysis: Spain defies U.S. -- again

By ROLAND FLAMINI UPI Chief International Correspondent

Last week, not for the first time since he left office, Spain's former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had lunch with President George W. Bush at the White House. He's doing a lot better than his socialist successor Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero at staying in touch with the Bush administration. After two years in office Zapatero has yet to meet formally with the American president.
Zapatero started on the wrong foot with the Bush administration by announcing the immediate withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq within weeks of his election victory. In the view of observers, the relationship has never quite recovered. There have been a couple of perfunctory hand-shakes in public meetings such as the United Nations summit in September, but the fact that Zapatero, a NATO ally, has not visited Washington after nearly 24 months in office sticks out like a sore thumb.

An attempt earlier this year by the Bush administration to block Spain's $2 billion arms sale to Venezuela in 2005 because Washington thought it could harm regional stability didn't help matters. Last weekend, too, a fresh troop pullout has again bedeviled Washington-Madrid relations. Spanish Defense Minister Jose Bono announced that Spain would withdraw its 200 troops from the U.N. peacekeeping force in Haiti in March, complaining that other donor countries are not paying their share of the cost. Washington and the United Nations have both pressed Spain to reconsider its decision. But Bono says he had warned that the Spanish contingent, which had been in Haiti since Nov. 2004, would be withdrawn if foreign commitments did not increase, and was now doing so.

In April 2005, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos assured reporters in Washington that "there will be a meeting between Zapatero and Bush, though there is no agenda, no date, no specific moment as of right now...I don't think it will be before the (feast of Rocio, which begins on May 9), but after it." But the meeting has yet to take place, and seems as far into the future now as it was a year ago. Bi-lateral trade contacts appear not to have been affected. Cooperation on international terrorism has also continued, and a bottleneck of student visa applications to study in the United States because of more stringent security requirements is being resolved, if very slowly.

But on the political and defense fronts bi-lateral dealings remain coolly formal, and generally limited to middle level contacts, European sources in Washington said Wednesday.

Aznar's conservative government had been a strong supporter of President Bush's Iraq war, and until April 2004 some 2,300 Spanish troops were deployed in post-war Iraq. Bush had also developed a personal relationship with Aznar. When Aznar's Popular Party lost decisively to the socialists in the March 2004 elections, the White House is said to have been behind Georgetown University's invitation to the former prime minister to give a series of lectures on current affairs. The arrangement enables Aznar to stay in touch with the Bush administration: The closeness that does not exactly delight the present government in Madrid but, of course, the White House makes the legitimate point that the president has a right to choose his own friends.

The Spanish arms deal signed with Venezuela in November consisted of 12 transport and surveillance planes, and a number of high-speed coastal patrol boats. But the prospective sale caused concern in Washington because, "it raises a lot of questions about their potential use and what effect that may have on the stability in the region," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said on Jan. 13. So the Bush administration refused to license the sale of the planes which have protected American technology, including optical system sensors, radar, and high tech cameras. The refusal reflects the Bush administration's difficult relationship with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and Washington's disapproval of the rapprochement it has seen growing between Madrid and Caracas.

Without specifically mentioning Washington, Bono criticized its refusal as hypocritical, "There are countries that get alarmed when Spain sells certain products, not for moral reasons, but because they wanted to sell them themselves," he said.

Arguing that the planes and boats are purely intended for defensive use, Madrid has also announced that it will seek to replace the U.S.-made components with European-made parts so that it can go ahead with the sale. But the cost will be higher, some Spanish sources in Madrid say, wiping out the profit.



Comment on this Article


Commercial photos show Chinese nuke buildup

By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 16, 2006

Commercial satellite photos made public recently provide a new look at China's nuclear forces and bases -- images that include the first view of a secret underwater submarine tunnel.

A Pentagon official said the photograph of the tunnel entrance reveals for the first time a key element of China's hidden military buildup. Similar but more detailed intelligence photos of the entrance are highly classified within the U.S. government, the official said.
"The Chinese have a whole network of secret facilities that the U.S. government understands but cannot make public," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "This is the first public revelation of China's secret buildup."

The photographs, taken from 2000 to 2004, show China's Xia-class ballistic missile submarine docked at the Jianggezhuang base, located on the Yellow Sea in Shandong province.

Nuclear warheads for the submarine's 12 JL-1 missiles are thought to be stored inside an underwater tunnel that was photographed about 450 meters to the northwest of the submarine. The high-resolution satellite photo shows a waterway leading to a ground-covered facility.

Other photographs show additional underground military facilities, including the Feidong air base in Anhui province with a runway built into a nearby hill.

The photographs were obtained by the nonprofit groups Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Federation of American Scientists. The photos first appeared Friday in the winter edition of the quarterly newsletter Imaging Notes.

The photographs are sharp enough to identify objects on the ground about 3 feet in size. Such digital images were once the exclusive domain of U.S. technical intelligence agencies, but in recent years, commercial companies have deployed equally capable space-based cameras.

Disclosure of the underground bases supports analyses of Pentagon and intelligence officials who say China is engaged in a secret military buildup that threatens U.S. interests, while stating publicly that its forces pose no threat.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said during a trip to China in October that Beijing was sending "mixed signals" by building up forces in secret and without explaining their purpose.

Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the Navy's Pacific Fleet, said he did not consider China "a threat." But he also said in a speech Tuesday that China's purpose behind its rapid military buildup is not fully known. "That's a little unclear," he said, noting that "increased transparency" is needed from China.

The photographs included several shots of Chinese H-6 strategic bombers and related aerial refueling tankers at Dangyang airfield in Hubei province. Also, 70 nuclear-capable Qian-5 aircraft were photographed parked at an airfield in Jianqiao, Zhejiang province, on the East China Sea coast.

The Pentagon's four-year strategy report made public earlier this month stated that China is emerging as a power with "the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States." The report stated that Beijing is investing heavily in "strategic [nuclear] arsenal and capabilities to project power beyond its borders."

The report did not provide specifics. U.S. officials said, however, that the secrecy of the Chinese buildup has fueled a debate within the U.S. government over the threat posed by that country.

U.S. intelligence agencies recently produced a National Intelligence Estimate, or major interagency analysis, that concluded China is using strategic deception to fool the United States and other nations about its goals and programs, including its military buildup.

Pentagon officials have asked China to allow visits to underground facilities such as the submarine tunnel and a command center in Beijing, but either the requests were denied or the existence of the sites was denied.

"The Chinese have denied having any underground submarine facilities," the Pentagon official said, noting that the satellite photos indicate that China has misled the United States.

Underground submarine sites are one of 10 major types of facilities hidden by the Chinese military, U.S. officials said. The others include nuclear missile storage facilities, other weapons plants, command centers and political leadership offices.

In 2004, China revealed the first of a new class of submarines. The development of the Yuan-class submarines was kept secret through the use of an underground factory in south-central China, the officials said.

Since 2002, Beijing has deployed 14 submarines. And it is working on a new ballistic-missile submarine, known as the Jin class, and two new Shang-class attack submarines.

According to a classified Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, China's nuclear forces include about 45 long-range missiles, 12 submarine-launched missiles and about 100 short-range missiles -- each with a single warhead.

By 2020, China's arsenal will include up to 220 long-range missiles, up to 44 submarine-launched missiles and up to 200 short-range missiles, the DIA report stated.

Richard Fisher, a China military analyst at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in addition to the northern submarine base, China also has a major submarine base at Yulin, on Hainan island in the South China Sea.

The southern base gives Chinese missile submarines easier access to firing areas than the Yellow Sea base, which is more vulnerable to attacks from U.S. anti-submarine warfare systems.



Comment on this Article


Preval declared Haiti poll winner

Thursday, 16 February 2006, 12:56 GMT

Rene Preval has been declared president of Haiti, following last week's vote marred by claims of irregularities.

He gained 51% of the vote after the authorities reached a last-minute deal to remove thousands of blank ballot papers from the count.

The 7 February vote triggered big rallies by Mr Preval's supporters, who had alleged widespread vote-rigging.

Jubilant crowds have poured into the streets of the capital, Port-au-Prince, to celebrate Mr Preval's victory.
UN peacekeepers are stepping up security in the city to prevent any rioting by opponents of the winner, reports say.

The UN Security Council earlier this week renewed the mandate of its 9,500-strong mission in Haiti for at least another six months.

Crisis talks

Mr Preval was credited with 51.15% of the votes, based on 96% of voting stations counted, the electoral body chief announced.

"Rene Preval... is declared the winner," Max Mathurin said.

His comments came after officials agreed to subtract more than 80,000 blank votes - or just over 4% of the total tally - from the election, taking Mr Preval over the winning threshold.

The decision followed late-night talks between the electoral council, the interim government and the Organization of American States.

Correspondents say the authorities were keen to avoid further violence over the allegations of electoral fraud.

The agreement follows days of protests, fuelled by the apparent discovery of charred ballot papers at a dump near Port-au-Prince.

Fraud inquiry

Mr Preval had warned of more protests if partial results - which would require a run-off if confirmed - were published as final.

The politician insisted he had won the vote, but partial results suggested he was just short of the 50% needed to be elected outright.

Haiti's interim government had earlier blocked publication of results until an inquiry into the fraud allegations was complete.

The UN Security Council has called on the Haitian authorities "to fully investigate those charges".

Haiti - the poorest country in the Americas - was also choosing a 129-member parliament on 7 February.

Poor following

The candidate of the small L'Espwa (The Hope) party, Mr Preval was once an ally of ousted former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and has inherited his following among the poor.

An agronomist who studied in Belgium, Mr Preval was active in the movement to oust military ruler Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier during the 1970s.

Mr Preval was prime minister for a brief period in Mr Aristide's first administration in the early 1990s.

He replaced Mr Aristide as president between 1996 and 2001. The political situation began to deteriorate by the end of his term.



Comment on this Article


Plagued by teenagers? You'll like the sound of this

By Richard Alleyne 16/02/2006 Telegraph UK

As a form of revenge against disruptive youth, it is almost too sweet - a device that annoys teenagers so intensely they have to disperse and loiter somewhere else.

Police have given their backing to a gadget that sends out an ultra high-pitched noise that can be heard only by those under 20 and is so distressing it forces them to clutch their ears in discomfort.

Teenagers Shaun Turner and Christian Percival feel the force in a test run yesterday
Teenagers Shaun Turner and Christian Percival feel the force

Eventually they can stand it no longer and have to move on.
But because the body's natural ability to detect some frequency wave bands diminishes almost entirely after 20, adults are completely immune to the sounds.

The Sonic Teenager Deterrent, nicknamed the Mosquito because of its sound, has proved so successful in warding off gangs from trouble-spots that it has been endorsed by the police and local authorities.

The Sonic Teenager Deterrent sends out 80-decibel bursts
The Sonic Teenager Deterrent sends out 80-decibel bursts

The black box, which can be attached to the outside wall of shops, offices and homes, sends out 80-decibel bursts of pulsing sounds at up to 16khz. It sounds to youngsters like a demented insect or a very badly-played violin.

But for adults it is hardly detectable. What is more, shop owners can control the strength of the signal as the problem of loitering youths ebbs and flows - and it does not penetrate indoors.

The system was the brainchild of Howard Stapleton, a businessman and former electronics apprentice at British Aerospace, who was sick of youths hanging around outside his local shop and intimidating customers.

He remembered visiting a factory run by his father when he was 12 and finding the noise unbearable even though the adults with him were unmoved. He was told the high frequency was perceptible only to the ears of youngsters.

Working in his bedroom in Merthyr Tydfil, and using his four children as guinea pigs, he came up with a prototype of his device and asked the local shop to test it.

"I got it so that only my kids hated it and my fianceé and I were completely unperturbed," he said. "We put up the prototype outside the store and almost immediately people stopped congregating.

"The beauty of it is that the noise does not have to be loud, just pitched at the right level which affects teenagers.

"We didn't have any complaints from the other customers and it causes no physical damage. The 20-year-old mark is not absolute but 90 per cent of people under 20 can hear it and 90 per cent of people over 30 cannot."



Comment on this Article


Ark's Quantum Quirks

Signs of the Times February 16, 2006

Ark

Thinking about gravity




Comment on this Article


Bush wants extra $75 mln to spur Iran democracy

By Saul Hudson Wed Feb 15, 10:49 AM ET

WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush wants $75 million to try to spur democracy in its adversary Iran, expanding a program that skeptics say can have little effect in the Islamic republic.

"The United States will actively confront the aggressive policies of the Iranian regime. At the same time, we will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom and democracy in their country," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a congressional budget hearing.
Rice, who said the funds would be used to broadcast U.S. radio and television programs into Iran and help pay for Iranians to study in America, requested the money in a supplemental budget request for fiscal year 2006.

Comment: Honestly - American television programs?! All that "reality TV" will just make Iranians sick to their stomachs.


Congress has already approved $10 million for such programs for the year, which begins on October 1.

Political analysts and Western diplomats are skeptical U.S. efforts to reach out to Iranians can work in a country where America is labeled the "Great Satan" and believed to be anti-Muslim, particularly because of a perception it favors Israelis over Palestinians.

Comment: It's not just a "perception" that the US government favors Israel over Palestine. How many billions of dollars has the US government given Israel in recent years? Who always stands up for Israel's right to do whatever it wants in the UN? While badmouthing Iran, which country simultaneously ignores Israel's unofficial nuclear weapons program?


The United States, which cut diplomatic ties with Iran after its 1979 revolution, is locked in a standoff with the Islamic republic to curb what it suspects are programs to build a nuclear bomb.

But the Bush administration has emphasized in recent weeks that it is not at odds with the people of Iran and said it wants to help them win freedoms from their government.

NUCLEAR CLASH

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rice said the Iranian government had increasingly isolated itself by pursuing nuclear programs in defiance of the international community.

Rice said she will visit the Gulf region next week to discuss Iran's nuclear programs with Tehran's Arab neighbors. She did not specify which countries she will visit.

A U.S. official said Rice is expected to visit Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and discuss the election victory of the Palestinian group Hamas and Muslim outrage at European newspapers' publication of cartoons satirizing Prophet Mohammad.

The United States, which has wide-ranging sanctions against Iran in an effort to squeeze its economy, is also looking at possibly imposing further measures, Rice added.

Iran says its nuclear programs are for peaceful electricity generation.

But the United States won this month a years-long campaign to have Iran reported to the United Nations Security Council over the West's suspicions it wants to build a nuclear weapon.

Bush has made spreading democracy, especially in Muslim countries, a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

The program has had mixed results.

Countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have implemented some democratic reforms, including expanding voting rights.

But elections promoted by Bush have also opened the way to empowering militant groups opposed to U.S. policies. Most notably, in the Palestinian territories, Hamas is set to govern for the first time despite being designated a terrorist organization by the United States and the
European Union.

Comment: See comments in article text.

Comment on this Article


War Pimping: Rice asks for $75M to foster democracy in Iran

By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress on Wednesday for $75 million this year to build democracy in Iran, saying the U.S. must support Iranians who are seeking freedoms under what she called a radical regime.

The money, to be included in an emergency 2006 budget request the White House is expected to send to Congress as early as this week, will be used for radio and satellite television broadcasting and for programs to help Iranians study abroad.
"The United States wishes to reach out to the Iranian people and support their desire to realize their own freedom and to secure their own democratic and human rights. The Iranian people should know that the United States fully supports their aspirations for a freer, better future," Rice testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Over the past two years, Rice said, the State Department has invested more than $4 million in projects aimed at empowering Iranian citizens in their call for political and economic freedoms and in the current budget year will invest at least $10 million in such efforts.

The $75 million is in addition to that money, which Congress already has approved.

Rice said the United States is working with non-governmental organizations to develop a support network for political dissidents and human rights activists while paying for programs that train labor activists and help protect them from the "radical regime" in Tehran.

The United States has not had diplomatic ties with Iran since the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Iran and maintains broad economic sanctions against the Islamic regime. She said the State Department is working with the Treasury Department to ensure barriers are open that allows the United States to pay for scholarships and fellowships for Iranians.

"Through its aggressive and confrontational behavior, Iran is increasingly isolating itself from the international community," Rice said.

An Iranian official said Tuesday that his country has resumed small-scale enrichment of uranium, putting that nation on a path that others fear could be a step toward producing fuel for an atomic bomb. T

he U.S. and many European countries are maneuvering to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council in hopes of pressuring Tehran into backing away from its nuclear program.

"They have now crossed a point where they are in open defiance of the international community," Rice said.

She declined to detail what sanctions the United States is pursuing, although she did acknowledge that the United States has analyzed the impact of oil sanctions on Iran.

Whatever the result, Rice said, the international community must be united in a punishment that sends a strong message to the Iranian regime without hurting the Iranian people. "You will see us trying to walk a fine line in actions we take," Rice said.

In addition to Iran, senators were expected to pepper Rice with questions on a host of international issues, many of which have arisen since she last appeared before Congress in October. Those include an impending takeover of the Palestinian government by Hamas, an Islamic group that won a decisive majority in Palestinian legislative elections last month.

"We will continue to insist that the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace," Rice said.

On Tuesday, United States and Israeli officials denied reports that they were plotting ways to topple the militant group's incoming government unless it renounces its violent ideology and recognizes Israel's right to exist.

Also on the agenda during the hearing was the political and economic situation in Iraq.

In Iraq, the fledgling democracy's leading Shiite bloc has chosen Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to serve another term and lead the country's new government. The U.S. wants al-Jaafari to form a national unity government with Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds, hoping that will rein in the violence that has raged since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003.

Although lawmakers acknowledge progress politically in Iraq, some express frustration over what they say is the administration's lack of adequate action on repairing Iraq's oil production infrastructure and fully restoring its water and electrical power. Rice was to appear before the committee on Tuesday, but the session was postponed a day because of Senate floor votes.

Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti in Washington contributed to this story from Washington.

(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Comment: In other words, it has nothing to do with supporting democracy and everything to do with paying for propaganda. Can we say Goebbels?

Comment on this Article


Rice Says Iran Is Openly Defying The World

Radio Free Europe 15 February 2006

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that Iran is openly defying the international community by resuming the enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel and warned that the United States could impose fresh, unilateral sanctions.
Speaking at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rice said Washington is examining the full range of possible punitive sanctions on Iran.

The United States already prohibits the purchase of Iranian oil, one of a number of restrictons it has imposed.

"No one wants to deny the Iranian people or the Iranian nation civil nuclear power," she said, but "many different options have been put before Iran. They have chosen to isolate themselves instead."

The West fears that Iran may have a covert atomic bomb program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, also called on Iran to suspend all nuclear-fuel enrichment work. But he reiterated Moscow's opposition to sanctions.

The Iranian Defense Ministry stated again on 15 February that Tehran is ready to defend itself against any threats.

Iran's determination to continue with its program was also underlined by a surprise visit paid by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to the Natanz uranium enrichment plant.

Comment: No, Iran is just defying the U.S. and Israel and the U.S. and Israel are blackmailing the leaders of many European countries to back them up.

Comment on this Article


Iran has secret military nuclear program: France

Reuters Thu Feb 16, 3:31 AM ET

PARIS - French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Thursday Iran was pursuing a clandestine military nuclear program.

"No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. So it is a clandestine Iranian military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy told France 2 television.
"The international community has sent a very firm message by saying to the Iranians: 'Come back to reason. Suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment of uranium and the conversion of uranium,"' he added.

"They are not listening to us."

China, which like France is a permanent member of the
U.N. Security Council, urged a diplomatic resolution of the standoff on Thursday, a day after the United States said Tehran was defying the international community by resuming enrichment.

Iran on Tuesday resumed feeding uranium gas into centrifuges for nuclear-fuel enrichment after a break of 2-1/2 years, stoking a diplomatic showdown with the West.

Douste-Blazy said the international community was united on the nuclear issue and that the Security Council would decide how to act after the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog submits a report on the situation in March.



Comment on this Article


Iran rejects French nuclear charges

AFP Thursday February 16, 6:43 PM

Iran has insisted that it was not seeking a nuclear weapon, rejecting accusations by France that its atomic drive was "clandestine" and "military" in nature.

The allegations from French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy were the first time a top European official has made such explicit claims against Tehran and highlighted increasing EU exasperation over Tehran's nuclear programme.

"Contrary to all the propaganda against us, we are not seeking a nuclear bomb, since we are a signatory to (the nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Thursday.
"It is Western propaganda that keeps on saying that Iran is seeking a bomb, but it is not true," Larijani, also the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told France Inter radio.

Douste-Blazy's comments came two days after two days after Iran confirmed it has resumed sensitive uranium enrichment work, a process that can be used both to make fuel for a power station or the explosive core of a nuclear bomb.

"It's very simple: no civilian nuclear programme can explain Iran's nuclear programme," the minister told France 2 television. "Therefore it's a clandestine military nuclear programme."

Larijani retorted: "I am very sorry to hear such comments from him, France possesses a high position among the Iranians."

"It is better for France to use its position to solve the issue, complicating the situation is easy, but diplomats should refrain from harsh comments," he said.

"We should not hear the same comments from the EU countries as we are used to hear from the Americans," he added.

"I really and definitely think that France has the capability to come forward. The EU should maintain their own position, without influence," Larijani said.

He reaffirmed Iran's position that it was ready to continue negotiations with the Europeans.

Negotiations between Iran and Europe, supposed to have taken place in mid January, never materialized owing to Iran's resumption of enrichment related activities.

The United States, for their part, have regularly accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons.

The row over Iran's nuclear ambitions -- which Tehran insists is for civilian nuclear energy only -- has sparked an international standoff which has led to the brink of UN Security Council intervention.

Earlier this month the United States and a European Union troika made up of Britain, France and Germany persuaded the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran to the Security Council for action.

The world body is awaiting a March 6 report by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei before deciding how to proceed.

Asked about whether Iran would halt oil sales to the West, Larijani issued a veiled warning but also insisted Iran would never act irresponsibly.

"We will not take the first step. But if they take on a behaviour that changes the region's conditions, it may have an affect."

"We would not resort to any means for any end, we are a responsible nation," he added.

"We principally do not believe in such methods, the methods which will disturb the international norms," Larijani said.

Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh also offered reassuring words about oil production from OPEC's second largest producer.

"There is no link between the oil and the nuclear issue," he told reporters. "We have no reason to stop our exports."

Iran has said that the uranium enrichment resumed at the Natanz plant is small scale in nature, for research purposes only, and not on an industrial scale.

"The international community has sent a very strong message to the Iranians: show reason, suspend all nuclear activities and uranium enrichment," Douste-Blazy said. "And they're not listening to us.

"That is the reason why, for the first time for days, the international community is united. It's not just the Europeans -- France, Germany and the British -- it's also Russia and China."



Comment on this Article


War Pimp Mofaz: Iran combining radical platform with nuclear weapons - danger for Israel

YNet 15 Feb 06

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking in Tel Aviv, addressed the threat posed by Hamas. He emphasized however the "main threat to Israel, the Iranian threat."


"The combination of a radical platform, calling for the destruction of Israel, and Holocaust denial, together with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons, represents a serious threat to Israel." (Avi Cohen)




Comment on this Article


War Pimp IDF Intelligence Chief: Iran Implementing Concrete Plan to Destroy Israel

Arutz Sheva 14 Feb 06

(IsraelNN.com) Head of Army Intelligence Brig.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the Knesset Defense Committee Tuesday that he shares the assessment that Iran presents an existential threat to Israel.

In what was his first appearance before the committee, Yadlin stressed that Israel must regard with complete seriousness the declarations of Iran's president regarding his intention to destroy Israel.

According to the IDF's assessments, the matter is beyond mere statements, but consists of a decisive and serious plan being carried out by Iran.




Comment on this Article


Russian Political Expert Predicts US Missile Attack on Iran in Early Summer

MosNews 14 Feb 06

U.S. will launch a missile attack against Iran this summer, says Russian political expert Mikhail Delyagin.

“Lately the demand of U.S. military actions against Iran has become really obvious,” Delyagin was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying at a press conference in Moscow Tuesday.

Delyagin said the current situation was in many ways similar to the situation in 1999 that preceded NATO attack on Yugoslavia, and that of 2003 before the Coalition forces invasion in Iraq.

“I think that today’s statements, the propaganda and the actions allow us to say quite clearly that the missile attack on Iran is a question of time,” he said.

