View Full Version : Transfer of Files on Psychological Operations

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:25 PM
With Magda's permission, I am going to copy over old files from my web site at E Pluribus Unum, which is slowly being phased out for a variety of reasons: 1) the recent change in employment, health and familial health issues of its resident IT maestro, and 2) the uptick on pressures on the Internet and its use as a conveyor of information that is suddenly deemed dangerous by certain agencies and people inside the US.

EPU's shade has been drawn so that only members can see its content, but I think there is material there that ought to be preserved and available to a wider audience. The collection I will now tediously transfer is chief among them.

It will take me a while to do this; I have no idea how long. You might consider refraining from comment, or making it in a parallel thread, until I am finished. On the other hand, there is no attempt on my part to control the discussion or maintain any "discrete" boundary. Indeed, it is a repository that is meant to be continued with the assistance of everyone else.

No thanks or kudos are necessary but, if you feel so obligated, send me a PM or en e-mail. Corrections, updates, insights and arguments are always welcome.

The collection deals dominantly with what might be called mind wars, or propaganda, and more specifically, the use of TV, the press, the Internet and other media to impart information, spin, etc., and to control or direct perception and discussion.

The collection, while it may refer to or include bits of historical information, reflects articles found on the Internet since early 2009. In all cases, if I remember, I would prefer to go back to the original and post it because of its embedded links but if it is no longer available, I will post the text as I posted it at EPU, with the date, and a note that the link is now "dead". In making this transfer, I will not take the time to chase "cache" items or do additional research or cross-reference.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:29 PM
PsyClops: Blitzkrieg of the Mind?


“ … interpersonal relationships must be considered to properly understand the communication process and to conduct effective PsyOp. Interpersonal relationships seem to be anchor points for individual opinions, attitudes, habits and values.”

PsyOp Operations in the 21st Century
Gary Whitley, Department of the Navy
United States Army War College, Class of 2000

Pay special attention to the section on PsyOp and the Internet on page 17 of the paper, page 28 of the PDF, which discusses the use of the Internet as a base on which to construct a tool for coordination of psychological operations..

The paper says that “the bad guys of the world” are using the Internet and must be countered, but:

In what world can a US citizen arguing against the military-industrial-congressional complex, war and its destructions, bad governmental decisions, governmental deception and outrageous governmental expense and behavior be considered “bad”?

How and why is it that the US government and the US military (and the US business world, borrowing on Bernays) are waging “clickskrieg” on the citizens of the United States when the Constitution clearly asks and requires that the military be overseen by the civilian polity?

Why is the US military engaged in the purposeful reduction of media criticism when the American citizen clearly has a right (or at least used to have the right) in assembly, grievance, criticism, legal action, etc.?

“While the perpetrators of cyberwar (knowledge-related conflict at the military level) attacks may be formal military forces, netwar (societal struggles most often associated with low intensity conflict) attacks may not even be traditional military forces,26 but instead may “often involve non-state, paramilitary, and irregular forces.”27

War.com: The Internet and Psychological Operations
Angela Maria Lungu
Major, United States Army
February 2001
Naval War College, Newport, RI
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/exhibits...etandpsyops.pdf (http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/exhibits/632/internetandpsyops.pdf)

Thoreau once quipped that ‘they have constructed a telegraph connecting Maine and Texas; this presumes that the two have something to say to one another’.

Is it not permissible for the citizens of the United States to have something to say to the Executive and Congressional branches about war and defense policy?

How does an argument or discussion about who perpetrated or facilitated the 9/11 attacks lend aid and comfort to an enemy when the very people arguing the “inside job” angle are or were heavily involved in the intelligence, military, law enforcement and foreign policy branches of our own government?

What argument on behalf of PsyOps as a tool in the prevention or countering of the erosion of ‘popular support for the war within the enemy’s society [the US]’ is valid when the US popular support for the war in Iraq was weak and declining even before the war began? … when residual anti-war leanings were still left over from the Vietnam era? … when questions about the casus belli and the evidence for it were raised immediately and continuously within American civilian society?


Isn’t it interesting that one of the early and influential papers on information warfare "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation," Marine Corps Gazette (October 1989): 23 ] was written by one of the acolytes [William Lind et al] of a fellow named Boyd, the “author” of the OODA loop?


Part of the role of perception management* is to deny access to information and includes deception, concealment and an effort to influence objective reasoning.