“Judging by the pre-elections motivation, the attack must take place late spring or late summer,”

Delyagin added the attacks will only target nuclear objects.

“It will be a pinpoint, surgical operation. Iran has a limited capacity to response,” he said.




Comment on this Article


Russia voices strong opposition to sanctions against Iran

IRNA Vienna 15 Feb 06

Russian Foreign Minister voiced here Wednesday his country's strong opposition to any possible sanctions against Iran.

Sergei Lavrov who is in Austrian Capital for talks with the European Troika -France, Britain and Germany- said in a press conference that sanctions have never resolved any row.

"On the contrary sanctions have always been an impetus for intensifying disagreements," He added.
"If we want Tehran to honor its commitments to the international community and continue with its transparent nuclear program, then the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should resume its activities in Iran," the Russian Foreign Minister underlined.

"We should also urge Iran to return to the negotiating table," he said.

The Austrian Foreign Minister, whose country is the current rotating head of EU, also called on Tehran to take advantage of remaining time till the UN National Security Council takes up Iran's nuclear dossier.

He also said that all efforts should be focused on diplomatic means to resolve the nuclear row.

In related news, Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Gholam-Reza Ansari here Tuesday assessed Russia's proposal for joint uranium enrichment with Iran as "constructive".

Ansari's remarks were part of his address to reporters at the Russian State Duma (lower chamber of Parliament).

"The proposal has the potential of resolving the issue if its shortcomings and disadvantages are removed" he said.

"If the two countries' experts hold talks to discuss details of the offer they can undoubtedly find solutions to its shortcomings," he added.

He was optimistic on the outcome of talks scheduled to be held between the Iranian and Russian delegations on Feb 20 to discuss Russia's proposal to diffuse the crisis over Iran's nuclear activities.



Comment on this Article


US threatens Iran with new sanctions

By Mark Heinrich Reuters 15 Feb 06

VIENNA - Threatening new sanctions, the United States accused Iran on Wednesday of defying the world by resuming uranium enrichment for nuclear fuel without resolving suspicions it secretly wants to build atomic bombs.

Russia urged Iran to change course to allow a compromise. It said Iran had to regain international trust before Moscow would back Tehran's declared right to enrich uranium on its own soil.
Iran resumed small-scale feeding of uranium gas into centrifuge enrichment machines on Tuesday, officials close to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said.

European Union powers had persuaded Tehran to suspend enrichment in November 2003 over fears it was pursuing a nuclear arsenal under cover of a civilian energy programme. Tehran says its programme is only for nuclear-generated electricity.

"They have now crossed a point where they are in open defiance (of the world community)," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The United States, which has long imposed economic sanctions against Iran, was considering further measures, said Rice.

The so-called "extraterritoriality" element of U.S. sanctions against certain states that seeks to prevent non-U.S. firms doing business in Iran is deeply resented internationally.

Rice said U.S. President George W. Bush would ask Congress for $75 million (43 million pounds) to try to promote democracy in Iran. Critics say this might backfire as many Iranians are hostile to U.S. policies in the Middle East.

RUSSIA URGES COMPROMISE

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Iran must suspend all atomic fuel enrichment work to give Moscow's proposal to defuse the nuclear standoff a chance of success.

He said imposing sanctions on Iran over fears it was secretly seeking nuclear arms would only make matters worse.

Russia backed an IAEA vote on February 4 to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, but has floated its own idea for resolving the dispute.

It has proposed enriching Iranian uranium on its soil and returning it to Iran for use in atomic power reactors to prevent possible diversion of high-grade fuel for bomb-making.

Lavrov said after talks with EU leaders in Vienna that Russian-Iranian talks set for February 20 were based on a package agreed with Western powers trying to get Iran to curb its nuclear work in exchange for economic incentives.

"For this to happen, there must be a resumption of (EU-Iran) talks and it is clear that Iran must resume a moratorium on enrichment on its own territory," Lavrov told a news conference.

"Sanctions ... are simplistic. They will not help. Not in one single case have they ever helped," he said.

"If we want the (nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty not to be violated and if we want to avoid living in fear of a secret military nuclear programme in Iran, we must do all we can to maintain and develop the IAEA's ability to do its job."

Russia has significant trade interests in Iran, including construction of Tehran's first nuclear reactor and arms sales.

Lavrov said Iran must fully cooperate with IAEA investigations to resolve international concerns about its nuclear intentions before Moscow would support a complete nuclear fuel industry on Iranian territory.

Iran's decision to retaliate for being referred to the U.N. Security Council by resuming uranium enrichment and curbing some IAEA inspections has drawn widespread international criticism.

Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, said Iran's new enrichment work had needlessly escalated tensions with the West and would damage Tehran's relations with the 25-nation bloc.

Iran has given conflicting statements on what is being done at its Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plant.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's atomic programme, spoke of work on a "small laboratory scale", adding: "Injecting gas into one or a few centrifuges could not be termed enrichment."

A senior Iranian official denied any uranium hexafluoride gas had been injected into centrifuges.



Comment on this Article


Patriot Act Moves Ahead Despite Opposition

By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press February 16, 2006

WASHINGTON - The USA Patriot Act is headed toward renewal with broad Senate support for a White House-brokered compromise that adds modest new civil liberties protections to the terror-fighting law.

"The outcome here is absolutely predetermined," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said late Wednesday. "It's going to pass with overwhelming support."
With even senior Democrats lining up behind the measure, its lone opponent, Sen. Russell Feingold, was preparing amendments he said would strengthen its curbs on government power. Congress is racing to renew 16 provisions of the law that are set to expire March 10.

During the process, Feingold, D-Wis., was trying to attach an amendment to set a four-year expiration date on the use of National Security Letters - demands for records issued by administrators - under the Patriot Act, according to a spokesman.

Comment: Even one year is too long. But then, that's the whole point: the debate has become about how to "restrict" the government's power instead of whether or not the Bush Reich should even have that power in the first place.


Another amendment would require the government to notify the subject of a secret search within seven days or obtain court permission to maintain the secrecy for a longer period, rather than the 30-day requirement in the legislation being considered.

While the filibuster was a lone endeavor, Feingold had plenty of company in wanting the 2001 anti-terrorism law to include more curbs on the government's power to investigate people.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said a full makeover was unlikely to pass Congress before March 10.

"Sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty out of a beast and provide enough cover for senators to change their vote," Specter told reporters Wednesday.

Indeed, virtually every senator who had stood with Feingold last year to kill a House-Senate agreement abandoned the effort this month after two of them, both Republicans, struck a deal with the White House to add more privacy protections.

Now, the legislation's supporters include the chamber's most senior Democrats, and the 60 votes required to overcome Feingold's filibuster.

Frist said the Senate planned procedural votes on the matter beginning Thursday and stretching beyond congressional recess next week. Final votes were expected to resume at the end of the month.

Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., shared Feingold's concern but said his talks with the White House produced improvements to the law's civil liberties protections.

"In an effort like this, no party ever gets everything that they want," Sununu said.

Under the deal, recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations would have the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.

Another new protection would remove a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of an attorney consulted about a National Security Letter.

A third improvement, supporters say, makes clear that most libraries are not subject to National Security Letter demands for information about suspected terrorists.

But Feingold said the new deal makes only one modest improvement over the defeated House-Senate compromise and current law: It makes clear that there would be judicial review of "gag orders" issued with court-ordered subpoenas for information, but sets several conditions. Under one, the review can only take place after a year and requires the recipient of the order to prove the government has acted in bad faith, Feingold said.

"That is a virtually impossible standard to meet," he said.



Comment on this Article


The Backstabbers

Chris Floyd Empire Burlesque 14 Feb 06

Here's yet another story that is sadly characteristic of the Bush Imperium: the complete and utter breakdown in backbone of the so-called "opposition" party. We'll skip the polite headline use by the New York Times and title the story according to its truth: Democratic Leaders Force Democrat Who Actually Talks Like a Democrat to Quit Race Due to Lack of Deference and Decorum Toward the Dear Leader and Insufficient Sucking Up to Corporate Elites.
Words are simply inadequate to describe these sad sacks of shinola, or limn the monstrous betrayal of the Republic they have wrought by their cringing acquiesence and petty, piping, process-obsessed impotence in the face of the brutal Bush machine. It's so hard for those of us raised as die-hard, "yellow dawg" Democrats to witness the decades-long degradation of the party into this rabble of lapdogs and losers. But personal feelings aside, it is a tragedy for the entire nation that in a two-party system, the only party that – occasionally -- stood up for the welfare of the common people and the primacy of the Constitution has collapsed into slavish irrelevance at the moment of maximum peril.

From the NYT: Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.

Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.

"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me…"

Mr. Redfern [Ohio party chairman] added that Mr. Brown's fund-raising abilities made him the better Senate candidate. By the end of last year, Mr. Brown had already amassed $2.37 million, 10 times what Mr. Hackett had raised…

Mr. Hackett said he was unwilling to run for the Congressional seat because he had given his word to three Democratic candidates that he would not enter that race. "The party keeps saying for me not to worry about those promises because in politics they are broken all the time," said Mr. Hackett, who plans to return to his practice as a lawyer in the Cincinnati area. "I don't work that way. My word is my bond…"

Mr. Hackett was widely criticized last year for using indecent language to describe President Bush. Last month, state Republicans attacked Mr. Hackett for saying their party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said "aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden."

Though Republicans called for an apology, Mr. Hackett repeated the mantra of his early campaign: "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."



Comment on this Article


Mark Crispin Miller says Bush stole the White House, twice.

By Anthony Lappé

The GNN interview with the Fooled Again author.

Editor’s note: If you asked everyone in the U.S. whom they thought won Florida in 2000, half the country (or more) would most likely tell you Al Gore, including Al Gore. But pose the question, who won Ohio in November 2004? and it’s an entirely different story. For most Americans, George Bush earned a commanding mandate on November 2, 2004. The race in Ohio, officially decided by 118,000 votes, was close, but was no Florida. There were no hanging chads or Jews for Buchanan. Democracy worked and the guy with the most votes won. But for a small contingent of left-wing activists and progressive Democrats, Ohio was Florida Redux – a ruthless Republican coup orchestrated under the absent gaze of the lapdog media. In GNN’s new documentary American Blackout, we detail some of the more egregious examples of voter suppression. As the Conyers Report documents, there is substantial evidence that heavily Democratic (and African-American) precincts in Ohio didn’t have enough voting machines, voters were intimidated and valid votes were discarded. Yet for most on the left, it’s still an open question whether Republican shenanigans actually added up to a Kerry win. What does Kerry think? In his new book, American Vertigo, Bernard-Henri Lévy writes he met up with a “haggard, ghostly” Kerry a few weeks after his loss. According to Lévy, the defeated candidate faintly whispered in his ear, “If you hear anything about those 50,000 votes in Ohio, let me know.”

In his new book, Fooled Again, NYU media critic and outspoken Bush-basher Mark Crispin Miller (The Bush Dyslexicon) says he knows where to look. In Fooled Again, he lays out what he says is a definitive case that Kerry won Ohio, and thus the election. Recently, GNN’s Anthony Lappé conducted this interview with Miller about his controversial allegations:

GNN: In your book, you argue that Kerry won the 2004 presidential election. On what basis to you draw that conclusion?

Miller: I’d put that very question to all those who keep asserting that Bush/Cheney won the race legitimately: “On what basis do you draw that conclusion?” Aside from the official numbers, there’s no evidence that Bush won the election as advertised. We’re told that he got at least 11.5 million more votes than he got against Al Gore four years before. We’re also told that Bush prevailed because of vast outpouring of first-time evangelical voters.

Both claims are preposterous. By Election Day Bush had the highest disapproval ratings of any incumbent facing reelection – higher than LBJ’s in 1968, higher than Jimmy Carter’s in 1980. The Democrats, moreover, were more unified than they had been in decades; Ralph Nader got only 400,000+ votes nationwide. The turnout was very high – over 60% – and all the evidence suggests that the Democrats did far better than the Bush Republicans at registering new voters, especially in the swing states of Ohio and Florida. And, finally, Bush’s party was divided, with many eminent party members (Bob Barr, John Eisenhower, Paul Craig Roberts, Francis Fukuyama, Tony McPeak, Lee Iacocca) calling publicly for people not to vote for him. Sixty dailies that had endorsed Bush in 2000 now refused to do it again.

So where did all those new Bush voters come from? By Karl Rove’s own estimate, which was reported over and over throughout the campaign, there were only some four million evangelicals who hadn’t voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000. Even assuming that the Bush campaign got every one of those voters out there on Election Day – which is itself a stretch – that still leaves over seven million of those mystery voters unaccounted for.

And once we take a good look at the vast range of colossal frauds committed by the Bush Republicans before and on and following Election Day — fraud that variously cut the national anti-Bush vote at every step of the electoral process, from registration on – we can see how the majority was disenfranchised in 2004, and how they will be disenfranchised yet again this year, unless we act as soon as possible.

GNN: In Ohio, for instance, Kerry lost by 118,000 votes, can you detail where those votes were stolen?

Miller: In all Ohio’s heavily populated areas – college towns as well as cities – the Bush machine, supervised by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, cut the anti-Bush vote, first, by cutting back the Democratic registration rate, through a broad range of legal/bureaucratic tricks, and then by scaring countless voters off through statewide use of various disinformation and intimidation tactics. African-American voters, or would-be voters, were the major targets of such efforts, which included telling Democrats to cast their votes the day after Election Day (Nov. 3), giving out wrong addresses for many polling places, and warning folks that anyone with an outstanding parking ticket, or anyone owing child-support payments, or anyone who’d ever been in prison, or who had a relative who’d been in prison, would be arrested if they dared show up to vote. There were also people roaming through black neighborhoods, helpfully offering to hand-deliver people’s absentee ballots to the proper place.

Such disinformation and intimidation tactics at the grass-roots level were often carried out by party operatives bused into Ohio, and their lodging paid for, by the Republican National Committee. “The Texas Strike Force” was one such drive, comprising goons from Bush/Cheney’s home state, who were very active in Franklin County on Election Day.

Far more effective than such old-fashioned Jim Crow stratagems was the systematic use of DRE machines – touch-screen voting machines—to wipe out thousands upon thousands of anti-Bush votes. On the one hand, there was a deliberate under-supply of such machines to Democratic areas throughout the state, so that there were especially long lines in those places, forcing lots of people to leave without voting. In pro-Bush precincts this did not occur. We also know of several thousand such machines being purposely held back in warehouses even though they were very badly needed in Ohio’s cities and college towns.

Also, there was systematic flipping of Kerry votes into Bush votes by machines throughout the state – and no reports, at least none that I’ve seen, of any machines doing the opposite. Also, as I point out in Fooled Again, there’s evidence of some 10%-20% of Democratic votes being automatically erased within the system, so that countless would-be voters were told, when they showed up to vote, that they weren’t registered.

Election Day saw whopping improprieties throughout the state. Blackwell’s office refused to allow two international observers to get within a hundred yards of any polling place. And in Warren County, on Election Night, there was a “terrorist alert” that caused the Republican election personnel to evict reporters from the premises before the counting of the vote. The next day, the FBI revealed that there had been no such alert; and the Cincinnati Inquirer reported soon thereafter that the plan to call that “terrorist alert” had been in the works for some nine days. There are also two witnesses to the fact that ballots were removed from the Warren County headquarters and taken to an unauthorized storage site controlled by a GOP operative. Considering the fact that Warren County was among the last to report its total, it seems quite likely that the tally was held back and tailored to give Bush his “victory margin.”

Finally, after Election Day, the court-ordered recount of the statewide vote was deliberately subverted by the Boards of Elections in many counties, in collusion with employees of Triad, the Ohio company that manufactures the vote tabulators used in the election there. (Triad’s owner is a big Bush supporter.) To this day there has been no recount of the votes, just as there never was in Florida after Election Day 2000.

GNN: You claim John Kerry told you personally that he believed the election was stolen. Explain the context and his response when you went public. Why do you think Kerry conceded so quickly? What was Edwards’s role?

Miller: He told me that he thinks the race was stolen, and deplored the fact that his fellow Democrats in Congress won’t even discuss the issue. This was on Oct. 28, at a fundraiser in Chelsea, here in Manhattan. We talked for ten or fifteen minutes. It was not off the record. He was very frank. I urged him to devote his energies to looking into the 2004 election, as a way to raise the crucial issue of electoral reform in the U.S. He said he’d read the book and intimated that we’d talk again.

I was thrilled, as so few national Democrats had faced the growing danger of election fraud, and here was Kerry – whose concession was, in my view, catastrophic – having come around. So over the next week, which saw the start of my book tour, I would tell the story of our conversation at the bookstores and such. A week after I talked to him, I was on “Democracy Now!” and told the story once again. The show’s producers sent out a press release about it. A few hours later, Kerry’s office came out with a statement categorically denying that we had ever had that conversation.

It was bizarre, to say the least, but, sad to say, entirely typical — and understandable. I think Kerry and most other national Democrats are in denial about the last election. I don’t think they can allow themselves to recognize what’s happened, as it’s too traumatic, and would call on them to hit the mattresses, or man the barricades. Business as usual, politics as usual, just won’t cut it anymore. Most Democrats can’t handle that. Neither can most members of the press, the left/progressive press included.

Edwards was furious at Kerry for conceding. I tell the story in Fooled Again, based on the account of someone very close to Edwards, someone who was there when Kerry called him on the cell phone to tell him he’d decided to give up.

GNN: Several reporters have traveled to Ohio to investigate allegations of voter fraud and suppression, most notably GNN contributor Russ Baker (“Rebutting the Ohio Vote Conspiracy”) and Mother Jones’s Mark Hertsgaard (“Recounting Ohio”) – both no cowards when it comes to reporting controversial facts. Both came back saying that they could find no definitive evidence that the state was stolen. In fact, Baker and Hertsgaard appear to disprove some of the most outrageous allegations, like an employee from an electronic voting machine company helped manipulate a recount. What’s your response to their reports?

Miller: I have great respect for both of them, but what they’ve written on the last election is embarrassingly poor. It seems to me that both were over-eager to “debunk” the “theory” of Republican election fraud, as if to advertise their own good sense and level-headedness by shooting down the speculative fantasies of “conspiracy theorists” who’ve ignored the facts out of mere partisan excitement.

In fact, Russ and Mark themselves have played fast and loose with the abundant evidence of fraud. (I’ve addressed Mark’s claims in a letter to Salon, protesting Farhad Manjoo’s attack on Fooled Again.) In every case, a more exhaustive study of the evidence destroys their arguments. For example, Mark quotes Sherole Eaton, an important whistle-blower from Hocking County in Ohio, to the effect that she’s not really sure that there was any fraud committed by the GOP in her experience. After Mark’s article came out, Eaton emailed Mother Jones to set the record straight. He’d quoted her out of context, she said, and demanded to know why the magazine had let someone so biased write about what happened in Ohio.

On the rampant fraud committed in Ohio, I’d read Bob Fitrakis’ and Harvey Wasserman’s great work at the Columbus Free Press, and their excellent books. They know more about what happened there than anyone. But we also have to recognize that the fraud went not only in Ohio, but from coast to coast. There’s relatively little on Ohio in Fooled Again, which deals with GOP malfeasance all throughout the South and elsewhere, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Arizona, Iowa, New Mexico, New Jersey and New York, and then some. I have well over 30 pages just of Florida, where the disenfranchisement campaign was staggering in its scale and ingenuity. There was also massive interference with the votes of U.S. citizens who live abroad – a constituency including up to seven million ballots.

GNN: You also claim there was significant voter fraud in other states. Which ones and give some examples.

Miller: In New Mexico, which Bush “won” by some 7,000 ballots, over 17,000 would-be Democratic voters cast no vote for president- “under-votes” – on their touch-screen machines. Now either all those Democrats turned out to vote but didn’t care who was elected president, or there was something wrong with those machines. And that’s just one example of the monkey business in New Mexico, where Hispanic and Native American voters were undone by a broad range of dirty tricks. (New Mexico was one of those five states where the exit polls foretold a Kerry victory.) Greg Palast has an entire chapter on the shady doings in New Mexico in his forthcoming book.

This sort of thing went on all over. In Wisconsin, for example, there was widespread disinformation and intimidation in Milwaukee, Madison, Kenosha and Racine, targeting primarily black and student voters. There were also machine problems plaguing just those areas. Such stealthy activism may explain the weirdness of the numbers in Wisconsin. In 2,000, Bush lost by something like 100,000 votes, with 92,000+ going to Nader and the rest to Gore. In 2004, despite the president’s high disapproval ratings and the fierce resolve of Democrats, Bush lost by just 12,000+ votes. (Nader wasn’t on the ballot, so those votes all went to Kerry.) So Bush did a whole lot better in that very blue state in 2004. Whoever claims that his success bore no relation to the disenfranchisement campaign throughout the state is either working for the RNC or has his eyes wide shut.

GNN: You also write about the problems with electronic voting machines. We spent a lot of time investigating Diebold and other companies for our own book True Lies. We observed the voting machines in action in California and in Georgia, both places where their use has been extremely controversial. But, like Hertsgaard, we had a hard time finding any smoking gun that showed evidence of someone actually manipulating results through electronic voting machines. What’s the most compelling evidence that electronic voting machines have led to voter fraud?

Miller: The fact that the machines flipped Kerry votes into Bush votes in at least 11 states, while no machines (that I know of) did the opposite. The argument that that was a coincidence would seem to me to be a whole lot crazier than the argument that it was due to fraud. Moreover, it’s quite possible that there’s a “smoking gun” out there already, if Clint Curtis’s claims are verifiable. The jury is still out on that one. Meanwhile, other whistle-blowers are warming up.

GNN: In December, a computer science professor at a Florida technical college performed a live hack of a Diebold machine. What’s the latest on Diebold’s ongoing problems?

Miller: Diebold is in major trouble. The corporation’s staunchly pro-Bush CEO, Wally O’Dell, was recently forced to resign because of a shareholders’ class-action suit alleging fraud and other crimes or improprieties. This week, in Alaska, Diebold finally caved on an important point: making its programming codes publicly available. Diebold will do it there – a big concession, and a sign of desperation. Just the other day, a Diebold officer floated the idea of shutting down the corporation’s whole e-voting operation.

That would be a great thing, but surely not a panacea. There are other companies just as bad as Diebold operating out there, and the pro-DRE forces have made terrifying strides. AP just reported that, in this year’s race, four out of five Americans will be voting on new electronic machines.

GNN: On the flipside, some of the anti-electronic voting machine people have made claims that they haven’t backed up. I’m thinking specifically of Bev Harris claiming that she had found computer tabulation machines from Volusia County in Florida in the garbage, implying that the county was trying to falsify data and destroy evidence. She never, to my knowledge, produced the tapes. I also saw some of these activists in action in Georgia in November 2004 and found their tactics very confrontational and counter-productive. What’s your opinion of the black box voting movement and their claims?

Miller: Bev has done lots of hard work, much of it excellent. She does tend to showboat, though, which is unfortunate. Others in the election reform movement have made shaky claims. To seize on those few lapses, though, suggests a greater interest in discrediting the reform effort overall than in attending to a grave threat to American democracy.

GNN: I’m also reading Andrew Gumbel’s excellent new book, Steal This Election. He details the long history of stolen elections in the U.S., from Rutherford B. Hayes to Lyndon Johnson to Jack Kennedy. Why do you think it’s so hard for people to get their heads around the idea that there are people out there who will do anything to get and maintain power?

Miller: Because it’s very scary. That’s why we tell ourselves that it can’t happen here. The notion is preposterous. The Framers based their whole design of the American government on the fact that it can happen anywhere. We’ve been basking in the glow of our own legendary democratic excellence for so long that we have a hard time facing the clear possibility that we could well find ourselves more grievously repressed than any population on the planet.

Gumbel’s book is excellent indeed, especially its historical chapters. Unfortunately, he is himself in deep denial as to what went down in the last race. He keeps asserting that 2004 was no more fraudulent than any prior election. He happens to be wrong. I hope he reads my book, because his book would only be improved by an acknowledgment of what Bush/Cheney have accomplished in the annals of electoral malfeasance.

GNN: At the end of the day, Baker, Hertsgaard, we here at GNN, yourself, all agree that there needs to be further investigations into voter fraud and suppression. Are you hopeful any action will be taken? What’s been the reaction to the Conyers Report?