* See “Defining the Information Campaign” Lt. Col. Garry Beavers, United States Army (Retired) [a principal analyst for Electronic Warfare Associates’ Information and Infrastructure Technologies, Incorporated who received a B.S. and M.Ed. from North Georgia College and State University and is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and the Defense Intelligence Agency] at this link:

That will certainly makes what follows of greater interest and intrigue.

Civilian Cyber Corp: Tired of waiting for the Bush Administration or The Government to mobilize you? Mobilize yourself.

The People's Information Support Team is a Civilian Irregular Information volunteer auxiliary on-line working group collaborating on electronic media engagement of oppositional, neutral and friendly blogs, forums, discussion groups and websites. Irregulars have no official Table of Organization and Equipment and are under no obligation to follow doctrine, but this particular PIST is a five-person element composed of a Team Chief, an Assistant Team Chief, two Civilian Irregular Counterpropagandists with photography, videography, journalism or editing skills; and an analyst with linguistic and area studies specialties.

Capabilities to be developed:

Disseminate selected public information to target audiences.
Counter enemy propaganda.
YouTube Smackdown
Counter enemy Morale Operations
Attack anti-military arguments
Publicize heroes

Resist infantilization, victimization, marginalization and slander of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen

Engage Hostile Media
Relentless, destructive critique of MSM persons and publications
Expose media bias
Resurrect buried stories

The ultimate objective of PIST is to convince domestic audiences to take actions contributing to the defeat of Islamofascist terrorists and their supporters. PIST should promote resistance within the domestic civilian populace against hostile ideology or enhance the image and legitimacy of friendly ideologies.


From Rethinking Insurgency by Steven Metz
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army....iles/PUB790.pdf (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB790.pdf)

p. 12 The most common evolutionary path for 21st century organizations—be they corporations, political organizations, or something else—is to become less rigidly hierarchical, taking the form of decentralized networks or webs of nodes (which may themselves be hierarchical). Such organizations are most effective in a rapidly changing, information saturated environment.20 Insurgent movements organized as “flat” networks or semi-networks are more flexible and adaptable than rigidly hierarchical ones. Resources, information, and decisionmaking authority are diffused. Such organizations are effective in environments where rapid adaptation is an advantage. In the contemporary era, polyglot organizations which combine a centralized, hierarchical dimension (which gives them task effectiveness) and a decentralized, networked dimension (which gives them flexibility and adaptability) can maximize mission effectiveness.

p.28-29 One other type of militia merits consideration. Some analysts contend that the Internet has made “virtual” militias (and insurgencies) possible and potentially dangerous.66 That runs counter to the definition of militias used here since “virtual” militias do not control territory or assume state functions. the human mind as terrain to be won.] Perhaps, though, virtual militias and insurgents should be considered a separate category. Interestingly, just as the emergence of “real” insurgents sometimes spawn the creation of counterinsurgent militias the emergence of “virtual” insurgents has led to the formation of virtual counterinsurgent vigilantes. One example is the “Internet Haganah, part of a network of private anti-terrorist web monitoring services, which collects information on extremist websites, passes this on to state intelligence services, and attempts to convince Internet service providers not to host radical sites.67 The logic is that it takes a network to counter a network. As insurgents and terrorists become more networked and more “virtual,” states, with their inherently bureaucratic procedures and hierarchical organizations, will be ineffective. Vigilantes, without such constraints, may be [effective].

Quote: “We’re going to have to counter the propaganda ourselves.

Relentless, destructive critique of MSM persons and publications is among the most important tasks of bloggers, commenters, and tipsters of the Right. – Kralizec, in a comment at Hot Air.

We are going to have to blog swarm and harness the collective wisdom of Been There Done Thats … “

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:CG1BBU.../Final%2B2A.jpg (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:CG1BBUeBD7EAWM:http://bp3.blogger.com/_IpiGfu2y17U/SD1VdrnWIaI/AAAAAAAAASg/CDFxy5A6Ks8/s400/Final%2B2A.jpg)


Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group


The “Amazing Grim” describes Emergent Communities and show us this graphic


“…the military arc of the blogosphere has the potential to become an insurgency, by resisting the enemy propaganda disseminated by our own Main Stream Media and conducting counter propaganda for the domestic target audience. The leaders (yellow) are the bloggers with the largest readership. The TTLB Ecosystem tells us who the leaders are. Some could be IO Warlords, with a readership of contributors (red G’s), commenters (red or blue Auxiliaries), linkers and lurkers (blue or green Sympathizers) with varying degrees of committment and investment in the concept of Distributed IO by PSYOP Auxiliaries and Volunteer Counter Propagandists. Much of the blogosphere is in revolt against the Main Stream Media. It could be considered an insurgency in opposition to the traditional dead tree info monopoly. And like a real insurgency, it would benefit from the discrete advice and instruction of trained operators.

We need more blue nodes. We need counter propagandists. We need people’s time. We need people’s mental energy and communication skills.

Electronic Counter Media
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ivwSGo...org/new_pa4.jpg (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ivwSGo8fQ7FVSM:http://www.smecc.org/new_pa4.jpg)

Quote: 1-34. Joint doctrine defines the information environment as the aggregate of individuals, organizations, and systems that collect, process, disseminate, or act on information (JP 3-13). The environment shaped by information includes leaders, decisionmakers, individuals, and organizations. The global community’s access and use of data, media, and knowledge systems occurs in the information shaped by the operational environment. Commanders use information engagement to shape the operational environment as part of their operations. (Paragraphs 7-10 through 7-22 discuss information engagement.)


“Pictures of dead women and children, the “collateral damage” of war, carry more explosive weight than a B-52—a weight measured not in tons of explosives but in negative perception, which translates to reduced public support for government policies and initiatives.” [Aha! So our government is in favor of dead women and children!]

Ordnance = Content
Delivery Platforms = Global Media
Target = Public Opinion

Because we do not censor the Internet or transnational television, images of death and destruction from terror attacks speed unimpeded (like Germany’s tanks and aircraft) across the flat plains of the global media directly to our TV screens and computer monitors, delivering a mental blitzkrieg attack measured not in explosive weight but in the weight of perception.


Today’s conflicts are not only won on the battlefield, but through the use of websites and blogs, over the airwaves and on the front pages of our newspapers.

“Through skillful propaganda operations, the enemy successfully leverages their asymmetric attacks to encourage potential recruits to join their violent cause and to try to convince those of us in free nations to give in to hopelessness, self-doubt and despair.” [world at war, unemployment up over 10%, loss of trillions of dollars, long-term debt for decades, all brought to us by the folks at the military-industrial-Congressional-corporate/fascist complex -- hey, I'm ecstatic]

Their decentralized networks have been able to effectively employ the tools of the Information Age, while the U.S. government remains ponderous, muscle-bound and unable to respond in real time to the deceits of these enemies. To succeed in this first struggle of the 21st century, we will need fresh thinking and capabilities well beyond the Defense Department. If free people are to meet the challenges posed by what will be a long struggle against violent extremists, we will need all elements of national power, private as well as public — diplomatic, economic, as well as intelligence and military to work in concert. We will need to rethink and rearrange our domestic and global institutions designed for the Industrial Age to better suit the Information Age.

Gleaned this from Jedburgh at SWJ:

Quote: We live in a world of citizen journalists, where every action or operation is witnessed, taped and reported, individual actions are amplified, and organizations face the challenge of strategic implication. In today’s flat world, a seemingly isolated interaction in the morning becomes fodder for bloggers immediately, appears on local television news by noon, and is international news by evening.

Captain Hal Pittman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Joint Communication)

Already in the works are initiatives on coordinated web hosting and content, video and blogging, a renewed effort to identify and find ways to empower credible Muslim voices, develop a shared image databank and strengthen the effectiveness of Military Information Support Teams (MIST) work in our overseas missions.


The Missing Component of U.S. Strategic Communications

by Colonel William M. Darley, USA,
Director of Strategic Communications for the
Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth and
Editor-in-Chief of Military Review.

Read the whole thing, then go over to Swedish Meatballs and read the comments.

Some of the best:

. . . we cannot agree among ourselves as to what we view as those cultural values of our own we are willing to openly assert are superior and preferable to those championed by our enemies as a reason for engaging in war, which by definition must be promoted and internalized by targeted audiences in order for a war of ideas to be successful. Yet the assertion of superiority of values as compared to those of an adversary must be, in fact, the essence of strategic communications messages aimed at achieving wartime political objectives.

The social pressure of a seemingly intractable war is polarizing in increasingly dangerous ways an already ideologically divided society, moving it toward another virtual domestic civil war among advocates of conflicting ideologies.

. . . actual war between irreconcilable camps of ideological enemies who are increasingly gravitating to, if not openly rallying around, two inimical and antithetical sets of values as distinct as those that divide the Shia and Sunni factions in the Islamic world.