Miller: The Democrats are largely stricken with paralysis, due mainly to denial. (I think there’s also some corruption in the ranks, and at the top.) All those who ought to be devoted full-time to this issue are peculiarly inert, because they won’t or can’t allow themselves to face the awful truth. Bernie Sanders, for example, won’t deal with the issue, claiming that to do so might inhibit many Democrats from coming out to vote. The logic is absurd: “Don’t say anything about election fraud, or else the people will sit out Election Day!” So let the people go and vote, so that their votes can erased by the Republicans?

Jerry Nadler is another one. I think the world of him (he’s my own congressman), and there’s no question that he gets it on the issue of election fraud. He helped out with the Conyers Report. Imagine my surprise, then, when I ran into him one evening last November, and we started to discuss the possibilities for real electoral reform – and he shrugged, and said, “Well, it’s not going anywhere. I mean, Bush won Ohio by 400,000 votes, didn’t he? So he would have won in any case.” Well, as you just pointed out, Bush “won” Ohio by 118,000 votes. Now why would Nadler say 400,000? I think that’s what he has to tell himself, to justify not doing anything to change the situation for the better.

That’s denial, and it’s widespread in the party; and there’s quite a lot of cowardice, as far too many Democrats are scared to death that someone will accuse them of “conspiracy theory,” “sour grapes,” “paranoia.” Meanwhile, at the grassroots level, people really understand the need for something to be done – and not just Democrats, but sane Republicans. In many states the fight to drive or keep out DR machines is a bipartisan endeavor. It’s only the political establishment — both national parties, and the press, including the left/liberal press – that’s standing in the way of radical electoral reform. It’s time for everybody to snap out of it.

Endnote:

GNN contacted Russ Baker and Mark Hertsgaard for responses to Miller’s allegations:

Baker writes, “Miller is a polemicist who relies on disturbing anecdotes collected at arms-length. They generate a strong emotional response, sell articles and books, and create a demand for those disseminating them. But he has apparently done no personal verification of any assertions of fact – a time-consuming process that involves looking at the actual raw evidence available, and asking parties on both sides of an issue to explain themselves. In journalism, the first rule is to verify. Also, his characterization of my – and Mark Hertsgaard’s – motives is speculative and inaccurate. Both Mark and I have long reputations as serious journalists who check out allegations and report what we find – and let the chips fall where they may. Readers can judge the quality of my work for themselves at www.russbaker.com.”

See Baker’s original article, “Election 2004: Stolen Or Lost,” here.

Hertsgaard writes, “I let my work speak for itself,” adding, “Anyone interested in reading my investigation of the Ohio 2004 vote can find it on my website, www.markhertsgaard.com.”








Comment on this Article


25 US Reps Want Bush Impeachment Inquiry

by Matthew Cardinale Editor, Atlanta Progressive News February 15, 2006

ATLANTA–25 US Representatives–including two members of the Georgia delegation–have now signed on as co-sponsors of H. Res 635, demanding a probe which could recommend Bush’s impeachment, including the initial sponsor, US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

If the Democratic Party is able to retake the US House of Representatives, Rep. Conyers would become Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, whereas he is currently minority leader on the Committee.

If not acted on this session, the bill would have to be reintroduced next session. It is possible that a new bill could include new language regarding NSA domestic wiretapping.
Sources in Washington DC tell Atlanta Progressive News that H. Res 635 is a venue for coalition among members of Congress who are willing to consider impeachment for a variety of reasons.

Even though H. Res 635 does not specifically reference the NSA domestic wiretapping issue, some Members of US Congress have found the wiretapping issue to be a compelling reason to sign on as a co-sponsor, sources say.

26 US Representatives now total want Bush either to face an impeachment probe or to resign. US Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) is the representative who has called for Bush’s resignation, according to a World Can’t Wait statement issued to Atlanta Progressive News.

Two (2) Members of US Congress signed on yesterday, February 14, 2006, including US Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) and US Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), according to thomas.loc.gov. Since APN’s last story on H. Res 635, US Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), also signed on, having done so on February 8, 2006. Press representatives for Reps. Moore, Velazquez, and Honda were not immediately available for comment.

The current 25 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (8), Georgia (2), New York (6), and Wisconsin (2).

Over 12% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; almost 6% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.

This continues to mark a slow, steady shift towards an impeachment probe. Every few days or so, Atlanta Progressive News has announced new cosponsors for H. Res 635 as the separate debate over Bush’s authorization of illegal domestic wiretapping rages like wildfire.

"There is an awakening, a growing awareness of the deceit of which this administration has been engaged," US Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) told an audience at Cornell University, according to News10Now.com. Hinchey’s "loudest applause came when he mentioned the I-word. He says if Democrats can retake the House, ‘There will be people in the Congress who will bring impeachment actions’," News10Now.com reports.

Previously, Rep. Lewis had said on WAOK radio if a Member of US Congress prepared a bill over Bush’s impeachment due to the wiretapping issue, that he would sign that bill.

Rep. Lewis's office has clarified that statement for Atlanta Progressive News, adding an earlier Associated Press (AP) story had contained a misleading headline, "Lewis Calls for Bush Impeachment." The AP later edited their story, Brenda Jones, press spokesperson for Rep. Lewis, told Atlanta Progressive News. The Congressman intended for his comments to be understood not as a call for impeachment, but the comments were instead intended to signal a willingness to support impeachment if such a bill makes its way through the proper channels. The Select Committee specified in Rep. Conyers's H. Res 635 could constitute one of those channels, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

US Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) withdrew her name from H. Res 635 two weeks ago, whereas she had been listed as a cosponsor throughout January 2006. Lofgren cited a clerical error for her name having been listed in the first place. Lofgren’s Office told Atlanta Progressive News the Representative learned of her being listed as a co-sponsor after reading an exclusive article by Atlanta Progressive News issued January 01, 2006.

The thing about H. Res. 635 is, it deals with impeaching Bush over a cluster of issues from misleading the public to go to war, to authorizing torture. Wiretapping was not listed as one of the reasons to investigate the grounds for Bush’s impeachment in the bill because the existence of the secret, illegal wiretapping had not come to light yet when the bill was being prepared.

"We cherish the great and noble principle of freedom, we will fight to keep it, and we will hold this President – and anyone who violates those freedoms – accountable for their actions," US Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) said in an ominous Senate floor statement over the wiretapping issue.

Meanwhile, US Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), a moderate Republican chairing the wiretapping hearings in the Senate, told George Stephanopoulos during a television program, impeachment would be the standard remedy, at least in theory, if Bush has broken the law.

"Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president — and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price," Senator Specter said on January 15, 2006.

Meanwhile, the first professional poll commissioned by a progressive news agency found that 54% of all 850 Pennsylvanian respondents supported impeachment of President Bush if his authorization of domestic wiretapping is concluded to be illegal. The poll was conducted by Zobgy International and was commissioned by Rob Kall, Editor of OpEdNews.

US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asked four legal scholars to analyze the grounds for Bush’s impeachment in December 2005. Perhaps these scholars’ opinions, in conjunction with congressional hearings on the NSA domestic wiretapping issue, will allow for the spying’s legality or illegality to be concluded with more certainty.

H. Res 635 reads as its official title: "Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

"In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration. There is at least a prima facie case that these actions that federal laws have been violated – from false statements to Congress to retaliating against Administration critics," Rep. Conyers said in a press release on December 20, 2005.

Atlanta Progressive News has provided near-exclusive–and during most times, exclusive–coverage of the progress of H. Res 635. We will continue to follow this story and any related developments.

Matthew Cardinale is the Editor of Atlanta Progressive News. He may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com

Comment: More smokescreen to give the masses the illusion of democracy. This won't go anywhere just like the probe into the illegal spying went nowhere, just like, in the face of massive popular opposition, Alito was confirmed to the supreme court.

Comment on this Article


Voter Fraud: Coulter votes in wrong precinct

By Jose Lambiet Palm Beach Post Columnist February 15, 2006

She may be smart enough to earn millions from her acidic political barbs, but when it comes to something as simple as voting in her tiny hometown, hard-core conservative pundit Ann Coulter is a tad confused.

Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections records show Coulter voted last week in Palm Beach's council election. Problem is: She cast her ballot in a precinct 4 miles north of the precinct where she owns a home — and that could be a big no-no.
Coulter, who owns a $1.8 million crib on Seabreeze Avenue, should have voted in Precinct 1198. It covers most homes on her street. Instead, records show, she voted in Precinct 1196, at the northern tip of the island.

A fave on the college speaking circuit and the occasional target of cream-pies-to-the-face, Coulter registered as a Republican (no kidding!) with the supervisor's office June 24. That's three months after she bought the home and moved to Palm Beach from Manhattan.

Here's the sticky part for The Right's Lady Macbeth: She wrote down an Indian Road address instead of Seabreeze on her voter's registration application. And she signed to certify the information as true.

"She never lived here," said Suzanne Frisbie, owner of the Indian Road home. "I'm Ann's Realtor, and she used this address to forward mail when she moved from New York."

Coulter didn't respond to requests for comment. But the blond GOP pit bull's former agent, Joani Evans, last year told Page Two Coulter left NYC to escape stalkers.

Is a desire to hold on to privacy the reason she gave the wrong address?

"I know but I'm not going to say," Frisbie replied.

No matter, Florida statutes make it a third-degree felony to vote knowingly in the wrong precinct. Lying on a voter's registration can cost up to $5,000 and five years behind bars.

"We're not a policing agency," says Elections Chief Deputy Charmaine Kelly. "You do not have to show proof that you live at your address. But when you sign the registration application, you also take an oath that everything you wrote is the truth.

"If someone brings us proof that a person falsified a registration, we'll check into it, then refer the matter to the state attorney's office if necessary."



Comment on this Article


Horrific New Torture Pictures Released - Mature Audience ONLY!

ICH 15 Feb 06

MORE photographs have been leaked of Iraqi citizens tortured by US soldiers at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.






Comment on this Article


Abu Ghraib abuse against international law: ICRC

By Stephanie Nebehay Reuters February 16, 2006

GENEVA - The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Thursday the latest images of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison showed clear violations of international humanitarian law.

However, the Swiss-based body, whose confidential reports have previously accused the U.S. military of using tactics "tantamount to torture" on inmates at the Baghdad jail, declined to say whether it would raise the issue again with Washington.
An Australian television station broadcast what it said were previously unpublished images of abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the facility, fuelling Arab anger against the United States.

"We are shocked and dismayed at the mistreatment and abuse displayed in these images," ICRC spokeswoman Dorothea Krimitsas told Reuters in Geneva.

"The type of treatment in these images -- video or photos -- very clearly violates the rules of international humanitarian law which are designed to protect people detained in the context of armed conflict," she added.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions protecting people captured in conflict -- which the ICRC seeks to uphold -- "forbid torture as well as any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under any circumstance," according to the spokeswoman.

The current affairs program "Dateline," on Australia's Special Broadcasting Service, said the images were recorded at the same time as the pictures of U.S. soldiers abusing Abu Ghraib detainees which caused international outrage in 2004.

Some of the images were shown last year at trials in Fort Hood, Texas, including that of abuse ringleader Charles Graner now serving a 10-year prison sentence.

"These images are extremely shocking to us," Krimitsas said.

The ICRC visits prisoners in 80 countries worldwide, assessing conditions of detention and treatment of detainees. It also exchanges messages between detainees and their families.

In a damning report on the treatment of prisoners leaked in 2004, the ICRC spoke of U.S. mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, including keeping them naked for days in darkness, that "in some cases was tantamount to torture."

ICRC officials began visits to detention centers run by U.S. and other multinational forces in April 2003, a month after the invasion which ousted Saddam Hussein.

They have been unable to go to Abu Ghraib since January 2005 due to lack of security, Krimitsas said. "It is unfortunate."

Comment: Even the Red Cross has given up on Bush's America. It would be disastrous if Americans did the same.

Comment on this Article


Abu Ghraib: School for terrorists

By Thom Shanker The New York Times FEBRUARY 15, 2006

WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.
The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."


WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.

The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."


WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.

The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."


WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.

The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."


WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.

The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."


WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.

The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."


WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.

The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."


WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.

The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."


WASHINGTON American commanders in Iraq are expressing grave concerns that Abu Ghraib prison has become a breeding ground for extremist leaders and a school for terrorist foot soldiers, as the time in confinement allows detainees to forge relationships and exchange lessons of combat against the United States, its allies and the new Iraqi government.

As a result, a number of officers said, they no longer automatically send every suspect rounded up in raids to the prison and instead release those who are thought not to be hardened fighters against the American troops and the Iraqi government.

The perception of the notorious, overcrowded prison as an incubator for more violence is the latest shift in how Abu Ghraib has been seen - once a feared dungeon of the old regime, then the center of the storm over abuses of prisoners by the Americans, and ever since a festering symbol of the unsolved problems with how the Americans and the Iraqis alike are handling criminals, terrorists, rebels and holdovers from the Baathist era.

"Abu Ghraib is a graduate-level training ground for the insurgency," said an American commander in Iraq, explaining the new approach.

"These decisions have to be intelligence-driven, on holding those who are extreme threats or who can lead us to those who are," said another American officer in Iraq. "We don't want to be putting everybody caught up in a sweep into 'Jihad University."'

Officials at the Pentagon say these concerns have been raised by General George Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and by Major General John Gardner, commander of the American-run prison system there.

General Gardner has ordered a number of steps to deal with the problem, with the goal of isolating suspected terrorist ringleaders from the broader detainee population, and of limiting clandestine communications among those in custody.

"We are clearly concerned about the potential for extremists and insurgents to use our detention facilities as recruiting and networking centers and are aggressively taking actions to disrupt their efforts," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Rudisill, a spokesman for General Gardner.

"Central to our program is a continuous and systemic analysis of the population inside each compound to identify extreme negative influences and corresponding actions to separate the insurgents and extremists from the general population," Colonel Rudisill said. "We also attempt to reduce illicit communications between detainees in separate compounds to disrupt their ability to network and recruit."

The role of Abu Ghraib as a new center of terrorist networking and education is the latest chapter in a sordid history of a prison that once served as a place where the Saddam Hussein regime incarcerated and tortured its political enemies. The prison became internationally known following the release of photographs showing American military jailers abusing Iraqi detainees after the fall of Baghdad.

But plans to turn the detainees, and the detention center, over to the new Iraqi government have been stalled despite concerns of American commanders that the detainee mission saps personnel and continues to blot the American image in Iraq and around the world.

After a series of raids on Iraqi-run detention centers late last year uncovered scores of abused prisoners, commanders of the prisons under American control said that no detainees, nor the centers themselves, will be handed over to Iraqi jailers until American officials are satisfied that the Iraqis are meeting international standards for care of detainees.

In the meantime, the prison population under American or allied control continues to swell, and stood at 14,767 this week.

At present, Iraqis may be freed from the American-run detention centers only after review by a special panel called the Combined Release Board. Detained Iraqis are turned over to Iraqi jailers only if they are convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq, American officials said.

The problem of insurgent networking and instruction inside the detention system in Iraq is part of a broader problem in the American counterterrorism effort. American military and intelligence officers say that Iraq has become a magnet for violent extremists from across the Islamic world who want to fight U.S. policies; these American officials also warn that violent extremists who are not killed, captured and held or persuaded to give up the struggle will emerge battle-tested, and more proficient at carrying out terror attacks around the globe.

Although no historic comparison is perfect, some officers warn of a parallel to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, when radical Islamic fighters drawn to fight the Soviet occupiers forged strong relationships with religious extremists from within Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

Among those anti-Soviet mujahedeen fighting in Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, whose original Al Qaeda network has been severely disrupted by American military and intelligence operations, but who still is the figurehead and inspiration for more than 30 new terrorist groups that have sprung to life since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to senior military officers.

"The opportunity for networking and training inside the detention centers is certainly one that is a concern," said another U.S. officer in Iraq. "That's something the detainee operations people look at closely. They look at behavior of groups inside the camps, and are constantly rotating people around to get the right dynamics - which means lessening the hostile dynamics."

The task of monitoring detainees is made more difficult by the chronic shortage of Arabic speakers available to the American military; it is all but impossible to thoroughly screen private conversations and written communications among all the detainees.

Rudisill said that along with efforts "to mitigate the negative influence of extremists" inside the camps, American officers have launched programs "designed to prepare detainees for potential reintegration into Iraqi society" pending their release.

"Our reintegration program is designed to help prepare those potentially scheduled for release for reintegration back into a different society that includes a freely elected government and increasingly capable Iraqi Security Force," he said.

The program, he said, includes "speeches and presentations provided by prominent community, political and religious leaders, access to objective TV, radio and print media highlighting the changes in Iraqi society, and a sponsorship program directed at integrating released detainees back into their respective communities."

Comment: Geeze! What a novel idea! How come they didn't start using their brains sooner?

Comment on this Article


Out of sight - Can a film right the wrongs committed in Guantánamo?

Clive Stafford Smith February 14, 2006 The Guardian

Only a fool wants never to learn from his mistakes. Government should always have a process for this. When a train crashes, or a ferry capsizes, Britain traditionally holds a public inquiry to learn what went wrong. In America, a congressional committee sometimes plays this role, although most cases fall into the cauldron of civil litigation. While I often feel that the courtroom is pointlessly adversarial, it has been said that cross-examination "is the greatest engine for exposing truth known to human kind". Often, though, there will be no inquiry, and no lawsuit; there are some mistakes that our leaders would rather not expose to public criticism or debate. The iconic catastrophe of Guantánamo Bay falls into this category.
Consider the undisputed facts: 38 Guantánamo prisoners were found innocent, even by biased military tribunals, after being held for three years. At least eight of these conceded innocents are still there. More than 250 prisoners have been released, apparently because they were not a danger to the US after all. For the most part, each has vanished back into the faraway country whence he came. Nobody has asked why President Bush branded them the "worst of the worst" among the world's terrorists, although we now know that no senior al-Qaida officer in US custody was in Guantánamo - they have been held in secret prisons around the world (some in Europe). Five hundred prisoners remain in chains in Guantánamo, many with compelling claims of innocence, yet on December 20 2005, the US Congress passed a law barring their access to any US court.

When we ignore the fact that the Titanic is steaming towards the iceberg, the ship is destined to sink. Thankfully, the media - and in this case the medium of film - occasionally stand in for the public conscience. Instead of an inquiry or a lawsuit, Guantánamo will now go before the jury at the Berlin film festival in Michael Winterbottom's latest work, The Road to Guantánamo (co-directed by Mat Whitecross).

Three young men from Tipton - Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul - were among the victims of Guantánamo. I have been privy to the best evidence that the Americans can throw at them, and their story goes essentially uncontradicted, as it is presented in the film. They went to Pakistan for Iqbal's marriage, just prior to the attack on Afghanistan. When the friends gathered shortly before the wedding, they got caught up in the moment and embarked on a well-intentioned but unwise escapade into Afghanistan to help the victims of the war. They felt this would fulfil their Muslim duty of zakah, or charity.

A couple of days in they recognised the folly of the venture, but getting back out proved more difficult. Recklessness then dissolved into tragedy, as what had originally been the Tipton Four lost a member. Munir Ali disappeared in the crowds. Nobody knows what happened to him, and his family may never know.

The remaining trio were probably betrayed by locals looking to collect on the $5,000 bounty being offered by the Americans for foreigners. They were swept up by Coalition allies, and shuffled into a container that was then machine-gunned by General Dostrum's forces, killing many inside. In American custody they were beaten and abused, before ultimately being dispatched to Guantánamo Bay for two years. In 2004 they were released without charge.

The Road to Guantánamo weaves commentary from the Tipton lads between credible re-enactments of their nightmare. This may be the only inquiry that Guantánamo ever gets. If so, what are the lessons we might learn?

First, that the Tipton lads were, paradoxically, the lucky ones: Munir is presumed dead, and nobody seems to care. Second, the Tipton Three are now free; 500 prisoners in Guantánamo are not. They are free because they are British nationals. Eight British residents remain in Guantánamo, four years into their ordeal, locked up without legal rights. The British government refuses to do anything for these people, although Jamil el Banna has five English children and another, Shaker Aamer, has four; some of these residents had lived here for more than of 20 years. Human rights are for human beings, rather than simply people from Britain, yet Tony Blair negotiated one set of legal rules for British citizens - most favoured nation status - and left the British residents at the mercy of the original Bush plan.

Third, the Tipton Three were extraordinarily lucky that the Americans tried to exaggerate the evidence against them. Virtually everyone in Guantánamo has been accused of visiting the al-Farouq training camp in Afghanistan. Disproving this is difficult. Fortunately the Americans insisted that Ahmed, Iqbal and Rasul not only visited the camp, but appeared on a videotape with Osama bin Laden there. The tape was made in 2000. MI5, setting out to help corroborate the prosecution for a US military tribunal, learned that Rasul was working at a Birmingham Currys at the time.

Finally, Winterbottom's film puts paid to the myth that everyone in Guantánamo is a terrorist, itching to blow up Americans. Given the appalling treatment that many prisoners receive, it is a tribute to their Islamic faith that they do not feel this way. Instead of assaulting the US embassy, Ahmed, Iqbal and Rasul have spent months helping Winterbottom tell the truth.

The film should not be a substitute for a full inquiry, but merely the impetus to get one off the ground. Setting aside what the Americans have done, the British government has been complicit in the seizure and mistreatment of many of the victims of Guantánamo, and the still more secret prisons beyond. Abusing the Tipton Three did not make the world safer for democracy, but it did hold hostage the values our society should hold dear. Until we expose these crimes, and learn what led people to commit them, our world will continue to repeat them.

· Clive Stafford Smith is legal director of Reprieve (reprieve.org.uk). The Road to Guantánamo is at the Berlin film festival today, and will be shown on Channel 4 on March 9.



Comment on this Article


'Guantanamo' has fervent European bow

By Charles Masters Hollywood Reporter 15 Feb 06

BERLIN -- Berliners' taste for movies with a strong political message was sated Tuesday with the world premiere of Michael Winterbottom's factual drama "The Road to Guantanamo," which came accompanied by a call for the U.S. detainee camp in Cuba to be shut down.

The competition title tells the story of three young Muslims from the English town of Tipton, who were picked up by U.S. forces in Afghanistan shortly after Sept. 11 and eventually flown to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba on suspicion of involvement in terrorism.
The film -- completed so recently it had to be screened on parallel spools with sound and image, respectively -- was met with enthusiastic applause at the midday press screening.

Its portrayal of brutal and inhuman treatment at the camp carried a strong message of denunciation, which played well with large sections of the Berlin crowd.

"I think it's a sure, sure winner," one European critic said. But others felt the movie left too many questions about its protagonists' motives unanswered, undermining its supposed veracity.

Winterbottom and co-director Mat Whitecross, along with two of the detainees, Shafiq Rasul and Ruhel Ahmed, were subsequently greeted with cheers at a packed press conference. "We want to show the world what's happening in Guantanamo. We want the place closed down. It's against human rights," the soft-spoken Rasul said.

"Guantanamo" blends interviews with the trio and dramatic reconstructions of their journey and captivity along with archival news footage.

According to their testimony, the conditions captives were forced to endure included being shut into an airless container truck in which many died, being hooded and shackled, kept in cages, spending weeks in solitary confinement, being beaten during interrogations and exposed to deafening rock music while chained in a squatting position for hours on end.

"We had it rough, but we didn't have it as bad as others, for example the Arabs. If you were Arab, you were definitely a member of al-Qaida," Rasul said.

The trio said they initially traveled to Pakistan for a wedding. "The reason we went to Afghanistan was to help the brothers that were in need," said Ahmed, citing education as one of those needs. However, the filmed reconstruction was vague about what exactly had prompted them to travel deep into a country under imminent threat of U.S. bombardment.

The film is based on a month of interviews following their return to the U.K. in 2004. None was ever formally charged, but they have never been officially declared innocent either.

"The point of making the film is to remind people how bizarre it is that somewhere like Guantanamo exists," Winterbottom said. The director refuted the idea that the film unfairly portrayed Americans as the bad guys. "The fact that Americans were behaving badly is not some dramatic device -- it's just what they were doing. If they happen to be bad, it's not the fault of us as filmmakers, it's the fault of the people doing it," he said.

Winterbottom won the Golden Bear here in 2003 for "In This World," a tale about Afghan refugees. "Guantanamo" is being sold in Berlin by U.K. outfit the Works and will be screened on Channel 4 in Britain next month, in advance of an expected U.K. theatrical and DVD release.



Comment on this Article


White House to withdraw funding for rebuilding Iraq

By Andrew Gumbel 03 January 2006

The US government is not planning to continue funding reconstruction projects in Iraq, in what appears to be a major climbdown from the White House's one-time pledge to build the best infrastructure in the region.

According to officials cited in yesterday's Washington Post, the Bush administration will not be adding construction funds to the $18.4bn (£10.7bn) it has allocated since the 2003 invasion.

In future it will be up to other foreign donors and the Iraqi government to do what it can to complete even basic tasks such as supplying reliable electricity and water to the country's 26 million people.
It is a badly kept secret that reconstruction has gone badly. Essential services have been very slow in coming back on line and roughly half the money earmarked for reconstruction has been diverted into the military effort against the insurgency. The newspaper quoted Brigadier General William McCoy, the commander overseeing construction projects, saying the US funding was never meant to be more than a "jump-start ... The US never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," he said.

If confirmed, the withdrawal of reconstruction funds from America would be a further signal that the Bush administration is looking at ways to lessen the US commitment to Iraq as it faces increasing political pressure to start finding a way out.

It is also one further sign that US ambitions for Iraq have been thwarted by realities on the ground. Iraq's oil production, seen before and after the war as a key strategic asset, has been so hampered by infrastructural problems and sabotage that it remains significantly lower than it was at the time of the invasion.

The output of Iraq's national electrical grid is also lower than it was prior to the invasion. The average Iraqi household has electricity for only half the day at best - and in Baghdad there is electricity for no more than six hours a day.

* The Lincoln Group - set up by Christian Bailey, an Oxford graduate - has been paying Sunni clerics for consultations on how to write pro-US propaganda that would persuade Sunnis to participate in elections and oppose the insurgency. The company received $100m from the US government to place the stories.



Comment on this Article


The Basra video should lay to rest a scurrilous lie

Jasem al-Aqrab Thursday February 16, 2006 The Guardian

Since April 2003, the people of Basra have consistently been bemused by reports that they and their city enjoy a state of calm and stability under the command of the British forces, in contrast to the north of Iraq and the so-called Sunni triangle. As someone born and bred in Basra, I hope that the recent images of British troops beating young Basra boys to within an inch of their lives will allow such claims to be laid to rest and show a fraction of the reality that has made life throughout Iraq a living hell.
When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke a couple of years ago, I recall a commentator on the BBC World Service smugly saying that the Americans were heavy-handed and undisciplined when it came to dealing with civilians, while the British were far more restrained, touring Basra in their berets as peacekeepers rather than occupiers. My estimation of the BBC World Service dipped when the other side of the picture was not presented.

The truth is that ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, abuses and atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians have been a regular, at times daily, occurrence throughout the country, including in Basra. These have been committed by American, British and Iraqi official forces. Hearing the British prime minister describe this latest incident as an isolated case fills me and fellow Iraqis with anger.

It adds insult to very serious injury when we are told that this humiliation, torture and violence is the work of a few "bad apples". From previous experience, the most we can look forward to is a whitewash inquiry and possibly a young, low-ranking soldier being made a scapegoat.

As a strong believer in the need for Iraqis to use the political process to bring about change, it is not difficult to see how innocent youngsters are radicalised and why they turn to widely available arms. Those who were beaten mercilessly while being mocked by the film-maker for their pain and humiliation will never listen to me or my colleagues when we try to win them over to peaceful ways of venting their anger and frustration. Their families, loved ones, friends and even those who see the horrific images on TV will be ever more convinced that such degradation can only be met with fire and force.

The allegation that insurgents have flooded into Iraq from neighbouring Syria and Iran may hold some truth, but the flooding I fear is the daily recruitment of insurgents by the brutal, inhumane and tyrannical treatment that young Iraqis experience every day at the hands of occupation forces, as well as the Iraqi government forces they support.

Although I and numerous members of my family suffered personally, physically and otherwise at the hands of the Saddam Hussein regime, and dreamed for many years of the day he would be gone, I always opposed the invasion and occupation of our country. Subsequent events have made me even more convinced of the fallacy and immorality of the military campaign that Britain and the US have pursued in Iraq. The biggest indictment of the war and occupation is surely that more and more Iraqis are speaking publicly of how life was far better when Saddam was in power - an achievement most Iraqis never imagined possible.

Tony Blair's suggestion that British forces are in Iraq to educate Iraqis in democracy has only added salt to our bleeding wounds. This rhetoric harks back to imperial times when Britain was a colonial power and treated my forefathers, as well as many other peoples in the world, as backward savages. It hurts me that despite Mr Blair's first-class education, he seems to have learned so little. Until recently, Britain was admired and respected by Iraqis. The few who had the chance to visit or study in the UK were looked upon with envy. The past three years have seen to it that that respect has been obliterated.

Iraqis have suffered immensely over recent years, first from the west's support for a despotic dictatorship, then from 13 years of sanctions that ravaged the country, and finally from a war and occupation that reduced a once-affluent country and its highly-educated people to rubble and dust.

It saddens me that Britain has had a significant hand in every episode that has heaped misery on Iraqis. At a time when a brief apology and admission of fault by the prime minister would have gone a long way towards reconciliation between our peoples, he has chosen to widen the gap still further. I suggest that next time Britain hears of a fallen British soldier in Iraq, Mr Blair should be asked about his role in that tragedy.

I share with the majority of Iraqis the belief that the only way forward is the immediate departure of American and British troops from our country. The suggestion that this would make matters worse is at best laughable and at worst a scurrilous lie. Matters cannot get any worse, and they only became this bad because of the decision by American and British leaders to wage war against a people who were already suffering.

I have no doubt that I will see my country truly free and liberated from tyranny and occupation. I pray that this happens without the further spilling of blood - Iraqi, American or British.

· Dr Jasem al-Aqrab is head of organisation for the Iraqi Islamic party in Basra



Comment on this Article


Iraq “exit strategy?”

By James Rothenberg ICH 15 Feb 06

Fairness dictates admitting that one of the harshest criticisms leveled against the Bush/Cheney administration may be unwarranted and even unadvisable. I’m speaking of the charge that this Iraq war was waged without sufficient planning for what was going to take place after the “major hostilities” had ended. Without a viable “exit strategy”. How many times have you heard that? They didn’t have an exit strategy. Their worst error.
It’s unfortunate that many Americans fail to grasp the magnitude of the advance planning needed simply to stage the invasion. You can’t simply wait for the Authorization for Use of Military Force and then make a few phone calls. Stuff has to get moved and stuff has to get done. Food, munitions, tanks, beds, band aids, finishing up that air base in Qatar. With this in mind it is not surprising that the Downing Street Memo revelations were not taken seriously by respected U.S. and British policy makers. Bush and Blair had committed to war practically one year before the invasion? And this was a secret? It takes months to raise the price of a stamp.

Just for the two leaders to psychologically prepare their populations for war required lengthy propaganda campaigns. As any advertising specialist can vouch for, you can’t implant your product into the public brain in a single push. First you’ve got to part the hair, open the scalp, get to the brain, open it…it takes time.

Did we fault the Soviets for not having an exit plan when they invaded a country? Or the Nazis? We are way too astute for that. It would be insane to take over a country in order to leave it, and if there’s one thing Wolfowitz and Perle and Cheney and Libby and Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang are not it’s crazy. Why these people are just one step away from a Presidential Medal of Freedom!

The war planners had enough to think about just to get their hands on the Oil Ministry before everything caught fire. If they had to foresee every little power outage and beheading it would stunt their every move. Besides, this was a time to test the “flexibility” of our transformed military. Sure, some said the invasion would be a “cakewalk”. Actually, one said it, Kenneth Adelman in the Washington Post. Everyone else knew it, but it’s not the kind of thing you say before you attack. Nothing to be gained by it.

And there’s something else. No matter how many times you invade a country, you always get a little nervous. A little sweaty. It’s a natural thing. Every performer goes through it. Every athlete. I’m sure they were sweating plenty in the White House that first night until they saw those lovely light flashes in the dark, Baghdad sky. That had to be comforting. Reminded me of the fireworks scene in To Catch a Thief.

Little noticed and under-appreciated was how Bush/Cheney rule gave us the first “good war” of this new century. Oh, don’t you remember? Afghanistan. That was a good war, wasn’t it? It was justified. We went in after Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. We didn’t get them but we sure got a lot of other people. You mean you don’t remember? John Walker Lindh. The wedding party…all bombed out…ruined. Sure. But there’s one thing about the United States. We don’t intentionally target wedding parties.

Come to think of it we never had much time to debate the “goodness” of the Afghanistan war. So fast did we go off to places where there were “better targets”. It revealed a limitation of our great nation’s ability to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous wars. We could fight them, and win them, but our publicity department was stretched so thin that we could no longer cover both of them. So Afghanistan was left to suffer. Future plans should accommodate the growing need for an enlarged public relations department. This will fend off complaints from war critics that they were deprived of the honor of airing their position in the public arena.

Finally, the Pentagon has quietly accomplished something remarkable. No less than the New York Times has postulated the emergence of a second superpower – the only power capable of restraining the awesome power of the United States – world public opinion. This has not escaped the attention of our rulers, who bit into this problem with the same intensity that one reserves for any serious rival. In so doing we may be marking the beginning of a new international norm for warfare by appealing to the doctrines of accepted practice – generality, duration, and opinio juris – a stunning achievement. Legitimizing the killing of journalists in a time of war. That would be one fine day.

James Rothenberg, writer/activist - jrothenberg@taconic.net



Comment on this Article


Who Will Possess Iraq’s Oilfields?

By Karen Button URUKNET 15 Feb 06

In Crude Designs, a report published by the UK-based non-governmental organisation Platform and the US’s Global Policy Institute, oil analyst Greg Muttitt says if current plans are approved, Iraqi’s will "lose control of more than 85 percent of their oil resources to foreign multinationals."
A friend wrote recently from Occupied Iraq that with the December elections over Iraq had truly been stolen. I thought perhaps they were referring to the stamp of legitimacy elections would give Iraq’s American-approved government, but they were actually talking about the final pieces falling in to place for those who’ve long coveted Iraq’s oilfields.

The "how" begins with Iraq’s new constitution; written largely behind closed doors and with tremendous US influence, it was voted into place during October’s referendum. Cleverly, it gives the impression that Iraq’s oil will remain in the hands of its people by guaranteeing "oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people" and that revenues from "current fields" will be fairly distributed across the provinces. The key phrase is "current fields;" in the following section the document then requires all future exploration use "the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment." The modern investment model being promoted in Iraq during these secret meetings is production sharing agreements, or PSAs.

Mostly political in nature, PSAs maintain the technicality—and just as importantly, the appearance—of keeping oil ownership in government hands, yet the majority of profits goes to private companies. These agreements are generally used in countries where oil is either hard to extract and therefore expensive, or where reserves are small enough that companies may be unwilling to invest. PSAs guarantee a high profit margin, providing an enticement to otherwise uninterested oil companies. In Iraq, where extracting oil is not technologically challenging and reserves are huge, PSAs don’t make sense—unless they are intended to benefit someone other than Iraqis.

Oil driving Iraq policies


While world demand for oil increases, supplies continue to dwindle. In fact, many believe world oil reserves has already reached its peak and is in decline. Numerous citizen groups and non-governmental organisations realise the world must revolutionize its main energy source from fossil fuel to something ecologically sustainable. Yet, with the world’s economic stability deeply linked to oil and the corporations who control it, the fight for possession is fierce. And often deadly…as is the case in Iraq.

An oil company’s economic health is based on its reserves, listed as part of its assets. The problem, says James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Institute, is that due to these dwindling supplies, there are not enough reserves for these corporations to maintain economic health. "Oil companies cannot replace their reserves. They are frantically looking all over the world. The companies know oil is running out in the world, they just don’t say it. Imagine if oil is $100 a barrel and imagine if your company doesn’t control it."

Then, imagine if those same companies know where to find it.

Iraq has the planet’s second largest known oil reserves. Its untapped fields account for nearly two-thirds of Iraq’s known reserves, estimated to be at least 115 billion barrels. Its al-Majnoon field—a "super-giant" in geological terms—holds an estimated 20 million barrels alone. And that one field, says, Paul would double the oil giant Exxon’s reserves in one fell swoop. He maintains that the cost to produce oil in Iraq is cheap—about $1/barrel—which adds significantly to the profit margin. "If you figure oil at $50 a barrel and multiply it out," Paul explains, "it’s a total profit spread of $1 trillion. That’s more than all companies put together since John D. Rockefeller." As of this writing, oil stands at $61/bbl; it hit $68/bbl last week and is expected to climb again.

Before Saddam Hussein nationalized its fields in 1972, Iraq’s oil was divided according to agreements the British had made during their occupation of Iraq in the early part of the century.

The companies, Shell and Anglo-Persian (which later became BP) had about 50 percent, the French company Foflaq (which later became Total) had about 25 percent, and it was intended, says Paul, that the remainder stay in Iraq’s hands. However, "in the 1920s Churchill convinced the British to give some [percentage] to the Americans, or they would always have trouble." So, Iraq’s portion of their own oil went to a consortium of American companies that included Exxon and Unocal. Now, says Paul, "these companies want back—Shell, BP, Exxon, Chevron—would get the lion’s share."

Iraqi’s organize against globalisation

Iraqi’s though, have no desire to privatise their oilfields. In fact, Iraq’s oil union is quite strong. They reorganised after the US-led invasion by August 2003 into ten state-owned companies in southern Iraq, forming the General Union of Oil Employees (GUOE). In the following months GUOE was instrumental in assisting other labor unions to form. Though GUOE remains independent, other unions have now joined to form the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). The newly born labor movement is strongest in southern Iraq, but is beginning to gather strength across the country. Now, they are fighting hard for Iraqi jobs—and against globalisation.

Iraqis know full well that oil is the main reason for the US invasion and remains the central project in globalising Iraq’s resources.

In Crude Designs, a report published by the UK-based non-governmental organisation Platform and the US’s Global Policy Institute, oil analyst Greg Muttitt says if current plans are approved, Iraqi’s will "lose control of more than 85 percent of their oil resources to foreign multinationals."

The report, published in November, is well-known and hotly debated in Iraq. At the end of November Al-Jazeera news hosted a debate between Muttitt and Ahmad Chalabi, who, along with other interim-government members, participated in State Department hosted talks about PSAs.

According to Crude Designs, production-sharing agreements are "beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control." Because they are "subject to commercial confidentiality provisions, PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decades.

"In Iraq’s case, these contracts could be signed while the government is new and weak, the security situation dire, and the country still under military occupation. As such the terms are likely to be highly unfavourable, but could persist for up to 40 years. At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts."

This is what Iraq’s unions are fighting against. In an excellent article published by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union—the first to call for an end to the US occupation—senior fireman Abdul Faisal Jaleel, from the Basra refinery is quoted. "We reject foreign investment. We want to keep our own oil revenues and use them to develop our country with our own hands."

Last June, at the invitation of US Labor Against the War, six members from GUOE, IFTU, and the Federation of Workers’ Councils and Unions of Iraq toured 25 US cities, educating their union counterparts on the real costs of the occupation. Member unions were hoping to pressure the AFL-CIO into adopting a stance against the occupation. In October, they were successful. For the first time in 50 years, the AFL-CIO spoke against US military action. It called on the US government to bring the troops home "rapidly" and demanded Iraqi "workers be granted internationally recognized labor rights to organize free of interference from government and employers, and to bargain collectively."

Failing economy used to pressure for globalisation

In December though, Iraq’s interim government claimed its debt too great to rebuild the country and accepted a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Questions remain. Why would Iraq be forced to rebuild its own country after a foreign invasion and where have all those billions earmarked for reconstruction gone?

To summarize—since the issue is far too complex address here—the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has squandered billions of US tax-payer dollars intended to reconstruct destroyed Iraq and given in no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. The companies, under no obligation to account for spent funds, have been caught overcharging and wasting millions.

Meanwhile, $6 billion of Iraq’s money leftover from the United Nations Oil for Food Programme and about $10 billion from frozen assets and resumed oil exports were transferred into the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, to be spent by the CPA "in a transparent manner…for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Of that $16 billion, $8.8 disappeared while Paul Bremer was still in charge and to this day remains unaccounted for. Other funds intended for reconstruction have been diverted to pay for security; contracted by the US government, Blackwater and other private "security" companies are in reality mercenaries-for-hire. Earning up to $5,000/day, they constitute the second-largest force in the so-called Coalition of the Willing.

Some of the story has emerged only because Senator Henry Waxman has been dogging the Bush administration with ongoing internal audits. Ed Harriman, in an article in July’s London Review of Books, follows the audit trail of missing, stolen, squandered and unaccounted for money that has left Iraq’s financial situation a shambles. Well-documented, Harriman provides ample evidence that as Iraq is expected to pay for its own reconstruction, the country is simultaneously being driven into impoverishment by the corruption of US officials and their US-installed Iraqi counterparts.

Following suit, corruption is also rampant in the American-backed Iraqi government. For example, on 5 February Iraq’s Public Integrity Commission filed criminal charges against a member of its parliament for allegedly embezzling millions of dollars intended to improve security of a key pipeline.

True to IMF policy, the $685 million loan came with a price; Iraq was to end oil subsidies and open its economy to private investment. In response, just after December elections the outgoing government increased fuel prices nine-fold. The move stunned Iraqis. Widespread demonstrations followed across the country; police fired upon a crowd of 3,000 protesters in Nassiryeh and killed four during riots in Kirkuk.

Iraqis are long used to both food and fuel subsidies and, one can argue, with 70-80 percent unemployment, are surviving in part because of them. As Iraqis come to realise how IMF policies further squeeze their lives this can only spell additional disaster. As The LA Times notes "Over the summer, gas was selling for about five cents a gallon. Now it’s about 65 cents, and at the end of the price increases, gasoline will cost about…$1 per gallon."

"This is classic," says Paul, of the Global Policy Institute. "The IMF always insists on the issue of ending subsidizes, even bread which is a more basic need. It almost always happens that riots ensue, governments even fall as a result of these policies."

The US administration, of course, has a different view. US Treasury Secretary John Snow, quoted in The Progressive, stated "This arrangement will underpin economic stability and help lay the foundation for an open and prosperous economy in Iraq."

Though Iraq’s Oil minister, Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, quit in protest, he was back within days and the seemingly immortal friend of the US, out-going Deputy Primer Minister, convicted embezzler and falsified-intelligence informant, Ahmad Chalabi is guaranteed a significant role.

"There has been a tremendous amount of maneuvering. Al-Uloum was not opposed to PSAs. He participated in the [US] State Department group that recommended them," Paul reveals. "Chalabi is asking large sums for himself to do deals with the oil companies."

Ironically, says Paul, "one of Iraq’s biggest crises is being brought about by shortages in the oil sector when it has the worlds second or third largest oil reserves."

"Iraq’s debt will [likely] be used to force the government to sign production-sharing agreements with the multi-nationals," Platform’s Greg Muttitt believes.

As Iraq’s standard of living continues to plunge, what remains for the Bush administration and its friends is sealing the deal. Yet, Iraqi’s themselves are loathe to this idea and the strength of their resistance speaks for itself. While the term resistance is used almost exclusively to describe the fighters, Iraqi resistance also includes non-violent protests, boycotts, and, of course, the successful strikes organized by Iraqi labor unions.

Many Iraqis I’ve spoken with are quick to point out Iraq’s long commitment to taking care of the social sector. Even under a brutal dictatorship, nationalized oil revenues built hospitals, universities and factories that were some of the best in the Middle East. This, prior to the 1980s when Iraq went to war with Iran and the US-led embargo that defined the 1990s. A return to those prior days is what many Iraqis are working toward.

As James Paul sums it up "Oil workers are opposed [to privatization] and are very powerful in these situations; they are very clear that oil should remain in national hands. They can’t just kill them all or fire them all. It’s widely known that these [multinational] companies controlled everything before. The main theme of their history is related to oil. You don’t have to be a wide-eyed radical to understand this; every Iraqi knows that oil is at the center of the war."



Comment on this Article


Telegraph concedes to Galloway

BBC 16 Feb 06

The Daily Telegraph has backed down in its libel battle with George Galloway and could face a huge legal bill.

The newspaper has decided not to appeal to the House of Lords to overturn a £150,000 libel award to the Respect MP.

Mr Galloway successfully sued the paper for suggesting he had received money from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
He said he was delighted to have won and said the Telegraph would now have to pay the damages plus £1.6m to pay both sides' legal bills.

Last month, the Telegraph lost its appeal over the libel action as Mr Galloway spent time on reality television show Big Brother.

The only option left was to petition the House of Lords.

But in a brief statement on Wednesday, a spokeswoman said: "The Telegraph group has decided not to petition for leave to appeal."

More cases ahead?

The Bethnal Green and Bow MP said he had "risked everything" by fighting the libel case and would have been bankrupt if he had lost.

"I would have been homeless, jobless. without a bank account, bankrupt and out of public life for good so it was very high stakes. Three years is obviously a long battle and I am very pleased to have finally won it," he told BBC One's Breakfast.

He added: "The Saddam regime never gave me any money, but the newspapers that alleged that he did have had to give me plenty and pay out plenty."

In a sign there could be further legal action, he warned: "There are several other newspapers in the same frame."

The Telegraph had argued in court that it was in the public interest to publish documents found inside the Iraqi foreign ministry after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Senate battle

Mr Galloway has always denied seeking or receiving money from the former leader.

A US Senate Committee last year said they had fresh evidence linking Mr Galloway and his estranged wife to Iraq's oil-for-food programme.

Mr Galloway and his wife both deny the allegations.

The MP said he had "demanded" the committee question him again, particularly because he had "done quite well" in his last encounter with the senators.

He also vowed to pursue the committee's chairman, Republican Norm Coleman, when he sought re-election in Minnesota in November.



Comment on this Article


Whistleblower says NSA violations bigger

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI)

A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights.

Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a "special access" electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress.
Tice said he believes it violates the Constitution's protection against unlawful search and seizures but has no way of sharing the information without breaking classification laws. He is not even allowed to tell the congressional intelligence committees - members or their staff - because they lack high enough clearance.

Neither could he brief the inspector general of the NSA because that office is not cleared to hear the information, he said.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said they believe a few members of the Armed Services Committee are cleared for the information, but they said believe their committee and the intelligence committees have jurisdiction to hear the allegations.

"Congressman Kucinich wants Congressman Shays to hold a hearing (on the program)," said Doug Gordon, Kucinich's spokesman. "Obviously it would have to take place in some kind of a closed hearing. But Congress has a role to play in oversight. The (Bush) administration does not get to decide what Congress can and can not hear."

Tice was testifying because he was a National Security Agency intelligence officer who was stripped of his security clearance after he reported his suspicions that a former colleague at the Defense Intelligence Agency was a spy. The matter was dismissed by the DIA, but Tice pressed it later and was subsequently ordered to take a psychological examination, during which he was declared paranoid. He is now unemployed.

Tice was one of the New York Times sources for its wiretapping story, but he told the committee the information he provided was not secret and could have been provided by an private sector electronic communications professional.




Comment on this Article


National security whistle-blowers allege retaliation

By JAMES ROSEN McClatchy Washington Bureau February 15, 2006

WASHINGTON (SH) - Military and intelligence officers told spellbound lawmakers Tuesday that their careers had been ruined by superiors because they refused to lie about Able Danger, Abu Ghraib and other national security controversies.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, wearing a crisp olive Army uniform with the Bronze Star and other awards, delivered his first public testimony about his central role in Able Danger, a Pentagon computer data-mining program set up long before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to infiltrate the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Shaffer told a House Government Reform subcommittee that he and other intelligence officers and contractors working on the top-secret program code-named "Able Danger" had identified Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, but were prevented from passing their findings to the FBI.

"I became a whistleblower not out of choice, but out of necessity," Shaffer said. "Many of us have a personal commitment to ... going forward to expose the truth and wrongdoing of government officials who - before and after the 9/11 attacks - failed to do their job."

Shaffer contradicted recent statements by Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, who denied having met with Shaffer and other Able Danger operatives in Afghanistan in October 2003.