. . . the agendas of the domestic political parties have evolved to a point where they view the outcome of the war in Iraq less as an issue of homeland security than as a key factor in the success of their own parochial struggles to wrest domestic political power as a means to shape national values. To this end, domestic political opponents increasingly appear to view the war as more about controlling future nominations to the Supreme Court than about defending American citizens or improving Middle Eastern stability.

[Mom, applie pie and the girl next door?]

[Oil, SUV’s, global hegemony, forward air bases with which to attack Russia and/or secure Caspian Sea basin energy supplies, profits for the oil companies and military contractors]


The Unorganized Cyber Militia of the United States

“Kat is a blogger and a Denizen or infowarrior in Virtual Warlord John Donovan’s castle garrison who has just posted a magnum opus that may well be to Pinch Sulzberger what the Declaration of Independence was to King George III. Future students of this period will recognize this piece as a key treatise in the narrative of the pajamahadeen.

It was only those of us who disconnected from the “Matrix” of the mass media who knew the reality on the ground did not match the “reality” perpetrated by the media.


We few, we happy few, we band of blogs, having looked beyond the Matrix, discussed strategy and pointed to successes long before the media ever knew who Petraeus was or anything about the new COIN manual that incorporated ideas written by Kilcullen and discussed at length on the blogs.

… We knew deep down that what we were being told was not the whole story. And we believed that our nation was a force for good in this world, and that the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines sent forth to break militant Islamicists of their homocidal habits were the best human beings this Republic had to offer…

We almost lost the war. Not on the battle field, but right here at home. As General Lynch recently said, the reason people thought it was being lost and now appears to be miraculously won? The media, with its central editorial boards “shaping American opinion” told everyone it was so. And, at least half of the American population was unaware because they had no idea they were being sold a bill of goods. They didn’t disconnect from the “Matrix”.

We have all been the victims of a massive psychological operation. Even those of us who resisted. Our faith in our armed forces remains unshaken, but our faith in government, media, academia, elites, and many of our fellow citizens has plummeted. Many of us no longer look to government for solutions. Some of us are empowering ourselves. The reason that you are failing, the reason the stock in your companies continues to dwindle, the reason that you missed the true story of Iraq in lieu of “the narrative”, the reason that a sitting president invited bloggers to the White House, however limited in its actual journalistic moments that you claim as “real” journalism, is because you and your kind became “the Matrix”; alternate reality created by you and others like you. You are no longer independent. You are no longer individuals seeking “the truth”. … We are at war. Several wars. The outcome of all of them depends on control of the key terrain, the battle space between the ears of the American voter. And for a whole lot of reasons explained elsewhere on this blog, this key terrain has been left undefended. Will and morale are essential elements of national power that must be defended, if not by Regulars, than by us.

Also, it is clear that “good news” must come directly from the units on the ground or the Iraqis themselves. Anything coming from higher headquarters or the Pentagon is dismissed, fairly or unfairly, as propaganda. Recent reports that the Pentagon is building its public relations efforts, including “message development” teams and “surrogate” spokesmen, demonstrate an awareness of the problem. More Pentagon talking heads, however, will have less impact on broadcasting a more balanced message than authentic reporting from the troops.

… Tactical units should each have two members who are trained in public relations and equipped with high-quality cameras and laptops with video editing software, and offered incentives and rewards for effective reporting. They should record unit activities in writing and video, and share them with the American people via sites modeled on wildly successful pro-military websites, such as Blackfive.net and MoveAmericaForward.org.

… The general staff in Baghdad should measure the success of its public affairs effort by how many journos get out on the ground, in contrast to recent reports of the staff making life difficult for proven combat communicators like Michael Yon to embed with units. Yon, a former special operator, does so much to report an authoritative, balanced perspective from Iraq that the generals should instead assign him his own helicopter, and perhaps a limo.


Quote: … The military has no monopoly on information, and you don’t have to wear a uniform to be an information operator. All you need is some very basic literacy and an internet connection and you, too can be a force multiplier for the good guys. You can be a civilian irregular information group IO auxiliary.

Now doesn’t that give you more warm and fuzzies than watching Dances With the Stars?

Quote: DoD needs an element that monitors the blogosphere, getting good ideas from friendly bloggers, early warning from hostile bloggers, assessment of communications effectiveness, early identification of potential PR flaps, and establishing relationships with pro-military bloggers. The center of gravity in the Jihad is the will of the American people. Psychological Operations are being conducted which are undermining that will. The MSM is hostile. Much of the blogosphere is not hostile. The blogosphere is a virtual battlespace for the will of the American people. Pro-military bloggers could be organized to function as auxiliaries, legally permitted to target domestic audiences in ways prohibited to active duty bloggers.