"I did meet with him," Shaffer said. "I have the business card he gave me. I find it hard to believe that he could not remember meeting me."

The commission set up by Congress to probe the Sept. 11 attacks didn't mention the Able Danger project on al Qaeda in its final report in July 2004.

When former Able Danger operatives began to talk with reporters and lawmakers about the program last year, the commission's chairman and vice chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, released a statement saying the panel had looked into the work of Able Danger and found it "historically insignificant."

Shafer was to testify today (Wednesday) at a separate House Armed Services subcommittee hearing devoted to Able Danger.

Spc. Samuel Provance, also dressed in Army green, said he was demoted and humiliated after telling a general investigating the Abu Ghraib scandal that senior officers had covered up the full extent of abuse during interrogations of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Iraq.

"Young soldiers were scapegoated while superiors misrepresented what had happened and tried to misdirect attention away from what was really going on," Provance said. "I considered all of this conduct to be dishonorable and inconsistent with the traditions of the Army. I was ashamed and embarrassed to be associated with it."

The Abu Ghraib interrogations caused an international uproar in 2004 after the release of photographs of Iraqi prisoners in sexual and other degrading positions.

Provance made a new allegation about the Abu Ghraib controversy, saying that U.S. forces had captured the 16-year-old son of an Iraqi general under Saddam Hussein, Hamid Zabar, to pressure the general into providing information.

"I was extremely uncomfortable about the way General Zabar had been treated, but particularly the fact that his son had been captured and used in this way," Provance said. "It struck me as morally reprehensible, and I could not understand why our command was doing it."

Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican and chairman of the national security subcommittee that held the hearing, told Provance: "It takes a tremendous amount of courage for someone of your rank to tell a general what they may not want to hear."

Asked what his current military duties are, the former computer specialist replied," The only thing I've been doing since being demoted is picking up trash and pulling guard duty."

Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst who was a New York Times source for its reporting on domestic wiretapping, told of having been classified as mentally ill and then fired in connection with an earlier episode at the espionage agency.

Tice said he would have to testify in closed hearings about the details of the eavesdropping program, which President Bush authorized soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. But under questioning by lawmakers, Tice suggested that other NSA programs also raised concerns for him.

"Some of the programs that I worked on I believe treaded on illegalities and, I believe, unconstitutional activity," Tice said.

In one of the hearing's most dramatic moments, Tice read aloud the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects Americans against "unreasonable searches and seizures" without a court warrant. Tice also read an NSA policy that limits the signals agency to monitoring foreign communications.

"As intelligence officers, we take an oath and swear to protect the Constitution," Tice said.

Michael German, a veteran FBI agent, said he was punished after reporting his bosses in Tampa, Fla., for having altered documents in a counter-terrorism investigation.

"They produced false documents and literally took Whiteout to change official records," German said.

Richard Levernier said the Energy Department pulled his security clearance after he complained that the agency was glossing over security problems at nuclear weapons sites.

"These agencies are out of control," said Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican. "If we don't take action we're all in trouble."

Shays said he convened the hearing because military and intelligence employees don't have the same whistleblower protections the government affords other federal workers or even employees of private firms.

"Whistleblowers in critical national security positions are vulnerable to unique forms of retaliation," Shays said. "There is nothing top secret about gross waste or the abuse of power."

Rep. John Duncan, a Tennessee Republican, criticized Defense Department officials for directing "trumped-up charges" against Shaffer. Duncan ridiculed the Pentagon for having accused the decorated intelligence officer of misusing small amounts of money while the government was wasting billions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq.

"If they really wanted to go after me, I had millions of dollars of equipment I was responsible for," Shaffer said.

After he began speaking out about Able Danger, Shaffer said, the Pentagon leaked personal information about him, including allegedly inflated expense reports for $67 in extra phone charges. Shaffer said the charges were to cover calls transferred from his work phone to his cell phone on weekends, so that he could be available at all times.

As the overflow hearing room grew silent, Weldon asked Shaffer to respond to separate Pentagon allegations that the colonel had been romantically involved with one of his aides.

"Have you ever had an affair with anyone on my staff, male or female?" Weldon asked.

"No, sir, but that was what DIA (the Defense Intelligence Agency) put out," Shaffer replied.



Comment on this Article


Moving On: 2006 - No possibility of a fair election

by Michael Arvey February 15, 2006

According to Project Censored, one of the troubling aspects of the 2004 election is the discrepancy "between exit poll data and the actual vote count" that "was not scrutinized in the mainstream media." ... Mark Crispin Miller writes in Harper's Magazine, August 2005, "None Dare Call It Stolen": "It was as if they [media] were reporting from inside a forest fire without acknowledging the fire, except to keep insisting that there was no fire." Moreover, competent university statisticians Steven Freeman, Jonathan Simon and Dr. Ron Baiman (two of whom have books coming out soon on their research) have calculated that the odds of the discrepancy being due to random error are statistically impossible. Furthermore, it's odd that the Bush administration considered the 2005 Ukrainian presidential election's exit polls correct, but not the U.S.'s exit polls.
In a recent address in Palm Beach, former CNN News Night anchor Aaron Brown said that "truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news." How unfortunate it is that Brown and others may only offer this perception when they are no longer in front of a nightly news camera--CNN unmoored Brown as a result of a ratings issue.

Brown's observation, however, locates the obvious: truth, in some quarters, doesn't rate. Not only that, the media on the whole grows more accustomed to ignoring important stories that cry out for real, gumshoed investigations. One such story is the 2004 election: In the latest edition of Project Censored, number three on its most- censored list is the chapter, "Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage". The report gives a quick survey of the some of the election's suspicious activities. (A fuller discussion of the tactics deployed by the Bush party may be perused in Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller. Many of those tactics mirror those used in 2000, discussed in Grand Theft 2000, Media Spectacle and a Stolen Election, Douglas Kellner.)

According to Project Censored, one of the troubling aspects of the 2004 election is the discrepancy "between exit poll data and the actual vote count" that "was not scrutinized in the mainstream media." Rather than provide meaningful analysis, the media--other than MSNBC's Keith Olbermann--simply dismissed the controversy with derogatory name-calling and labels such as "conspiracy nuts," "sore losers," "sour grapes", "let's move on" and so forth. One need only read Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) election report What Went Wrong in Ohio and the Government Accounting Office's (GAO) October 2005 report to dispel such superficial claims. Mark Crispin Miller writes in Harper's Magazine, August 2005, "None Dare Call It Stolen": "It was as if they [media] were reporting from inside a forest fire without acknowledging the fire, except to keep insisting that there was no fire." Moreover, competent university statisticians Steven Freeman, Jonathan Simon and Dr. Ron Baiman (two of whom have books coming out soon on their research) have calculated that the odds of the discrepancy being due to random error are statistically impossible. Furthermore, it's odd that the Bush administration considered the 2005 Ukrainian presidential election's exit polls correct, but not the U.S.'s exit polls.

Another disturbing aspect of the election revolves around the issue of electronic voting machines that are privately owned and managed by GOP vendors sans federal oversight that hold the firms accountable for the reliability and security of the e-voting systems, and as such, the machines provide a prime opportunity for foul play. The GAO, for example, found that it was possible to alter the machines' ballots and system audit logs without being detected: "It is easy to alter a file defining how a ballot appears, making it possible for one candidate actually be recorded as voting for an entirely different candidate", for example, shifting votes from Kerry to Bush. The GAO also discovered that election results could be falsified without leaving evidence with altered memory cards, and that access to one machine gave access to the entire network. Joe Baker, editor of the Rock River Times, comments that this "critical finding showed that rigging the election didn't take a 'widespread conspiracy', but simply the cooperation of a small number of operators" who could "alter the vote totals at will."

Some computer scientists believe there is a more serious problem. According to writer Arlene Montemarano, Buzzflash, a Trojan Horse might be involved: "A computer code that can be programmed to hide inside voting software, emerge in less than one second to change an election, then destroy itself immediately afterwards, going undetected." She cites Barbara Simons, a past president of the Association for Computing Machinery who is co-authoring a book on computerized voting: "The problem is that the Trojan Horse cannot be detected unless the software is inspected continuously."

This is not an encouraging development for a democracy. The GAO's findings indicate that the election in Ohio, and by implication other states, was vulnerable to hijacking through the machines, let alone all the other problems. Overall issues identified by the GAO include: 1) flaws in system security controls 2) flaws in access controls 3) flaws in physical hardware controls 4) weak security management practices by voting machine vendors. The report concluded that rectifying the problems in a timely fashion to affect the 2006 elections are unlikely.

Finally, Rep. Conyers' report identifies criminal behaviors of the GOP in 2004 that violated the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, Equal Protection, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. To date, there have been no indictments.

Comment: We've said it before and we'll say it again, there is NO possibility of stopping the Fascist takeover of America; it's already a done deal. Bush was not elected twice already, and now, with the illegal spying on government officials, the Neocons OWN the country, lock, stock and barrel.

Comment on this Article


Land of the Puppet People

by Manuel Valenzuela February 15, 2006

American Heroin


It oftentimes boggles the mind to try and understand the ease with which the Establishment can manipulate the American citizenry into another warmongering escapade, this time an ominous foray into the Persian lands of Iran, a nation rich in history, culture, location and most importantly to the Evil Empire, oil and gas. Yet upon further inspection it is easy to comprehend this phenomenon, for we live, as Gore Vidal has labeled it, inside the United States of Amnesia, a country where all semblance of the yesterday becomes but a haze of blatant forgetfulness and convenient whitewash, a black hole of Alzheimer’s-like darkness from where no recollection of past lessons, mistakes, errors or history can be seen or touched.
We live in a nation of gluttonous stupor and comfortable surroundings, easily distracted by the cocktail of materialism that lines our homes. We are trained to live to work, not work to live, sacrificing love of life for love for the Almighty dollar, becoming worker bees and soldier ants, selling our souls to the demons of capitalism in exchange for the happiness and stress-free lives of yesteryear, needing pharmaceutical drugs to escape the depression of our daily lives, willingly choosing to indebt our present and future in order to possess the vast array of adult toys marketed to manipulate our emotions, wrongly thinking this or that product will reincarnate lost happiness. America is the land of plenty, where waistlines expand, stress increases, mental problems grow, work hours increase and vehicles get bigger and bigger, a land addicted to the devil’s excrement, like a heroin user injecting black gold into its ever thirsty veins, becoming a violent, warmongering junkie when the perpetual case of cold turkey arises.

Never before has a society been afforded the wealth and excessiveness that we possess, yet neither has a citizenry been subjected to the consequences invariably arising in order to achieve those ends. Unhappiness, depression, financial hardship, stress, inner demons, anger, dislike, psychological problems, undisciplined and unreared children are some of the costs of maintaining our standards of living. The escapism needed to forget the madness of these costs, accumulated year after year, in daily life, work, finances and society, stands like an idol ready to be worshipped in the middle of our homes, its dark screen awakened with the push of a remote control.

It is the television, that drug of mental escapism and intellectual erosion, the invaluable purveyor of fantasy and fiction, that serves to distract, distort and alleviate the stresses of a life made exceedingly harder by the continued growth of the corporatist state, where profit will always supercede people and the interests of the corporation will always trump those of the People. Yet in the television we also see the greatest tool of mass manipulation ever created, in the last few decades discovered by government and corporate interests for the incredible power emanating from its warm glow. In the span of a couple of decades it has transformed human society, acting as the corporate and governmental invasion of our homes, and into our brainwaves, affecting both the innocent and the old, indiscriminately penetrating the minds of black and white, male and female.

The propaganda emanating from its waves and the fiction produced by its owners has mutated American society into one of slouching couch potatoes, dumbed down ignoramuses, lazy and indifferent citizens, unthinking drones and brainwashed primates, turning a citizenry of creativity, vision, imagination and intelligence into one devoid of each, eroding the minds of experience and altering those of innocence, slowly catapulting America into the precipice of intellectual and knowledge collapse. It is the television that has created the amnesia running rampant from Pacific to Atlantic, saturating us with the brain manipulations of the corporatist world, creating a population needing the sensationalist programming designed to dumb down and distract, feeding into our minds senseless garbage of celebrity adoration and idol worship, introducing us to wave after wave of scheming advertisements and the thoughts and opinions the Establishment want us to incorporate as our own.

Television is the greatest addiction we face, a malignancy that controls entire populations, becoming a drug infiltrating all regions of the brain, altering brainwaves in children, thoughts in adults, creating a population easily controlled and programmed, becoming, over the course of a lifetime, the human antenna receiving the endless stream of propaganda disseminated by government and corporate entities. The effects of television on the human brain have become quite clear after only sixty years in existence. At no other time in human history had our primitive minds been subjected to the rapid imagery, fictionalized programming, brainwashing techniques, ceaseless propaganda, video capabilities and sound distortions of television.

We can now see the results of a decades old experiment, and Americans of today, as the people that most watch the monitor on a daily basis, with our rapid intellectual decline, loss of knowledge, extinction of logic and analytical reasoning, erosion of free thought and our propensity to absorb as our own anything aired on television, are the end result.


Leapfrogging Towards War


Our masters can today do with us as they wish, using the television as the instrument used to implant corporatist propaganda into our minds, knowing that millions upon millions of Americans no longer think for themselves, certain that the anemic education prevalent throughout the nation is succeeding in molding loyal sheep conditioned to obey, consume and produce. Our thoughts are being homogenized; our minds now linger in the assembly lines of corporate propaganda, robbing us of individuality, of different personalities, of various tastes and wants. We are the pawns in the front lines of the corporatist takeover of our nation and most importantly, our minds, with those in power toying with us, making us marionettes whose strings are easily manipulated by the few who control television.

Behind the magic curtain of power we can see that once again America is going on the warpath, getting herself ready for another imperialist offensive preemptive attack, disguised in the full spectrum of colors that are coordinated to hide the real reasons for war. Thus, the conditioning of the War Culture has for a few months now been set in motion with a media blitzkrieg engineered to prepare the nation’s consciousness for further conflict. Gently, slowly, systematically and methodically propaganda is being delivered into our comfortable homes on a daily basis that is designed to mold us into hating another nation, another people, using the same mold as before to deceive and manipulate an always gullible citizenry. The powers that decide the destiny of the nation have very little challenge in brainwashing the American public.

Knowing that Americans have perfected the art of amnesia, easily forgetting yesterday in a haze of distraction and escapism, possessing the attention spans of gnats and the enlightenment existing during the Dark Ages, ignorant to the world beyond our bubble of excessiveness, finding us addicted to television, videogames and prescription pills, relying on ten second sound bites and the subjective drivel of talking heads for information, our minds made distorted by the fantasy and fiction we watch incessantly, with free thought now made extinct by the massive abandonment of reading books, with mental lethargy now the rule rather than the exception, the Establishment can recycle long used and recently implemented blueprints to steer the nation towards the acceptance of illegal offensive war and further crimes against humanity.

The warmonger rulers realize that with such a dumbed down populace, readily accepting as true everything told them by their government, believing everything their television generates, no lie is too big or outlandish, no deception will ever be rebelled against and no whitewash will ever be questioned. Using television, which is today but an instrument furthering corporate control of our lives, spewing only what is of interest to the corporatist world, Americans are bombarded with the propaganda that will manufacture an enemy out of Iran. Without the television, able to reach hundreds of millions of people, able to penetrate our psyches and minds, able to affect our emotions and behaviors, getting our full attention as we sit glued to the set, listening to talking heads and government lackeys, the brainwashing of the masses by the government and the corporatist world would be a much harder endeavor. With it, however, the mobilization of minds is a relatively easy accomplishment, and the conditioning of hundreds of millions of citizens becomes cheap, efficient and successful.

With the same manual as that used to mobilize us for the war on Iraq, the warmongers begin instilling fear into our minds, repeating lie after lie, over and over again, that the new enemy is a threat to America, our way or life, our freedoms and democracy. They realize that most people do not want war, so they must be cajoled into supporting what is already a predetermined inevitability. Thus, exploiting our mammalian emotions and behaviors, using our own animal instincts against us, the warmongers in power envelope us with the fear factor, repeating the perceived threat enough times, in so many different ways and mediums, that most people instinctively begin to believe what their “trusted” leaders are telling them. With Iraq it was the threat of mushroom clouds, of WMD, of terrorists. Similarly, the mirage that is the Iranian threat has been marketed to penetrate our deepest fears, scaring us into believing that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, with the inherent lie that as our enemy, they would not hesitate to bomb one or more of our cities.

War marketers understand fully that rationality and common sense vanish in the wake of introduced fear and hatred. Therefore, the use of fear and terror to condition the masses into believing that only through war can their lives be made safer will once again be used, conveniently attaching the illusion of George W. Bush as the one man that will insure their security. Over the next few weeks and perhaps even months, the propaganda used to vilify Iran will intensify, just as it was prior to the Iraq War. We will be forced to hear, repeatedly, the evils of the regime, the wicked intentions of the new president and the manufactured threat to our security. We will be told over and over again how Iran has been a pariah on the world stage, that they overthrew our puppet dictator a few decades back, held America’s embassy hostage, support most of the world’s terrorists, are a tyrannical regime, want to destroy Israel, are a clear and present danger to our national security and, if we are lucky, that they even harbor the bogeymen of the moment, Al-Qaeda.

The newspapers of importance and prestige, those in New York and Washington, will be used to conjure up false intelligence and bogus news reports, most manufactured by the war marketers using cherry-picked intelligence, the false reporting of reporters with vested interests, concocted documents and reports from foreign intelligence services, and the false accusations by so-called Iranian dissidents and defectors. These newspapers, whose weight is heavy in the media world, will begin pasting on the front pages articles of deception regarding Iran’s nuclear energy program, making us believe in the imminent threat to our security and that of certain Middle Eastern nation whose interests are well protected by the newspapers’ editors.

Stories unfavorable to Iran will appear, making it look like the member of the Axis of Evil, making it hated in the mind of Americans. President Ahmadinejad will become the new Osama, Zarqawi and Saddam, a new evildoer extraordinaire, becoming the new poster child for the perpetual, and fictional, war on terror, just the latest incarnation of America’s enemy. Again, fear and hatred will be used to cloud reason and logic; terror will be introduced to exploit both our emotions and still-fragile post 9/11 psychology.

The lies, deceptions and propaganda first outlined in print will invariably make their way to the televised media, where they will be disseminated far and wide, their content picked apart and dissected by talking heads and media hacks whose only purpose in life is to become the stenographers of the corporatists, as always pushing the idea of war into the mind of the viewer. Partisan talking heads from certain think tanks, many with the interests of foreign nations at heart, will make the rounds, chatting without stop in support of preemption, appearing incessantly in a barrage of subjective opinion and prepared propaganda, as always offering only the views for war and preemptive attack, as always appearing without dissenting views and opinion. Along with partisan talking heads, certain influential politicians, those carrying the mantra of deceived trust, will also appear incessantly on television, making the case for war and preemption using the same failed logic and manipulated lies used to sell the Iraq war, again without dissenting views present to contradict and debate the push for attack.

Like an advertising campaign, where the entire organization at a company’s disposal is used to sell the product, the push to sell the American people into accepting an attack on Iran will be all-encompassing, reaching hundreds of millions of Americans through the television, radio and printed media. The public relations campaign run out of the White House will be relentless and assiduous, in the end convincing millions that an American attack is in the best interests of the nation. Already, for example, over 50 percent of the public has made it known that they would have no problem if Bush attacked Iran, a figure that perhaps reflects the ignorance, mass amnesia and incomprehensible idiocy of half the population. This figure represents a high percentage favoring attack, even before the campaign of propaganda, lies and deceptions even heats up. The percentage will only rise once the campaign hits its peak.

Iran will be made out to be a lawless nation at odds with the rest of the world. Of course diplomacy will be designed to fail, as it was prior to the Iraq war. While shouting that the UN must act, thereby being able to claim legitimacy, America will maneuver its vast system of control and inevitably lead the charade of the UN to fail, granting Bush the excuse to attack. Terror threats will be manufactured, danger to us will be reborn and, in the end, Iran will be attacked and crippled, killing tens of thousands, escalating tensions, creating insecurity, perpetuating an already never-ending war and unleashing human violence upon the globe. Using the naiveté and ignorance of the citizenry to its advantage, the military industrial energy complex will claim to fight for freedom, democracy and an end to tyranny, again jumping on the fictional war on terror bandwagon to excuse its offensive attacks for imperial aspirations and control of the world’s remaining oil fields.

The threat of nuclear attack by Iran will of course be exaggerated, as will its failure to comply with international law and its use of nuclear technology. Orwellian newspeak and doubletalk will permeate the airwaves; news reports will be manipulated to fit the predetermined storyline. Facts and figures will be contorted and altered, their true meanings erased, their mirror image twisted. And it will all be repeated, over and over and over again, designed to manipulate, condition and steer us toward accepting further death and destruction in the Muslim world. The plethora of broken UN resolutions of a certain Middle Eastern nation will never be mentioned, nor its possession of 200 nuclear missiles, nor the fact that Iran would be committing suicide if it attacked with nuclear weapons either America or Israel, nor the fact that any nation under the intense threat faced by Iran will inevitably seek to defend itself through nuclear weapons, nor the fact that every nation is entitled to sovereign creation of civilian nuclear technology for energy purposes, nor the fact that Iran possesses roughly thirteen percent of the world’s available fossil fuels, nor the fact that its new oil bourse threatens the stability of the US dollar, nor the fact that we are in the age of resource wars, already engaged in clandestine battle with China, Russia, Europe and India, nor the fact that America has over 700 bases worldwide, including four new permanent bases in Iraq, wishing for a few more in the geopolitical treasure that is Iran, nor the fact that this rebranded offensive strategy and attack is nothing more than pursuit of strategic oil fields close to Iraq, containment of a very potent rival, control over oil and, as always when America interferes in the Middle East, proxy wars benefiting Israel.

Using the bully pulpit afforded the President, George W. Bush will release the hounds of his administration, parading known liars and immoral miscreants, each shouting loudly the case for war. Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Goss, Chertoff, Hadley, the nest of neocons festering in Washington and Bush himself will be given a podium and a microphone from which to preach the virtue of offensive warfare, as usual manipulating our instincts and emotions, as always resurrecting 9/11 to engender fear, hatred and anger amongst the populace. They will grace our television monitors, given all the airtime they desire, their lies and deceptions heard around the nation, never to be contradicted, always to be believed.

It will not matter that they lied, deceived and manipulated the case for war against Iraq. It will not matter that they took America to war on false pretenses, creating a wasted debacle in Mesopotamia. It will not matter that their incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and immorality have made us less safe, not more, creating more terrorists, not less, endangering our “way of life” more by their actions at home than by their ineptitude abroad. It will not matter that their potential actions could engulf an entire region in violence, conflagrating the Eurasian land mass in a very dangerous and long-lasting new Cold War against potent rivals. It will not matter that with each new attack or act of humiliation upon the Muslim world the fire of hatred continues to boil inside the minds of one billions Muslims, threatening to destabilize the entire planet. Of course it will not matter that these warmongers seek to perpetuate the vicious cycle of Muslim killing Westerner and Westerner killing Muslim, thereby giving rise to the perpetual war on terror, now remarketed “Long War,” for they have been wishing for this for a very long time, finally giving rise to their “clash of civilizations,” thus birthing their self-fulfilling prophesy. None of the above will matter, for all has been forgotten and disregarded, for we live in the United States of Amnesia.


Land of Paradoxes and Certainties


This is the America of the early 21st century, a land of paradoxes and of certainties, at once the richest nation on the planet yet offering anemic and dilapidating educations to the bearers of its future torch; a nation rich in technology yet its people dumbed down to the point that ignorance of both the natural world and human civilization prevails; a nation industrialized and modern yet a place where tens of millions remain captive to the theologies and beliefs more in tune to those of the Middle Ages; a country once enlightened by creativity and imagination now eviscerating both through the incessant illumination every night of that disseminator of fiction, fantasy and propaganda called television; a people once shining bright, allowed innumerable freedoms and rights, now extinguished by the same system they protect and defend; a citizenry once active, loud and knowledgeable now made indifferent and servile thanks to the comforts inherent in mass consumerism and materialism; a people at one time questioning and seeking accountability of government now transformed into the acquiescent and complicit serfs of corporatism; a land once fighting for the rights of workers now a land fighting for the rights of slaves; a nation of, by and for the People mutated into a country of, by and for the Corporate World.

Such is the state of affairs inside the borders of the War Culture, with almost 300 million human beings conditioned from birth to become subservient instruments of war aiding and abetting the war machine of the Pentagon. Thanks to the military industrial complex and its vast instruments of control, they have become a nation of warmongers and xenophobes, clandestinely cheering the rumbles of tanks and the cracks of guns, the dropping of bombs and the sadistic torture of Arabs. Like Pavlovian dogs, hundreds of millions of American citizens drool at the sounds of the trumpets of war blasted into their minds by the television monitor, eager to satisfy the destructive cravings of inner conscious propagated throughout the citizenry by an ingenious mechanism of mass manipulation.

When the drums of war commence their thunderous beat the inbred thirst for bloodshed and violence is unleashed, with the population instinctively aware that the Empire’s addiction to war will soon be satisfied. Half of Americans, at once eager to smell the blood of brown-skinned humans, their hidden xenophobia and bigotry having a chance to finally rise to the surface, ingratiated by the sounds of destruction, mesmerized by the pyrotechnics and concussions of military might, are quick to march in lock step behind the tanks and battalions of the Empire, becoming an army of chickenhawks, yellow elephants and armchair generals, as always extolling war yet living in cowardice, preaching Jesus yet practicing Satan, preferring the safety of jingoism rather than the bravery of service, hiding behind the Flag and the charade of 9/11, made deaf by the hymns of that fantasy called American exceptionalism, becoming members of the cult which follows White House incompetence and ineptitude, all the while basking in their debt-ridden comforts and toys of escapism while the less fortunate among us fight their wars and battles.

At the first hints of military mobilization by the state, this half of the population, otherwise decent and law abiding people, jump at attention, ready to become the clandestine storm troopers that will blindly follow those in power into battle, never questioning the reasoning behind the push for war, never wondering why America must again go to battle and never thinking for themselves as to whose interests are being furthered and what ramifications will arise from mass murder and destruction. Without thinking and rationalizing tens of millions of citizens will support the military industrial complex and its sinister designs without ever knowing what the military industrial complex is.

At the sound of war drums these millions blindly align themselves behind the President, regardless of the incompetence, the ineptitude, the chicanery, the criminality, the illegality and the immorality. To these sheeple, the herd mentality is in full effect, in essence eagerly following a wolf dressed in shepherd’s clothing, unable to see the horizon, unable to see the journey, unable to think independently, blinded by fear, needing the diapers of bed wetters and the pacifiers of security, eager to follow and be led to the slaughterhouse disguised as so-called security and protection, unable to see anything except the blind manifestation of ignorant loyalty.

The other half of America, meanwhile, talk the talk but rarely, if ever, walk the walk, preferring instead to protest and dissent from the comfort and security of their keyboard or through the messages on their car bumper, as if that alone grants them entitlement to call themselves self-proclaimed anti-war activist, with many placing more interest and exerting more energy in the asinine, non-important, relatively insignificant news regarding the quail hunting adventures of Dick Cheney than in the much larger issues affecting the nation, with many unwilling to sacrifice time, effort and energy to fight for the future of the country.

They criticize without remorse but cannot bring it upon themselves to mobilize and take to the streets in protest, preferring losing freedoms and rights than being bothered into joining a mass movement. From their pajamas they proclaim vitriol at the chicanery of the Bush Administration yet refuse to take the direct action those that came before once did, voicing their frustrations at the direction America is taking through Internet message boards and simple family gatherings.

Merrily this half proclaims undying and blind loyalty to the impotent and spineless minority party, unwilling to see, thanks to the denial so prevalent among diehard Democrats, that their beloved party is but the lesser of two evils, naïve in their belief that this side of the army of corrupt politicians will ever again have their interest at the forefront, their ideology acting to mask the fact that their cherished heroes are but the prostitutes of corporatism and that their party is an illusion designed to convey the mistaken belief that an opposition exists.

Gone from their core, thanks to the comfortable and pampered existence they have been granted and the conditioning that has enveloped them from birth, is the fire that once lit brightly during the time of another American debacle, thriving inside the youth of a now vanished generation, a fire that granted radiance to bravery and warmth to courage, transforming a nation and a time, bringing truth to power and justice to criminality.

The fire that engulfed the sixties has been extinguished by consumerism, materialism and the glow of television, by an indifference that gives complacency a welcome embrace, by a collective amnesia that forgets yesterday and fails to recognize today, by videogame distractions and unenlightened passivity, and by the dark covers that have virtually eliminated from our consciousness the lost war in the Middle East, with millions of armchair protesters made placid to the cries of an America hemorrhaging to death, unwilling to create a movement, unable to leave the comfortable warmth of their homes, preferring to protest on the Internet, unable to mobilize more than a minute and insignificant number of souls while the nation rots and fascism grows.

Gone are the massive marches, campus insurrections, the defying solidarity, the movement that altered history. A giant tsunami of change that once brought the upper echelons of government to its knees has given way to those who have sold out to principles once held dear, no longer to be bothered by truth, justice and peace, and to younger generations suffering the laziness and ignorance spawned by the excessiveness of living in America. Gone is the military draft and the threat of conscription, once a tinderbox that fed fuel to the peace movement’s fire, for without it middle class America, white America, has no real vested interest in protesting, no loved ones to bring home, no friends to fight for, no sons and fathers to protest over, no funerals to attend, no threat of them being drafted.

In Iraq it is not their sons or fathers or brothers or daughters being maimed and dying. It is not their relatives or friends being psychologically damaged; they do not see the devastation done and the demons spawned. This is a war that does not hit middle class America close to home or inside their sphere of existence, where the heart is, where emotion flows and anger grows. To the great majority, the Iraq war remains an abstract reality, seen in images and in articles, not in the flesh or in immediate suffering. As such, and as long as the lower castes of American society are made to “volunteer” for war, with those from urban jungles or of rural regions comprising the armed forces, as long as middle class America is not conscripted, there will not exist a massive peace movement, the kind that once moved mountains and introduced fear into the halls of power. This the Bush Administration knows all too well, which is why they avoid it at all costs, while at the same time manipulating the system in a myriad of ways to assure itself of enough cannon fodder to continue its war of imperialism and occupation.


Warmongers One and All


The War Culture we are called, birthed from the first images of cartoons our innocent minds are bombarded with, their entire content based on conflict, aggression, violence and destruction, our brainwaves slowly manipulated and altered to suit the ways of war. Conditioned from infancy to accept the sounds of gunfire, the dropping of bombs, the violence of war, the violent conflict of man versus man, we in time become immune to death and violence, suppressing inside us feelings of horror and revulsion. As we begin getting older we are introduced to the magical world of Hollywood, full of pyrotechnic wonder and digital artistry, making us awe and gawk at exploding bombs and reverberating waves of thunderous booms, becoming wide-eyed by the destruction unleashed by the weapons of war and the heroes we fantasize about.

Transfixed by Dolby digital sounds, the concussions of bombs exploding in our ears, the whizzing of bullets flying by, mushroom clouds of fire and smoke emanating on screen, blood and guts spilled throughout, we are made to accept war and violence and destruction as inherent mechanisms of conflict resolution. Slowly but surely we are conditioned to believe that the brutality of man killing man is not as severe as we believe it to be, that blood and guts are but movie magic, that death and injury are as fictional as that seen in the movies. We are made to love mayhem; we are made to love weapons; we are made to accept violence; we are made to believe death is nothing more than the role an actor must play.

In our deluded minds, thanks to years of watching television and movies, lies the ingrained propaganda that everything the military does is benevolent and altruistic, as always fighting for “freedom and democracy,” for “human rights,” for the salvation from “tyranny.” In our distorted view of human reality, the US military is always the good guy fighting the enemy, who is always evil, a dreaded evildoer. This black and white view of the world has been firmly planted into our minds by the happy ending, good-guy always wins bull manure manufactured by the fictional geniuses in Hollywood, where America is always the winner and where the evildoer of the moment always gets killed or caught. In a war such as the present debacle in Iraq, therefore, where reality is hidden and truth suppressed, our instinct will always be to blindly believe, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary, that the US military has been sent to Iraq for good, altruistic and noble intentions.

The truth, though, is altogether different, as evidenced by the devastation unleashed by the American military inside Iraq. The sadistic images that emerged from Abu Ghraib, the crimes against humanity being committed in Guantanamo and other such clandestine gulags, the death of perhaps 200,000 innocent Iraqis, the complete devastation of Iraq’s infrastructure, the indiscriminate shooting of civilians, the immeasurable level of suffering created as a result of occupation, the destruction of Fallujah missile, bomb and use of white phosphorus, the lack of electricity, sewage, fuel and adequate drinking water, the ongoing dropping of bombs and an increase in the aerial war are but a few examples of the wickedness exported into Iraq by America’s illegal and immoral invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. The complete collapse of society and unfettered chaos in the streets, the civil war now raging and expanding, the insecurity prevalent throughout the nation and the deep seated anger and hate brewing in Iraq are all a result of what our cherished military, at the behest of George W. Bush, has helped birth in a nation once tranquil and secure.

Yet to millions of Americans who either do not care or will never know reality, what we have done in Iraq is bringing “freedom and democracy,” even though women now have fewer rights than before invasion, freeing a nation from its tyrant, even though America has become the new tyrant, that they hate us for our freedoms, when in reality they hate us for our foreign policies, our imperialism and our support of ruthless tyrants, and “fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them over here,” even though there were no terrorists in Iraq before but now it has become a training ground for thousands who will one day use their expertise in order to inflict blowback at the United States.

Lost from the memory of tens of millions of Americans, whether conveniently or from the general amnesia now prevalent throughout society, are the myriad of excuses used to justify the illegal invasion and occupation, from WMDs, mushroom clouds, connections to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Lost is the reality that we are the invading Red Coats fighting against American Revolutionaries in the Iraqi version of the Revolutionary War and War for Independence, that the truth behind the Iraq war is freedom fighters trying to cleanse their lands of the imperial invaders intent on dehumanizing Iraqis, raping their women, killing and brutalizing their children, conquering their oil fields and possessing their geostrategic lands. We cheer freedom fighters in expensive Hollywood productions, yet not when we are the invaders and occupiers. Such is the power of propaganda. Thanks to incessant propaganda, however, tens of millions of Americans will continue to live in the illusion that we are fighting the so-called war on terror against Al-Qaeda, that Iraq is the central front in this mirage, that we are the defenders of humanity, pursuing evildoer bogeymen with no interest in controlling the vast oil fields deemed vital to the continued expansion both of our economy and the coffers of the military-industrial-energy complex.

After years of propaganda and conditioning, and thanks to continued and incessant brainwashing by the mainstream media, we readily accept war as an institution, as a product re-introduced every few years for the benefit of the state. War thus becomes a necessary component that we inherently associate, perhaps subconsciously, with the continued health of the nation and its economy. By association, then, war is good not only for the country but for us as individuals, assuring our children of continued excessiveness. Inside our minds exists the charade that without war we would not possess the vast wealth we have or the comfortable lifestyles we live in.

Yet we also know that without war, without our reckless grab for land and exploitation, the nation would stutter and cease to be the power that has allowed us to dominate the globe, pillaging the world’s people and their resources in the process, in wanton fashion exacerbating misery, regional wars, global warming, poverty and thus further imperiling the security of the planet. It is this reality that we are fully aware of yet refuse to accept or openly talk about, becoming the ugly truth that must never be allowed to escape its dark closet. It is better to live in denial and in hypocrisy than in the shantytowns exclusively reserved for billions of our fellow human beings.

Millions of us know we owe our fruitful and gluttonous lifestyles to war, to the suffering of billions and the imperialist mechanisms controlled by us, yet many of us refuse to change our ways, refusing to act in opposition to the Empire, refusing to acknowledge that our lifestyle was born in sin, in human misery and in the invasion and colonization of alien lands. Living inside the belly of the beast, using and exploiting its many riches, living its comfortable reality, yet refusing to alter our standards of living or our comfortable existence, refusing to amend our crimes and stop our exploitation of the planet, we remain, as always, fully complicit in the crimes and destruction and misery unleashed by our government. Remaining silent, indifferent and ignorant to this reality does not absolve any of us.

Through silence we merely acquiesce to everything done in our name. Our failure or unwillingness to alter our ways, our inability or refusal to change the direction of this nation and the continued indifference or complicity to the plight of billions has unmasked us all. This hidden truth lies at the heart of us all, making us a nation of warmongers, one and all, of amnesiacs, one and all, of pampered and spoiled primates, one and all, a citizenry unapologetic in its complicity and acquiescence to imperialism, war and destruction through our excessiveness, comfortable lifestyles and deafening silence.

We are a nation asleep at the wheel, drunk off our self-exceptionalism and gluttony, ramming head on into the massive trunk of unthinking self-destruction, our arrogance blinding us to the giant cancer in our midst, addicted to materialism and television, every day dumbed down further, unwilling to learn about the world outside our infallible bubble, creating a snowball rolling downhill, gaining momentum and growing in size, in its path eviscerating the dreams and hopes of the future as well as an American past that once offered humanity a glimmer of hope in an ever-dwindling and myopic world.


www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com

Manuel Valenzuela is a social critic and commentator, international affairs analyst and Internet columnist. His articles as well as his archive can be found at his blog, http://www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com as well as at other alternative news websites from around the globe. Mr. Valenzuela welcomes comments and can be reached at manuel@valenzuelas.net. Mr. Valenzuela is also author of Echoes in the Wind, a novel made available at most online book sellers.



Comment on this Article


More Proof of Prewar Intelligence Manipulation by the Bush Administration

By Walter C. Uhler ICH 15 Feb 06

Pillar's firsthand proof of intelligence manipulation appears to be unassailable: The Bush administration "went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq… As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war."
Writing in the March/April 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs, Paul R. Pillar has launched a furious assault on the Bush administration for its manipulation of prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and links to al Qaeda. Mr. Pillar should know, because he was the CIA's National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia (NESA) from 2000 to 2005.

Most damaging is his assertion: "The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made." That decision, of course, was to invade Iraq. And, as we know, plenty of evidence exists -- especially as provided by Bush administration insider, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- to prove that the Bush administration plotted, from its very first day in office, to effect regime change in Iraq.

Pillar's firsthand proof of intelligence manipulation appears to be unassailable: The Bush administration "went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq…As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war."

As Pillar correctly notes, it was the Senate -- not the Bush administration -- that requested such a strategic-level assessment, the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Yet, what precipitated that request was the "cherry-picking" from intelligence about aluminum tubes, by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney, which exaggerated how close Iraq was to acquiring nuclear weapons. Presumably, such manipulation is what Pillar has in mind when he complains about how "the administration selected pieces of raw intelligence to use in the public case for war, leaving the intelligence community to register varying degrees of private protest when such use started to go beyond what analysts deemed credible or reasonable."

But, much worse than mere cherry-picking for exaggeration from legitimate, if partial, intelligence was the Bush administration's attempt to frighten Congress -- just a few weeks before it was scheduled to vote on a resolution to support war -- by falsely proclaiming the existence of links connecting Iraq with al Qaeda. Why? Because the intelligence community already had expressed its doubts about such links in four classified reports. Thus, there existed no legitimate intelligence to cherry-pick from.

Nevertheless, but from pure fabrication, President Bush falsely warned against allowing al Qaeda to become "an extension of Saddam's madness." Not to be outdone, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld falsely claimed, "that American intelligence had 'bulletproof' evidence of links between al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq."

Anyone who had read the four classified reports would have known that Bush and Rumsfeld were making false statements. Which means that virtually every senior official in the Bush administration was an accomplice.

Unfortunately, few individuals outside the Bush administration knew about those four classified intelligence reports. And Pillar doesn't mention them in his article. But our British allies in the war against Iraq knew what was going on. And, now, so do we, thanks to the individual who leaked the highly classified "Downing Street Memo" of July 2002.

According to that memo, the Chief of British Intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Cabinet the following information about his recent talks in Washington: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Moreover, as Pillar confirms, "the greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments [precisely] concerned …the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda." In fact, it required only the first of those four classified reports -- co-authored by Pillar's NESA and issued to the President's Daily Brief principals on September 21, 2001 -- to provoke neoconservatives in the Pentagon to establish a small office tasked with cultivating that very discrepancy.

That office, staffed by untrained but appropriately biased political hacks, was set up by Douglas Feith and called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCEG). According to Pillar, with the formation of that group, "The administration's rejection of the intelligence community's judgments became especially clear." Not only did the PCEG deliberately resurrect and disseminate damning, but erroneous, raw intelligence about Iraq's links to al Qaeda (raw intelligence that the intelligence community already had dismissed), it also solicited raw intelligence from now discredited anti-Saddamist defectors programmed by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

Thus, was it an accident that the PCEG's "intelligence" affirming Iraq's links to al Qaeda found its way into the pre-invasion public utterances of the Defense Secretary, National Security Adviser, Vice President and President? Didn't Cheney speak for them all when he wrote the following note on one of Feith's briefings: "This is very good…Encouraging…Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of the CIA."

"Encouraging?" Manipulating evidence to go to war is "encouraging?" Perhaps that entire exercise best explains why the least enthusiastic member of Bush's war party, Colin Powell, called Feith's group a "Gestapo office."

A recent poll indicated that 53 percent of Americans supported the impeachment of President Bush, "if it was in fact proven that Bush had lied about the basis for invading Iraq." Thus, it's up to that 53 percent to determine whether the very establishment of a "Gestapo office" dedicated to supplanting legitimate classified reports with discredited and ultimately false intelligence that, in turn, was used eagerly and uncritically by senior Bush administration officials, constitutes anything other than the "BIG LIE" that so-called totalitarian regimes had perfected in the past.

Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA). His own comprehensive examination of Feith's PCEG - Visit his website.



Comment on this Article


The Anti-Empire Report - How I spent my 15 minutes of fame

By William Blum ICH 15 Feb 06

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America’s global interventions -- including the awful bombings -- have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -– oddly enough -– a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It’s equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

"That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated."
In case you don't know, on January 19 the latest audiotape from Osama bin Laden was released and in it he declared: "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book ‛Rogue State', which states in its introduction ... " He then goes on to quote the opening of a paragraph I wrote (which appears actually in the Foreword of the British edition only, that was later translated to Arabic), which in full reads:

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America’s global interventions -- including the awful bombings -- have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -– oddly enough -– a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It’s equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

"That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated."

Within hours I was swamped by the media and soon appeared on many of the leading TV shows, dozens of radio programs, with long profiles in the Washington Post, Salon.com and elsewhere. In the previous ten years the Post had declined to print a single one of my letters, most of which had pointed out errors in their foreign news coverage. Now my photo was on page one.

Much of the media wanted me to say that I was repulsed by bin Laden's "endorsement". I did not say I was repulsed because I was not. After a couple of days of interviews I got my reply together and it usually went something like this:

"There are two elements involved here: On the one hand, I totally despise any kind of religious fundamentalism and the societies spawned by such, like the Taliban in Afghanistan. On the other hand, I'm a member of a movement which has the very ambitious goal of slowing down, if not stopping, the American Empire, to keep it from continuing to go round the world doing things like bombings, invasions, overthrowing governments, and torture. To have any success, we need to reach the American people with our message. And to reach the American people we need to have access to the mass media. What has just happened has given me the opportunity to reach millions of people I would otherwise never reach. Why should I not be glad about that? How could I let such an opportunity go to waste?"

Celebrity -- modern civilization's highest cultural achievement -- is a peculiar phenomenon. It really isn't worth anything unless you do something with it.

The callers into the programs I was on, and sometimes the host, in addition to numerous emails, repeated two main arguments against me. (1) Where else but in the United States could I have the freedom to say what I was saying on national media?

Besides their profound ignorance in not knowing of scores of countries with at least equal freedom of speech (particularly since September 11), what they are saying in effect is that I should be so grateful for my freedom of speech that I should show my gratitude by not exercising that freedom. If they're not saying that, they're not saying anything.

(2) America has always done marvelous things for the world, from the Marshall Plan and defeating communism and the Taliban to rebuilding destroyed countries and freeing Iraq.

I have dealt with these myths and misconceptions previously; like sub-atomic particles, they behave differently when observed. For example, in last month's report I pointed out in detail that "destroyed countries" were usually destroyed by American bombs; and America did not rebuild them. As to the Taliban, the United States overthrew a secular, women's-rights government in Afghanistan, which led to the Taliban coming to power; so the US can hardly be honored for ousting the Taliban a decade later, replacing it with an American occupation, an American puppet president, assorted warlords, and women chained.

But try to explain all these fine points in the minute or so one has on radio or TV. However, I think I somehow managed to squeeze in a lot of information and thoughts new to the American psyche.

Some hosts and many callers were clearly pained to hear me say that anti-American terrorists are retaliating against the harm done to their countries by US foreign policy, and are not just evil, mindless, madmen from another planet.[1] Many of them assumed, with lots of certainty and no good reason at all, that I was a supporter of the Democratic Party and they proceeded to attack Bill Clinton. When I pointed out that I was no fan at all of the Democrats or Clinton, they were usually confused into silence for a few moments before seamlessly jumping to some other piece of nonsense. They do not know that an entire alternative world exists above and beyond the Republicans and Democrats.

Just recently we have been hearing and reading comments in the American media about how hopelessly backward and violent were those Muslims protesting the Danish cartoons, carrying signs calling for the beheading of those that insult Islam. But a caller to a radio program I was on said I "should be taken care of", and one of the hundreds of nasty emails I received began: "Death to you and your family."

One of my personal favorite moments: On an AM radio program in Pennsylvania, discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

The host (with anguish in her voice): "What has Israel ever done to the Palestinians?"

Me: "Have you been in a coma the past 20 years?"
This is a question I could ask many of those who interrogated me the past few weeks. Actually, 60 years would be more appropriate.

Elections my teacher never told me about

Americans are all taught from childhood on of the significance and sanctity of free elections: You can't have the thing called "democracy" without the thing called "free elections". And when you have the thing called free elections it's virtually synonymous with having the thing called democracy. And who were we taught was the greatest champion of free elections anywhere in the world? Why, our very same teacher, God's country, the good ol' US of A.

But what was God's country actually doing all those years we were absorbing and swearing by this message? God's country was actually interfering in free elections in every corner of the known world; seriously so.

The latest example is the recent elections in Palestine, where the US Agency for International Development (AID) poured in some two million dollars (a huge amount in that impoverished area) to try to tilt the election to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its political wing, Fatah, and prevent the radical Islamic group Hamas from taking power. The money was spent on various social programs and events to increase the popularity of the PA; the projects bore no evidence of US involvement and did not fall within the definitions of traditional development work. In addition, the United States funded many newspaper advertisements publicizing these projects in the name of the PA, with no mention of AID.

"Public outreach is integrated into the design of each project to highlight the role of the P.A. in meeting citizens needs," said a progress report on the projects. "The plan is to have events running every day of the coming week, beginning 13 January, such that there is a constant stream of announcements and public outreach about positive happenings all over Palestinian areas in the critical week before the elections."

Under the rules of the Palestinian election system, campaigns and candidates were prohibited from accepting money from foreign sources.[2] American law explicitly forbids the same in US elections.

Since Hamas won the election, the United States has made it clear that it does not recognize the election as any kind of victory for democracy and that it has no intention of having normal diplomatic relations with the Hamas government. (Israel has adopted a similar attitude, but it should not be forgotten that Israel funded and supported the emergence of Hamas in Gaza during its early days, hoping that it would challenge the Palestine Liberation Organization as well as Palestinian leftist elements.)

By my count, there have been more than 30 instances of gross Washington interference in foreign elections since the end of World War II -- from Italy in 1948 and the Philippines and Lebanon in the 1950s, to Nicaragua, Bolivia and Slovakia in the 2000s -- most of them carried out in an even more flagrant manner than the Palestinian example.[3] Some of the techniques employed have been used in the United States itself as our electoral system, once the object of much national and international pride, has slid inexorably from "one person, one vote", to "one dollar, one vote".