Click-s-krieg on these:

http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/category...arriors/page/2/ (http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/category/info-warriors/page/2/)



http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/04/...-battle-spaces/ (http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/04/29/blogospheric-resistance-io-in-denied-battle-spaces/)

http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/04/...-propagandists/ (http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/distributed-io-by-psyop-auxiliaries-and-volunteer-counter-propagandists/)

http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/08/...aganda-proxies/ (http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/psyop-surrogates-and-propaganda-proxies/)

http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/12/...-mind%e2%80%9d/ (http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/%e2%80%9cblitzkrieg-of-the-mind%e2%80%9d/)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:41 PM
Books on covert action against dissenters:

The Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States, Ward Churchill and Jim VanderWall. Boston: South End Press , 1990.

War at Home: Covert Action Against US Activists and What We Can Do About It, Brian Glick. Boston, Massachusetts: South End Press, 1989.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:42 PM
Profiling and Personality Simulation
By Dr. Norman D. Livergood
(curriculum vitae) (http://www.hermes-press.com/ndl1.htm)


While serving as Head of the Artificial Intelligence Department at the U.S. Army War College for several years, and while teaching graduate courses in expert systems at several California universities, I explored and developed personality simulation systems, an advanced technology used in military war games, FBI profiling, political campaigning, and advertising.

These profiling or personality simulation systems:

· capture a person's mental components: actions, beliefs, ideas, attitudes, purchasing patterns, habits, etc.
· translate these into a computer system: a program which prioritizes and relates the various elements to an overall purpose

o example 1: a consumer profile which gives a certain weight to specific kinds of purchases the person makes and predicts what products they would buy in the future

o example 2: a criminal behavior profile based on prior indictments or convictions used to predict future criminal activity

· use the system to influence and control that person's ideas and behavior

o example 1: TV ads based on the profile developed from the consumer's purchasing patterns
o example 2: military counterintelligence activities based on a profile of the enemy's leadership

This may sound like science fiction or Frankenstein's laboratory, but it is the actual state of the technology in personality simulation and control.

Personality simulation falls within the domain of artificial intelligence. From its inception, artificial intelligence (AI) has been primarily concerned with developing systems which simulate human behavior for the purpose of controlling such behavior….


Strategic Personality Simulation:
A New Strategic Concept
by Norman D. Livergood
Published by the U.S. Army War College, 1995
Executive Summary (http://www.hermes-press.com/sps2.htm)

Much more here:

See as well the lengthy article Brainwashing America (http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm) by Dr. Norman Livergood


Stepford Citizen Syndrome:
Top Ten Signs Your Neighbor is Brainwashed September 5, 2002
By Maureen Farrell


http://www.democraticunderground.com/artic...5_stepford.html (http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/09/05_stepford.html)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:44 PM
Journalism, advertising and propaganda; 19 links

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

In 1933, the American Press Was Proud that Hitler Adopted Its Propaganda Methods. Nothing Has Changed. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/in-1933-american-press-was-proud-that.html)

In 1933, the American advertising industry proudly and publicly boasted (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/21/flashback-to-1933-us-1.html) that Hitler was copying their American propaganda techniques.
After Hitler and Goebbels gave a bad name to propaganda, Freud's nephew - psychologist Edward Bernays - simply re-branded propaganda as "public relations" and "professional journalism". (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=bernays+propaganda+guatemala&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)
As veteran reporter John Pilger writes (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23017.htm):
Bernays, described as the father of the media age, was the nephew of Sigmund Freud. “Propaganda,” he wrote, “got to be a bad word because of the Germans . . . so what I did was to try and find other words [such as] Public Relations.” Bernays used Freud’s theories about control of the subconscious to promote a “mass culture” designed to promote fear of official enemies and servility to consumerism. It was Bernays who, on behalf of the tobacco industry, campaigned for American women to take up smoking as an act of feminist liberation, calling cigarettes “torches of freedom”; and it was his notion of disinformation that was deployed in overthrowing governments, such as Guatemala’s democracy in 1954.Pilger previously addressed (http://www.bestcyrano.org/cyrano/?p=137) "Professional Journalism":