Coming soon to a country (or city) near you

On January 13 the United States of America, in its shocking and awesome wisdom, saw fit to fly an unmanned Predator aircraft over a remote village in the sovereign nation of Pakistan and fire a Hellfire missile into a residential compound in an attempt to kill some "bad guys". Several houses were incinerated, 18 people were killed, including an unknown number of "bad guys"; reports since then give every indication that the unknown number is as low as zero, al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, the principal target, not being amongst them. Outrage is still being expressed in Pakistan. In the United States the reaction in the Senate typified the American outrage:

"We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again" said Sen. John McCain of Arizona "It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" said Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana. "My information is that this strike was clearly justified by the intelligence," said Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi.[4]

Similar US attacks using such drones and missiles have angered citizens and political leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. In has not been uncommon for the destruction to be so complete that it is impossible to establish who was killed, or even how many people. Amnesty International has lodged complaints with the Busheviks following each suspected Predator strike. A UN report in the wake of the 2002 strike in Yemen called it "an alarming precedent [and] a clear case of extrajudicial killing" in violation of international laws and treaties.[5]

Can it be imagined that American officials would fire a missile into a house in Paris or London or Ottawa because they suspected that high-ranking al Qaeda members were present there? Even if the US knew of their presence for an absolute fact, and not just speculation as in the Predator cases mentioned above? Well, most likely not, but can we put anything past Swaggering- Superarrogant-Superpower-Cowboys-on-steroids? After all, they've already done it to their own, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On May 13, 1985, a bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor’s office, and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict an organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.

The victims were all black of course. So let's rephrase the question. Can it be imagined that American officials would fire a missile into a residential area of Beverly Hills or the upper east side of Manhattan? Stay tuned.

"The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting." Milan Kundera

I'm occasionally taken to task for being so negative about the United States role in the world. Why do you keep looking for all the negative stuff and tear down the positive? I'm asked.

Well, it's a nasty job, but someone has to do it. Besides, for each negative piece I'm paid $500 by al Qaeda. And the publicity given to my books by Osama ... priceless.

The new documentary film by Eugene Jarecki, ""Why We Fight", which won the Sundance Festival's Grand Jury prize, relates how the pursuit of profit by arms merchants and other US corporations has fueled America's post-World War II wars a lot more than any love of freedom and democracy. The unlikely hero of the film is Dwight Eisenhower, whose famous warning about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex" is the film's principal motif.

Here is Jarecki being interviewed by the Washington Post:

Post: Why did you make "Why We Fight?"

Jarecki: The simple answer: Eisenhower. He caught me off-guard. He seemed to have so much to say about our contemporary society and our general tilt towards militarism. ... The voices in Washington and the media have become so shrill. ... It seemed important to bring a little gray hair into the mix.

Post: How would you classify your politics? You've been accused of being a lefty.

Jarecki: I'm a radical centrist. ... If Dwight Eisenhower is a lefty, I am too. Then I'll walk with Ike.[6] [ellipses in original]

Isn't it nice that a film portraying the seamier side of the military-industrial complex is receiving such popular attention? And that we are able to look fondly upon an American president? How long has that been? Well, here I go again.

Eisenhower, regardless of what he said as he was leaving the presidency, was hardly an obstacle to American militarism or corporate imperialism. During his eight years in office, the United States intervened in every corner of the world, overthrowing the governments of Iran, Guatemala, Laos, the Congo, and British Guiana, and attempting to do the same in Costa Rica, Syria, Egypt, and Indonesia, as well as laying the military and political groundwork for the coming Indochinese holocaust.

Eisenhower's moralistically overbearing Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, summed up the administration's world outlook thusly: "For us there are two sorts of people in the world: there are those who are Christians and support free enterprise and there are the others."[7]

NOTES
[1] See my essay on this subject at: http://members.aol.com/essays6/myth.htm

[2] Washington Post, January 22 and 24, 2006

[3] Rogue State, chapter 18, includes the text of the US law prohibiting foreign contributions to US elections.

[4] Associated Press, January 15, 2006

[5] Los Angeles Times, January 29, 2006

[6] Washington Post, February 12, 2006, p.N3

[7] Roger Morgan, "The United States and West Germany, 1945-1973" (1974), p.54

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir. Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire www.killinghope.org Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.



Comment on this Article


The politics of fear - or how Tony Blair misled us over the war on terror

By Peter Oborne 15 Feb 06

The Government has persistently failed to tell the truth either to itself or to the British public about the terror threat in Britain. These failures of diagnosis have led to failures of response. An example is the Prime Minister's denial that there is a connection between the Iraq war and domestic terrorism. That denial is not merely false. It also inhibits the kind of deep understanding of the motives of Muslim terrorists which the Prime Minister presumably wants.
On 28 February 2005, with the Prevention of Terrorism Bill being discussed in Parliament, Tony Blair made the following comment to listeners to Women's Hour: "What they [the security services] say is that you have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these people - there are several hundred of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts - you have got to give us power in between just surveying them and being sure enough to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt. There are people out there who are determined to destroy our way of life and there is no point in us being naïve about it. "

Anyone listening to the Prime Minister's remarks must have felt that, within days of the Prevention of Terrorism Act being passed, the "several hundred" individuals plotting to wreak devastation through Britain would have been under lock and key. And yet that is not the case at all. Nearly a year has gone by and yet no more than 17 individuals have been made subject to control orders. The Prime Minister's suggestion that the security services were demanding new powers in order to deal with a new category of terrorist suspect turns out to have been nonsense. His figure of " several hundred" terrorists plotting mayhem seems to have been plucked out of thin air.

THE POLITICISATION OF TERROR

In the immediate aftermath of the 7 July outrages the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, was swift to make contact with his opposite numbers the shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, and the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten. Parallel lines of communication were developed between their staff members and cemented by a regular exchange of letters and e-mails. There seemed to be a real chance that some good could come out of the calamity of the London bombings: politicians of all parties coming together to fight a ruthless common enemy.

By the start of August, there was a general agreement that everything was on course for announcements at the party conference season and the passing of an anti-terrorism Act, with cross-party support, by Christmas. Clarke, Davis and Oaten each set off on holiday. They had taken the precaution of sharing contact numbers in case of an emergency.

On the afternoon of 4 August, both Oaten and Davis were surprised to receive a call from the Home Office minister Hazel Blears. Oaten was in St Tropez when he took his, while Davis was in the north of England. According to both, Blears gave the impression that the call was little more a formality. She told them that there would be an announcement on terrorism by the Prime Minister the following day, but it would not go further than had already been agreed between the three parties.

The following day, in his monthly Downing Street press conference, the Prime Minister went far beyond anything agreed, or even discussed with, the opposition parties. He dramatically announced a "12-point plan" which put forward new measures which he surely knew that the opposition parties could not support. This 12-point plan at once shattered the harmonious working relationship between the three main parties.

Charles Clarke, it must be said, rebuts any suggestion that he was put under pressure from Downing Street or kept out of loop, saying: "I was on holiday in America at that time, and I was on the phone to the Prime Minister a great deal during that time, right up to the statements that he actually made. I was fully involved, fully supported it and thought it was the right thing to do." Be that as it may, there are grounds for speculation that 10 Downing Street had seized control of the terrorism agenda from the Home Office.

The context is important: the Prime Minister had been confronted by a concerted campaign in the tabloid press for new anti-terror laws. He may well have concluded that the thoughtful, consensual strategy worked out with the two main opposition parties came at too great a political cost. He may have decided that it was more profitable to give an impression of acting tough. That was the impression gained by many MPs, including his own supporters. John Denham, a former Home Office minister and chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, described the proposals as "half-baked". He told me later: "There must be concern that the Government agenda is sometimes driven by public and media pressure in this area, rather than a concern for what is most effective."

Tony Blair's terror initiative showed numerous signs of having been cobbled together in a hurry. Some of the measures proved ill thought-out and unworkable. However, it may have achieved the result that the Prime Minister, who left the following day for the West Indies to stay at Cliff Richard's holiday home, wanted. For days before the plan was announced, he had been under heavy pressure from a tabloid campaign, led by The Sun, claiming that holidaying politicians were not taking the terror threat seriously enough.

On 3 August, The Sun raged against holidaying MPs: "LET'S HOPE THE BOMBERS ARE ON HOLIDAY TOO". On 5 August an open letter from Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of The Sun, was headlined: "DEAR MPs, SIX WEEKS HOLIDAY IS ENOUGH FOR ANYONE". Then on 6 August, as Tony Blair flew to the West Indies with his family, The Sun headline was much more reassuring: "VICTORY FOR SUN OVER NEW TERROR LAWS."

RICIN

In early 2003 just as the Government was seeking to persuade the British people to wage war against Saddam Hussein in order to prevent him distributing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, the police made a significant announcement. They had, they said, foiled a terrorist ring in its attempt to launch a chemical attack in Britain using the deadly poison ricin.

According to a press release from Scotland Yard issued in the names of the deputy chief medical officer, Dr Pat Troop, and Assistant Commissioner David Veness of the Metropolitan Police, ricin had been found in a flat in Wood Green, north London. The Government latched on to the news. On 7 January, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and the Health Secretary, John Reid, issued a joint statement stating that "traces of ricin" had been found. The Prime Minister joined in by warning that the discovery highlighted the dangers from weapons of mass destruction, adding: "The arrests which were made show this danger is present and real and with us now. Its potential is huge."

It is unusual, and potentially prejudicial, for ministers to comment on upcoming court cases. Nevertheless, as the ricin case moved towards trial, ministers continued to regard the ricin trial as an important publicity resource. In due course, the trial judge was provoked into warning the Home Secretary to curb his public remarks for fear of prejudicing the case.

No ricin was ever found in the Wood Green flat - just a small number of ingredients for the manufacture of ricin. The announcement from David Veness and Pat Troop that "a small amount of the material recovered from the Wood Green premises has tested positive for the presence of ricin poison" was misleading: the tests were only capable of indicating that ricin might be present. But they did not establish its presence.

On 7 January, chemical weapons experts at the government research facility at Porton Down carried out more accurate tests into the presence of ricin. These tests established that there was no ricin. Curiously, Porton Down apparently did not pass on this information to the British Government until late March. And apparently the Government never asked for the results of this definitive test. The existence of ricin continued to be proclaimed for over two years.

OLD TRAFFORD

In April 2004, the British people were alerted to an amazing coup. They learned how the police had seized a terrorist gang just as it prepared to launch an audacious bomb attack on Old Trafford stadium on match day, an attack which could have killed thousands of people. It was a national sensation. And yet there was not a shred of truth in the story. Unlike in the ricin case, the Government cannot be blamed. The police and, to an extent the media, are responsible for the invention.

On the morning of Monday 19 April 2004, more than 400 officers from four police forces, many of them armed, raided half a dozen houses, flats and businesses in and around Manchester. They arrested eight men, one woman and a 16-year-old boy. They were held for several days and intensively interrogated. In due course the suspects were released. No charges were ever laid.

The newspapers, by contrast, had no doubt about what the story was. The front page of The Sun proclaimed: "MAN U SUICIDE BOMB PLOT". On pages four and five the paper claimed: "EXCLUSIVE: MAN UTD SUICIDE BLASTS FOILED".

Once the story had started to run, it was further fuelled by the Manchester police. Rather than issue a cool denial, they played it up by holding a press conference. The accompanying press release read: "We are confident that the steps that we have taken to date have significantly reduced any potential threat in the Greater Manchester area." With the weekend fixtures looming, it went on: "Greater Manchester Police and Manchester United Football Club have put in place extra security measures to reassure the public about the safety of both matches."

The police and security services have, very properly, refused to discuss what intelligence led to the raids of 19 April being made. But the police interrogations of the suspects shed a ray of light. One of the suspects, a Kurd, suffered so badly from having his name linked to a terrorist plot that he wants to remain anonymous.

He told me how Old Trafford had cropped up in his interrogation: "I was in the police station and the interview stopped, like a rest, and somebody, they bring in the coffee and they ask me what you like? I say I like the football. Oh, who do you support? They ask me just like a friendly, who do you support? I say Manchester United. Oh, how long you support Manchester United? I said a long time I support Manchester United, when I was tiny, I was small, you know and all my family supported Manchester United ... they asked me, have you been football ground? I said, of course I've been to the football ground. Two years ago, long time ago, I can't remember."

These questions were surely prompted by the discovery, at the anonymous suspect's flat, of Manchester United paraphernalia: a poster of Old Trafford, and ticket stubs the suspect had kept as souvenirs of his only visit to the ground, when he had gone with a friend to watch United play Arsenal the year before.

The two friends had bought their tickets from touts, which meant that they sat at different parts of the ground. The Sun reported that the bombers planned to sit at different parts of the ground, in order to cause maximum damage with their bombs. This claim can only have been based on the fact that the old ticket stubs found by the police were for seats in different parts of the stadium. This information had not been made public, so The Sun could only have obtained it from the police.

The Kurds I spoke to had come to Britain in order to escape the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. Perhaps their most meaningful emotional connection with Britain was a love for Manchester United, which was why they kept the souvenirs in their flat. The Manchester police discovered nothing else suspicious. Nevertheless the police probably viewed the Manchester United souvenirs as potential evidence of a bomb plot. This evidence was then prematurely leaked, through unofficial police sources, to the press.

Manchester police then encouraged the story to run by issuing public statements that, while falling a long way short of giving outright confirmation, could be read as corroborating the story. Disgracefully, the Greater Manchester Police refused to launch an investigation into the numerous leaks.

The reporting of this incident was inflammatory and misleading. It caused needless alarm among millions of TV viewers and newspaper readers. It stirred up anti-Islamic prejudice. It ruined the lives of several of the suspects. They lost their homes, their jobs and their friends as a result. They have never received a personal apology, either from the police or from the press.

MUSLIM WORKING GROUPS

In the wake of the London bombings, the Prime Minister made a series of announcements aimed at averting another catastrophe. One of the most visible was the setting up of seven task forces to investigate Muslim extremism and to recommend initiatives for tackling it. This was a considerable enterprise by any standards, requiring deep learning and insight, and generous resources.

But Tony Blair's task forces into the roots of Muslim extremism were given six weeks to do their business. They seem to have met just three times before reaching their conclusions. One of the Muslim leaders involved, the Liberal Democrat peer Kishwer Falkner, told us: "When we agreed to be on the working groups and we were told what the deadlines were, we were taken aback. We spoke to one another and queried whether we were just being set up as a tokenistic exercise, because it didn't seem to me, in the middle of August, when half the country is on holiday, that two or three meetings of a couple of hours each would set right a host of intractable and difficult long-term problems to do with how we co-exist, how we integrate with each other.

Falkner feels that the recommendation of her working parties were second-guessed by the Prime Minister's 12-point plan, announced just two weeks after the working parties were set up. She says she was: "... completely dismayed, within days of being set up, to discover in the speech the Prime Minister made on 5 August, that he was proceeding full steam ahead with a raft of measures without waiting for us to come up with our recommendations, or indeed our analysis of the problems. And the raft of measures was completely counter to reducing alienation and extremism. In fact, if anything, it was going to increase alienation in terms of the Muslim community.

Her criticism was echoed by Haras Rafiq, co-founder of Bridges TV (UK), a Muslim television organisation which will start broadcasting later this year. He told us: "The brief was to find ways or find a solution to the problem of extremism and radicalisation within the Muslim community. Now let's just reflect on that. Find a solution for extremism and radicalisation in the Muslim community in the UK, that's a huge piece of work. It isn't something that can be tackled, you know, in the space of a month, two months. The whole process smacked to me a little bit of presentationalism and to be seen to be doing something rather than actually producing an effective and constructive piece of work."

It is hard to regard these task forces as a great deal more than some shallow spin from the Government. In the three years before the London bombings, the Government had commissioned two major enquiries into the problems of Muslim segregation and extremism - Ted Cantle's report in the wake of the Bradford riots and a government report of 2004, Young Muslims and Extremism - and largely dismissed both. The idea that Tony Blair's h urriedly formed and short-lived Muslim working groups could provide a better analysis than either of these two earlier studies was absurd.

CONCLUSION


The Government has persistently failed to tell the truth either to itself or to the British public about the terror threat in Britain. These failures of diagnosis have led to failures of response. An example is the Prime Minister's denial that there is a connection between the Iraq war and domestic terrorism. That denial is not merely false. It also inhibits the kind of deep understanding of the motives of Muslim terrorists which the Prime Minister presumably wants.

The defeat in the House of Commons of the Government's proposals for 90 days detention without trial for terrorist suspects was represented at the time as an indication of Tony Blair's political weakness. This analysis missed the point. That Commons defeat signalled a national crisis in public trust in politicians, the police and the security services. Consider this: the Prime Minister of the day, fully backed by the police, had thrown his weight behind a measure he described as crucial for national security and the fight against terrorism. And yet it was comfortably rejected by MPs.

This collapse in trust has come about because few people now believe what the Prime Minister, the security services and the police tell us about security matters. This dissonance is a massive problem. Britain today faces a threat from international and domestic terrorism which is far more dangerous and insidious than anything it has confronted before. We need to trust our politicians, our police, and the media. But that trust has been betrayed.

This is an edited extract taken from The Use and Abuse of Terror - The Construction of a False Narrative on the Domestic Terror Threat, published today by the Centre for Policy Studies. Peter Oborne is also presenting a Channel 4 documentary 'Dispatches: Spinning Terror' on Monday at 8pm

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited



Comment on this Article


Debt and Denial

By PAUL KRUGMAN NY Times 14 Feb 06

Denial takes a more systematic form within the federal government, where Dick Cheney is doing to budget analysis what he did to intelligence on Iraq. Last week Mr. Cheney announced that a newly created division within the Treasury Department would show that tax cuts increase, not reduce, federal revenue. That's the Bush-Cheney way: decide on your conclusions first, then demand that analysts produce evidence supporting those conclusions.

Last year America spent 57 percent more than it earned on world markets. That is, our imports were 57 percent larger than our exports.

How did we manage to live so far beyond our means? By running up debts to Japan, China and Middle Eastern oil producers. We're as addicted to imported money as we are to imported oil.

Sometimes large-scale foreign borrowing makes sense. In the 19th century the United States borrowed vast sums from Europe, using the funds to build railroads and other industrial infrastructure. That debt-financed wave of investment left America stronger, not weaker.

But this time our overseas borrowing isn't financing an investment boom: adjusted for the size of the economy, business investment is actually low by historical standards. Instead, we're using borrowed money to build houses, buy consumer goods and, of course, finance the federal budget deficit.

In 2005 spending on home construction as a percentage of G.D.P. reached its highest level in more than 50 years. People who already own houses are treating them like A.T.M.'s, converting home equity into spending money: last year the personal savings rate fell below zero for the first time since 1933. And it's a sign of our degraded fiscal state that the Bush administration actually boasted about a 2005 budget deficit of more than $300 billion, because it was a bit lower than the 2004 deficit.

It all sounds unsustainable. And it is.

Some people insist that the U.S. economy has hidden savings that official statistics fail to capture. I won't go into the technical debate about these claims, some of which resemble arguments used not long ago to justify dot-com stock prices, except to say that the more closely one looks at the facts, the less plausible the "don't worry, be happy" hypothesis looks.

Denial takes a more systematic form within the federal government, where Dick Cheney is doing to budget analysis what he did to intelligence on Iraq. Last week Mr. Cheney announced that a newly created division within the Treasury Department would show that tax cuts increase, not reduce, federal revenue. That's the Bush-Cheney way: decide on your conclusions first, then demand that analysts produce evidence supporting those conclusions.

But serious analysts know that America's borrowing binge is unsustainable. Sooner or later the trade deficit will have to come down, the housing boom will have to end, and both American consumers and the U.S. government will have to start living within their means.

So how bad will it be? It depends on how the binge ends. If it tapers off gradually, the U.S. economy will be able to shift workers out of sectors that have benefited from the housing boom and the consumption spree into sectors that produce exports or replace imports. Given time, we could bring the trade deficit down and bring housing back to earth without a net loss in jobs.

In practice, however, a "soft landing" looks unlikely, because too many economic players have unrealistic expectations. This is true of international investors, who are still snapping up U.S. bonds at low interest rates, seemingly oblivious both to the budget deficit and to the consensus view among trade experts that the dollar will eventually have to fall 30 percent or more to eliminate the trade deficit.

It's equally true of American home buyers. Most Americans live in regions where housing remains affordable. But a detailed new study by HSBC, a multinational bank, confirms what I and others have been saying: most of the rise in housing values has taken place in a "bubble zone" along the coasts, where housing prices have risen far more than the economic fundamentals warrant. According to HSBC's estimates, houses in the bubble zone are overvalued by between 35 and 40 percent, creating trillions of dollars of illusory wealth.

So it seems all too likely that America's borrowing binge will end with a bang, not a whimper, that spending will suddenly drop off as both the bond market and the housing market experience rude awakenings. If that happens, the economic consequences will be ugly.

All in all, Alan Greenspan, who helped create this situation, can consider himself lucky that he's safely out of office, giving briefings to hedge fund managers at $250,000 a pop. And his successor may be in for a rough ride. Best wishes and good luck, Ben; you may need it.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company



Comment on this Article


Our hollow prosperity

By Patrick J. Buchanan 15 Feb 06

When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce illegal immigration.

None of this happened. Indeed, the opposite occurred. Mexico's standard of living is lower than it was in 1993, the U.S. trade surplus has vanished, and America is being invaded. Mexico is now the primary source of narcotics entering the United States.
Now that the U.S. trade deficit for 2005 has come in at $726 billion, the fourth straight all-time record, a question arises.

What constitutes failure for a free-trade policy? Or is there no such thing? Is free trade simply right no matter the results?

Last year, the United States ran a $202 billion trade deficit with China, the largest ever between two nations. We ran all-time record trade deficits with OPEC, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Latin America. The $50 billion deficit with Mexico was the largest since NAFTA passed and also the largest in history.

When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce illegal immigration.

None of this happened. Indeed, the opposite occurred. Mexico's standard of living is lower than it was in 1993, the U.S. trade surplus has vanished, and America is being invaded. Mexico is now the primary source of narcotics entering the United States.

Again, when can we say a free-trade policy has failed?

The Bushites point proudly to 4.6 million jobs created since May 2003, a 4.7 percent unemployment rate and low inflation.

Unfortunately, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts and analysts Charles McMillion and Ed Rubenstein have taken a close look at the figures and discovered that the foundation of the Bush prosperity rests on rotten timber.

The entire job increase since 2001 has been in the service sector – credit intermediation, health care, social assistance, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, etc. – and state and local government.

But, from January 2001 to January 2006, the United States lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of all we had. Over the past five years, we have suffered a net loss in goods-producing jobs.

"The decline in some manufacturing sectors has more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing than with a super-economy that is 'the envy of the world,'" writes Roberts.


Communications equipment lost 43 percent of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37 percent ... The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30 percent. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25 percent of its workforce.


How did this happen? Imports. The U.S. trade deficit in advanced technology jobs in 2005 hit an all-time high.

As for the "knowledge industry" jobs that were going to replace blue-collar jobs, it's not happening. The information sector lost 17 percent of all its jobs over the last five years.

In the same half-decade, the U.S. economy created only 70,000 net new jobs in architecture and engineering, while hundreds of thousands of American engineers remain unemployed.

If we go back to when Clinton left office, one finds that, in five years, the United States has created a net of only 1,054,000 private-sector jobs, while government added 1.1 million. But as many new private sector jobs are not full-time, McMillion reports, "the country ended 2005 with fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January 2001."

This is an economic triumph?

Had the United States not created the 1.4 million new jobs it did in health care since January 2001, we would have nearly half a million fewer private-sector jobs than when Bush first took the oath.

Ed Rubenstein of ESR Research Economic Consultants looks at the wage and employment figures and discovers why, though the Bushites were touting historic progress, 55 percent of the American people in a January poll rated the Bush economy only "fair" or "poor."

Not only was 2005's growth of 2 million jobs a gain of only 1.5 percent, anemic compared to the average 3.5 percent at this stage of other recoveries, the big jobs gains are going to immigrants.

Non-Hispanic whites, over 70 percent of the labor force, saw only a 1 percent employment increase in 2005. Hispanics, half of whom are foreign born, saw a 4.7 percent increase. As Hispanics will work for less in hospitals and hospices, and as waiters and waitresses, they are getting the new jobs.

But are not wages rising? Nope. When inflation is factored in, the Economic Policy Institute reports, "real wages fell by 0.5 percent over the last 12 months after falling 0.7 percent the previous 12 months."

If one looks at labor force participation – what share of the 227 million potential workers in America have jobs – it has fallen since 2002 for whites, blacks and Hispanics alike. Non-Hispanic whites are down to 63.4 percent, but black Americans have fallen to 57.7 percent.

What is going on? Hispanic immigrants are crowding out black Americans in the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled job market. And millions of our better jobs are being lost to imports and outsourcing.

The affluent free-traders, whose wealth resides in stocks in global companies, are enriching themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens and sacrificing the American worker on the altar of the Global Economy.

None dare call it economic treason.

© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.



Comment on this Article


Hurricane Katrina; “National Failure” or Criminal Negligence

By Mike Whitney ICH 15 Feb 06

“I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach in the levees.” George Bush

The senate investigation of Hurricane Katrina is turning out to be another White House whitewash. The senate strategy has been to characterize the Bush administration’s response as “a national failure” or “bureaucratic bungling” when in fact the evidence proves that the top officials in the administration, including George Bush himself, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of New Orleans residents.
Most of the relevant facts are not in dispute. Bush was advised by experts before the hurricane touched ground that even a Force-4 storm would breach the levees. He knew, as the New York Times says, “If the levies breached and flooded a large portion of the city, then the flooded city would have to be completely evacuated….Any delay in confirming the breaches would result in a delay in the post-landfall evacuation of the city”. Clearly, the evacuation should have been ordered, unless there was some hidden motive for leaving the city’s people in imminent danger.

We know now that Bush was told on Aug 29, the day the storm hit, that “a major section of the 17th Street Canal levee had collapsed” and was flooding the city, although, at the same time, he was still misleading reporters that the levees had held. (“We dodged a bullet”)

The media has papered-over Bush’s refusal to respond to the disaster by implying the administration was merely “slow to react” or “in a fog” or “not fully involved”. But how likely are these assertions?

Bush and his FEMA director, Michael Chertoff, completely grasped the urgency of the catastrophe, and yet, stubbornly refused to disperse funds, deploy troops, or call for an immediate evacuation.

Why?

That may be an impossible question to answer without engaging in unproductive conspiracy theories. But, we know that the administration was still pleading ignorance about the broken levees while an 8 ft river was coursing through New Orleans.

The senate investigation attempts to spread the blame equally to state and local officials and excuse the conduct of the Bush administration as a “litany of mistakes, misjudgments, lapses, and absurdities.” This theory, of course, conflicts with everything that people remember about the withholding of aid, the willful obstruction of the relief effort, and the racist imprisoning of poor black residents in the squalid-confines of the Superdome.

Once again, we see that the media narrative closely matches the political agenda of the Bush White House obfuscating the widely-acknowledged facts. Katrina was not “a failure of imagination” as the media would have us believe. Rather, it was a blatant act of criminal negligence.

How could it be otherwise?

“FEMA was warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the US (in a 2001 report But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control by 44%”. (Sidney Blumenthal: “No one Can Say they didn’t see it coming”)

Bush consistently chopped funding to the Army Corps of Engineers as well as Federal Flood Control even though he was warned repeatedly that the levees were sinking. As Paul Krugman notes, “In 2002 the Army Corps of Engineers chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being fired, after he criticized the administration’s proposed cuts in the corps’ budget, including flood-control spending”.

FEMA Blocks Relief Effort

The media’s “failure of imagination” theory is an interesting bit of revisionism which conflicts with eyewitness testimony. Consider the comments of Mitchel Cohen in “People of the Dome”:

“The government, which could have and should have provided water and food to residents of New Orleans, has not done so intentionally to force people to evacuate by staring them out. This is a crime of the gravest sort.

We need to understand that the capability has been there from the start to drive water and food right up to the convention center, as those roads have been clear. It’s how the National Guard drove into the city.

On Wednesday a number of Greens tried to bring a large amount of water to the Superdome. They were prevented from doing so, as have many others. Why have food and water been blocked from reaching tens of thousands of poor people?

They even refused to allow voluntary workers who had rescued over 1,000 people in boats over the previous days to continue on Thursday….and had to be “convinced” at gunpoint to “cease and desist”. There is something sinister going down….its not just incompetence or negligence.”

Cohen’s reflections are undoubtedly closer to what most people remember of those first few days following the hurricane than those of the senate. The fantastic claim that the Bush administration was simply “slow to respond” was effectively challenged by Aaron Broussard, President of Jefferson Parish LA in his Sept 4, testimony on Meet the Press:

“We have been abandoned by our own country. Hurricane Katrina will go down in history as one of the worst storms to ever hit an American coast, but the aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in US history.

We had Wal-Mart deliver 3 trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn’t need them. FEMA had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, “Come and get the fuel right away.” When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. “FEMA says don’t give you the fuel”. Yesterday…yesterday…FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards on our line and says, “No one is getting near those lines.”

Still think that Katrina was “a failure of imagination”?

Farhad Manjoo of Salon.com reported, “Citing security concerns, the Department of Homeland Security barred the American Red Cross from entering New Orleans with food. 500 Floridian air-boaters were ready to rescue people stranded in inundated homes, but FEMA turned them down”.

Still not convinced?

“The Homeland security Department has requested and continues to request that the Red Cross not come back to New Orleans,” said Renita Hosler, spokeswoman for the Red Cross. “Right now access is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities. We have been at the table every single day. We cannot get into New Orleans against their orders.” (Homeland Security won’t let Red Cross deliver Food, Ann Rogers, Pittsburg Post-Gazette)

Bush was not “misinformed” nor was the “White House in a fog” as the media insists. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the warnings were deliberately delayed, aid was deliberately obstructed, rescue-efforts were deliberately sabotaged, and the entire action was part of a broader government operation to achieve an “unknown” objective.

Some have suggested that FEMA has been transformed under Homeland Security and operates as a secret government “spending 12 times more for ‘black operations’ than for disaster relief. It spent $1.3 billion building secret bunkers throughout the United States in anticipation of government disruption by foreign or domestic upheaval.” (FEMA-The Secret Government, by Harry V. Martin)

Under executive orders, in the event of a national emergency, FEMA now has the ability to suspend the constitution, detain American citizens, and declare martial law. It is therefore entirely possible that FEMA no longer functions as a disaster-relief agency at all, but, has been recalibrated to address the problems that may arise from massive civil unrest following a terrorist attack or (more likely) an economic meltdown. (Note: A contract was just issued by Homeland Security to Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, for $385 million to build detention Centers within the United States. Someone in the Bush administration is definitely expecting trouble.)

Whatever the reasons may have been for obstructing the relief-effort, the results are painfully obvious. The unprepared were left to die in the flood, the poor and black were shunted into filthy detention centers, and the city was transformed into a war-zone replete with armored vehicles and 70,000 military personnel roaming the streets.

The men and women who lost their lives in New Orleans were not the victims of a “dysfunctional reaction to the storm” (NY Times) or of a “sluggish response” (Wa Post) from the administration. Rather, they are the blameless victims of a government strategy that is as abstruse as it is lethal.

Many of the facts for this article were found at “BushCo. Nukes New Orleans” a great resource for details on Katrina



Comment on this Article


Hidden history of US germ testing

BBC 13 Feb 06

In the 1950s, the Seventh-day Adventist Church struck an extraordinary deal with the US Army. It would provide test subjects for experiments on biological weapons at the Fort Detrick research centre near Washington DC.

The volunteers were conscientious objectors who agreed to be infected with debilitating pathogens. In return, they were exempted from frontline warfare.
Fifty years ago, American scientists were in a frantic race to counter what they saw as the Soviet threat from germ warfare. Biological pathogens they developed were tested on volunteers from a pacifist church and were also released in public places.

The remarkable story is told in a BBC Radio 4 documentary, Hotel Anthrax.

In the 1950s, the Seventh-day Adventist Church struck an extraordinary deal with the US Army. It would provide test subjects for experiments on biological weapons at the Fort Detrick research centre near Washington DC.

The volunteers were conscientious objectors who agreed to be infected with debilitating pathogens. In return, they were exempted from frontline warfare.

Fort Detrick was working on weapons it could use in an offensive capacity as well as ways of defending its troops and citizens.

Hotel Anthrax uses declassified documents, evidence from Senate investigations and personal testimony to trace the American bio-weapon programme during this period.

The research involved anthrax, other lethal bacteria and biological poisons. The scientists also conducted tests on an unsuspecting American public.

Rabbit fever

More than 2,000 volunteers, nicknamed the "white coats", passed through Fort Detrick between 1954 and 1973, where they worked as lab technicians, as well as offering up their bodies for science.

One white coat, George Shores, tells of how he was infected with tularaemia or rabbit fever.

A giant metal sphere, known as the Eight Ball because of its resemblance to a snooker ball, was used in the experiment. Technicians exploded prototype bio-weapons inside the structure.

"They had like telephone booths all the way around the outside of the Eight Ball and you went into the telephone booth and shut the door and put on a mask like a gas mask.

"It was hooked up to the material that was inside the Eight Ball and you breathed it in," explained Mr Shores.

He began to feel ill before too long.

"Even my gums hurt. I don't think I have ever been so sick in all my life. First it started as a headache and achy feelings and it just kept progressing.

"I just wanted to breathe enough to keep alive. I would just take little gasps of breath and I would hold it for as long as I could because it hurt so bad.

"I can imagine if someone was using that agent in the battlefield the soldier would just have to lie down - he would not be able to function."

The white coat volunteers were not infected with the most lethal microbes. Their role was to test the effectiveness of new vaccines and antibiotics and as soon as they became ill, they were given medical treatment. Within a few days, George Shores began to recover.

But America's Institute of Medicine is conducting a study of more than 6,000 veterans who say their health has been compromised by secret tests in the Cold War years.

Some of these were veteran sailors who were involved in tests known as SHAD - Shipborne Hazard and Defense - which involved spraying lethal chemicals such as sarin and nerve gases in the open sea.

The BBC programme makers also obtained declassified documents prepared by the US Department of Veterans Affairs which refer to a study of nearly 100 SHAD veterans who have since died.

It found the veterans were three times more likely to have developed one of a group of killer diseases as a sample group in the general population.

It concludes: "This study does suggest that veterans who participated in Project SHAD may be at increased risk for cerebrovascular and respiratory diseases."

Subway experiment

But it wasn't just the white coat volunteers and sailors who were subject to experiments. Scientists used what they thought was a harmless simulant in major bio-weapon tests across US cities and on public transport.

It was a bacteria which they believed was harmless but which would mimic the dispersal of deadly biological agents such as anthrax.

But later research showed that the strain of Bacillus globigii, or BG, did pose a risk to people who were ill or whose immune system was failing.

The programme hears from a retired scientist whose job in 1966 was to drop light bulbs carrying BG on the New York subway. He would then measure how the simulant might spread in the event of a real attack, using a motorised vacuum devise concealed inside a suitcase.

Wally Pannier, 82, recalls: "We'd just drop light bulbs with the powdered stimulant inside.

"I think it spread pretty good because you had a natural aerosol developed every few minutes from every train that went past."

In 1994, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs conducted what it described as a comprehensive analysis stretching back 50 years of the extent to which veterans were exposed to potentially dangerous substances without knowledge or consent.

It was chaired by John D Rockefeller.

In a damning report, it concluded that the Department of Defense (DoD) repeatedly failed to comply with required ethical standards when using human subjects in military research - and that the DoD demonstrated a pattern of misrepresenting the danger of various exposures and continued to do so.

Dr Michael Kilpatrick, a medical adviser to the DoD, claims the concerns which SHAD veterans have been raising may, finally, be changing that behaviour.

"It's very hard to try and put today's ethics on standards 20, 30, 40 years ago. That's not to excuse it. I think they were trying to protect people using the medical science that was available at that time.

"We're taking a look at any current tests that require consent of our military personnel.

"We're making sure that there is an archive, a registry, a way to get back to all of the information."



Comment on this Article


Weldon: 'Able Danger' ID'd 9/11 ringleader

By KIMBERLY HEFLING ASSOCIATED PRESS 14 Feb 06

WASHINGTON -- Pre-Sept. 11 intelligence conducted by a secret military unit identified terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta 13 different times, a congressman said Tuesday.

During a Capitol Hill news conference, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said the unit - code-named "Able Danger" - also identified "a problem" in Yemen two weeks before the attack on the USS Cole. It knew the problem was tied into the port of Aden and involved a U.S. platform, but the ship commander was not made aware of it, Weldon said.

The suicide bombing of the Cole killed 17 sailors on Oct. 12, 2000.
If anyone had told the Cole's commander that there was any indication of a problem in Aden, "he would not have gone there," Weldon told reporters. "He had no clue."

Weldon would not say who provided evidence of such intelligence to him.

Since August, Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has pushed Congress and the Pentagon to investigate the workings of Able Danger, which used data mining to identify links that might indicate the workings of terrorists. If he is correct, it would change the timeline for when government officials first became aware of Atta's links to al-Qaida.

Former members of the Sept. 11 commission have dismissed Weldon's findings.

Cmdr. Greg Hicks, a Pentagon spokesman, released a statement saying that Pentagon officials welcome the opportunity to address these issues during a hearing scheduled Wednesday before a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Comment: Keep in mind that AlQaeda is a creation of the CIA and MOSSAD. It is far more likely that the bombing of the COLE was a false flag operation. See yesterday's Signs of The Times.

Comment on this Article


M5.9 earthquake jolts central New Zealand

www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-16 09:15:17

WELLINGTON, Feb. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- A strong earthquake measuring 5.9 on the Richter scale hit central New Zealand early Thursday, but there were no immediate reports of injury or damage.

The quake was recorded at 1:15 a.m. (1315 GMT Wednesday). It was centered 180 kilometers northeast of Collingwood on South Island and 180 kilometers below the earth's surface.

The Geological and Nuclear Sciences department received more than 120 reports from people across central New Zealand.




Comment on this Article


Cheney's Chappaquiddick II: The Real Story Emerges

RJ Eskow 15 Feb 06

The real story is already emerging, if you're willing to do a little digging. Cheney and Whittington went hunting with two women (not their wives), there was some drinking, and Whittington wound up shot. Armstrong didn't see the incident but claimed she had, Cheney refused to be questioned by the Sheriff until the next morning, and a born-again evangelical physician has been downplaying Whittington's injuries since they occurrred. Neither the press nor law enforcement seems inclined to investigate.
Before the right-wing commenters howl - there's documentation for all of these statements. Let's take them one by one: In addition to Cheney and Whittington, the hunting party included Katherine Armstrong (who was in the car at the time of the shooting: more on that later). After lots of evasive comments that only referred to a "third hunter," we now know her identity: Pamela Willeford, the US Ambassador to Switzerland.

Then there was this Armstrong quote on MSNBC and picked up by Firedoglake (later dutifully scrubbed, but preserved on Google cache): "There may be a beer or two in there," (Armstrong) said, 'but remember not everyone in the party was shooting.'"

Interestingly, Armstrong's playing with words here. She later said that she (Armstrong) hadn't had anything to drink, so at least one of the other three must have been drinking - and the other three were shooting. So while her statement was literally correct ("not everyone ... was shooting"), it gives the false impression that nobody drank and shot.

Then there was this item (courtesy kos):

Armstrong said she saw Cheney's security detail running toward the scene. "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem," she told The Associated Press.

In other words, she didn't see the accident. All of her statements, replete with colorful sidebars about getting "peppered pretty good," gave the false impression she was an eyewitness. She wasn't.

And what about Dr. David Blanchard, who made such light of Whittington's injuries? Before the heart attack occurred, Blanchard gave no indication that pellets had entered Whittington's torso or major organs (we now know that at least one other pellet entered his liver). I found an interesting quote. After asserting that spiritual beliefs help people recover more quickly (which studies have suggested may be true), Blanchard said this of people with out of body and near death experiences:

"These people do quite well in their disease processes," he said. "The Lord wasn't quite ready for them yet . . . It makes believers out of them."

It's likely that Blanchard is also the same "Dr. David Blanchard" who is listed as Vice Chairperson of World Hope International, a Christian evangelical aid group.

Blanchard's certainly entitled to his own beliefs, and World Hope International (if he's the same Blanchard) has done some good work, albeit with a proselytizing bent. But most evangelicals in this country are ardent supporters of the Bush/Cheney Administration. This may explain the otherwize puzzling word choices Dr. Blanchard made to play down Whittington's injuries, especially before the heart attack made that more difficult to do.

So was Cheney drinking, and was there anything inappropriate about this hunting party? We don't know, and nobody's investigating. There's reason to be suspicious. We do have the suggestion that drinking was taking place, we have inconsistencies and a pattern of deception in Armstrong's statements, we have a shooting injury that's far more serious than originally claimed ... and a Sheriff's Department and national press that have already proclaimed the VP innocent of all wrongdoing.

I was right to call this Cheney's Chappaquiddick. The parallels get stronger every day. Of course, Chappaquiddick happened almost forty years ago, and Ted Kennedy's turned his personal life around. Cheney's actions happened this weekend. There's reason to be suspicious of the Vice President's behavior, starting with the cover-up itself.

They're trying to spin it as just a badly handled case of press relations, but it's could be a whole lot more than that.



Comment on this Article


Cheney's hunting host lobbied White House - Ranch owner who divulged accident earned $160,000 for work in 2004

By Aram Roston NBC Investigative Unit 14 Feb 06

Katharine Armstrong, who's family owns the ranch where Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a hunting partner, is a registered lobbyist who has been paid to lobby the White House, according to records.
Armstrong told NBC News in a telephone interview that she has never directly lobbied Cheney as far as she remembers.

"Never!" she said. And she says she does not remember directly lobbying the president himself either.

Armstrong was playing host to Cheney and to attorney Harry Whittington at her 50,000-acre spread 60 miles south of Corpus Christi when Cheney accidentally shot Whittington on Saturday. The White House did not immediately release news of the incident, but Armstrong said she told Cheney on Sunday morning that she was going to inform the local paper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. She said he agreed, and the newspaper reported it on its Web site Sunday afternoon.

Armstrong was paid $160,000 in 2004 by the powerful legal firm Baker Botts to lobby the White House, according to records she filed with the U.S. Senate as required by lobbying disclosure rules. The records indicate she was paid the money after she "communicated with the White House on behalf of Baker Botts clients."

Won't reveal client's name
In a phone interview, she told NBC News that in return for the money in one case, she set up a meeting at the White House for a Baker Botts client, although she said she felt she could not release the client’s name.

"A meeting for doing something with one of their clients," she said, describing the event. "I’m not at liberty to say which." She says she cannot remember which White House official the meeting was with. She also said that during the inauguration proceedings, she got Karl Rove to speak at a Baker Botts function. "I got them Karl Rove," she said.

Records indicate that early in 2005 she ended her dealings with Baker Botts.

In a subsequent interview, Armstrong told NBC News that Baker Botts asked her not to discuss what she did for the firm. Reached late Tuesday afternoon, Baker Botts had no comment on the story.

Records also indicate that early the same year she ended her lobbying relationship with another firm, Prionics, which had paid her to "work with the administration," on issues related to mad cow disease.

Bush shot at ranch while governor
Armstrong also told NBC News that while George W. Bush did shoot at her ranch while he was Texas governor, she has never hosted him while he was president.

Armstrong said the shooting accident happened toward the end of the hunt on Saturday, when it was still sunny but as darkness was encroaching and they were preparing to go inside. She said Whittington made a mistake by not announcing that he had walked up to rejoin the hunting line, and Cheney didn’t see him as he tried to down a bird.


Armstrong said she saw Cheney’s security detail running toward the scene. "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem," she told The Associated Press.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Comment on this Article


Cheney's Got A Gun

Jon Stewart

Jon has some advice, "Don't let your kids go hunting with the Vice President. I don't care what kind of lucrative contracts they're trying to land or-energy regulations they're trying to get lifted. He'll shoot them in the face." Rob Corddry added, "Jon, tonight the Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time-there-were-quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be the 78 year old man. Even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists-he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face.




Comment on this Article


What Cheney's blast revealed: A new White House lobbying scandal

Attytood 14 Feb 06

'I'm going to have lunch with Secretary of State Rice, talk a little business; Mrs. Bush, talk a little business; we've got a friend from South Texas here, named Katharine Armstrong; take a little nap. I'm reading an Elmore Leonard book right now, knock off a little Elmore Leonard this afternoon; go fishing with my man, Barney; a light dinner and head to the ballgame. I get to bed about 9:30 p.m., wake up about 5 a.m. So it's a perfect day.''
-- President George W. Bush, as quoted in the Aug. 22, 2005, New York Times.
For months now, reporters and bloggers have been digging for a picture that would show President Bush with disgraced lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff. Maybe they've been looking for the wrong picture. Because there's a lobbyist out there who has access to both Bush and Dick Cheney that Abramoff (or at least his pals in Queens) might kill for.

Her name is Katharine Armstrong -- whose family owns the Texas ranch where Cheney shot his 78-year-old friend, Harry Whittington, on Saturday. What has received virtually no attention in all the shooting hoopla is that the wealthy ranch heiress is also a lobbyist -- a lobbyist who goes quail hunting with the vice president and spends leisurely summer days with the leader of the free world at his ranch in Crawford.

Armstrong became a lobbyist just three short years ago. She had no prior experience in lobbying, nor does she have a law degree. Her recent governmental experience consists of her recent stint as chair of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. In recent years, the divorcee has been raising her three kids and been involved in philanthropic causes around Dallas.

So how's Armstrong doing in her new career?

Quite well, thank you.

In fact, companies are paying big bucks for the Texas-based Armstrong to lobby the federal government in Washington -- including, yes, the White House. NBC News' Aram Rostom is reporting tonight that Houston law firm Baker Botts -- the favorite American law firm of the Saudi royal family, among many international clients -- paid Armstrong $160,000 in 2004 to lobby the Bush White House:

The records indicate she was paid the money after she "communicated with the White House on behalf of Baker Botts clients."

In a phone interview, she told NBC News that in return for the money in one case, she set up a meeting at the White House for a Baker Botts client, although she said she felt she could not release the client’s name.

"A meeting for doing something with one of their clients," she said, describing the event. "I’m not at liberty to say which." She says she cannot remember which White House official the meeting was with. She also said that during the inauguration proceedings, she got Karl Rove to speak at a Baker Botts function. "I got them Karl Rove," she said.

She insists that she never lobbied Bush or Cheney directly.

But records reviewed last night by Attytood also show that the family-owned King Ranch in Texas has paid Armstrong $10,000 to lobby the White House, as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and lawmakers.

And Baker Botts and the King Ranch are not the new lobbyist's only clients, nor the only ones doing well with the Bush administration.

In the first half of 2004, a pharmaceutical company called Prionics, which specializes in testing for mad cow disease and related animal diseases, hired Armstrong and another Bush friend working out of Austin, Karen Johnson, to lobby the Bush administration. In her 2004 year-end report, Armstrong said she was paid $120,000 for that period.

According to their disclosure form, they "contacted Sec. Ann Veneman at the Dept. of Agriculture regarding using Prionics testing methods to determine BSE," referring to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. On April 8, 2004, the company made this announcement:

Prionics AG, the world leader in testing procedures for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or "mad cow" disease, and Roche Diagnostics, the number one in-vitro diagnostics company in the world, announced today that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved the two Prionics BSE tests, Prionics(R)-Check WESTERN, and Prionics(R)-Check LIA, for use in the United States' enhanced BSE surveillance program. Both tests will be distributed by Roche Diagnostics in the United States

Mission accomplished.

Meanwhile, a Texas company called Trajen, specializing in aviation logistics and fueling, hired Armstrong in 2004 to represent them in a dispute with the Department of the Navy, and paid her $80,000 over two years, according to the records.

What kind of access does Armstrong enjoy. Well, you already know about her "face time" -- oops, poor choice of words -- hunting with the vice president at her family's other ranch in South Texas, and we told you about her visit to Crawford last August.

In November, Armstrong attended the official White House state dinner for Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, and she was also on the list of overnight guests who visited the Bush family at either the White House or Camp David. That's a lot more than Hannukah rope-line access.

One footnote. The reason for the Bush quote at the top? It was because of the woman he would not see while he was hanging around with friend -- and lobbyist -- Katharine Armstrong: Iraq war mother and protestor Cindy Sheehan.



Comment on this Article