Edward Bernays, the so-called father of public relations, wrote about an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. He was referring to journalism, the media. That was almost 80 years ago, not long after corporate journalism was invented. It is a history few journalist talk about or know about, and it began with the arrival of corporate advertising. As the new corporations began taking over the press, something called “professional journalism” was invented. To attract big advertisers, the new corporate press had to appear respectable, pillars of the establishment-objective, impartial, balanced. The first schools of journalism were set up, and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around the professional journalist. The right to freedom of expression was associated with the new media and with the great corporations, and the whole thing was, as Robert McChesney put it so well, “entirely bogus”. For what the public did not know was that in order to be professional, journalists had to ensure that news and opinion were dominated by official sources, and that has not changed. Go through the New York Times on any day, and check the sources of the main political stories-domestic and foreign-you’ll find they’re dominated by government and other established interests. That is the essence of professional journalism. I am not suggesting that independent journalism was or is excluded, but it is more likely to be an honorable exception. Think of the role Judith Miller played in the New York Times in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, her work became a scandal, but only after it played a powerful role in promoting an invasion based on lies. Yet, Miller’s parroting of official sources and vested interests was not all that different from the work of many famous Times reporters, such as the celebrated W.H. Lawrence, who helped cover up the true effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August, 1945. “No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin,” was the headline on his report, and it was false.
Consider how the power of this invisible government has grown. In 1983 the principle global media was owned by 50 corporations, most of them American. In 2002 this had fallen to just 9 corporations. Today it is probably about 5. Rupert Murdoch has predicted that there will be just three global media giants, and his company will be one of them. This concentration of power is not exclusive of course to the United States. The BBC has announced it is expanding its broadcasts to the United States, because it believes Americans want principled, objective, neutral journalism for which the BBC is famous. They have launched BBC America. You may have seen the advertising.
The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put their side until the strike was over.
So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since.
And see this (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/03/real-journalism-versus-professional.html).

Nothing has changed since:

The corporate media are acting like virtual "escort services" (http://www.alternet.org/media/141361/politico_and_the_washington_post_have_become_virtu al_%22escort_services%22_for_moneyed_elites/) for the moneyed elites, selling access - for a price - to powerful government officials, instead of actually investigating and reporting on what those officials are doing

The U.S. military is instructing active duty personnel (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/government-heavily-manipulates-social.html) to post pro-government comments on social media websites

Governments are paying civilians to write pro-government comments and to vote up or down stories favorable to their government (http://www.counterpunch.org/cook07212009.html). And see this (http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/07/14/that-angry-commenter-on-your-blog-may-actually-be-working-for-the-israeli-government/)

Propaganda agents are using computer scripts (http://washingtonsblog.com/2009/01/downvote-bots-fight-propaganda-war.html) on social networking sites to bury messages they don't like

The government is paying off (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=journalists+paid+government&btnG=Google+Search) reporters to spread disinformation. Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists (http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php). See also this (http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/the-cia-and-the-culture-war/index.html?hp) New York Times piece, this essay (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html) by the Independent, this speech (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-invisible-government/) by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this (http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-mockingbird) and this roundup (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html). Indeed, an expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations (http://youtube.com/watch?v=C4rFXjGJ5os) (the expert has an impressive background (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0&feature=related))

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:47 PM
Saturday, June 20, 2009

The Four Reasons the Mainstream Media Is Worthless (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/06/four-reasons-mainstream-media-is.html)

There are four reasons that the mainstream media is worthless.

1. Self-Censorship by Journalists

Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.
For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/05_may/16/dan_rather.shtml) the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":

"there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism. "What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship."
Keith Olbermann agreed (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/4) that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:

"You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble .... You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our .... system". As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote (http://blog.niemanwatchdog.org/?p=53) in 2006:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .
There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.
If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.
I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.
And Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski wrote (http://www.amazon.com/11-American-Empire-Intellectuals-Speak/dp/1566566592):

I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.(page 26).

2. Censorship by Higher-Ups

If journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.

The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14010621/national_affairs_cheneys_nemesis_seymour_hersh_rev eals_white_houses_secret_plan_to_bomb_iran/print):

"All of the institutions we thought would protect us -- particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress -- they have failed. The courts . . . the jury's not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn't. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that's the most glaring....

Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?

[Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that."In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0413-11.htm). See this announcement (http://web.archive.org/web/20060427000715/http://www.fccj.or.jp/modules/eCal/display-event.php?id=2014) and this talk (http://ia301214.us.archive.org/0/items/phillipsprojcensored/phillipsprojcensoredchicago0606disdn.wmv).
And a series of interviews with award-winning journalists (http://www.alternet.org/story/12753/) also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples (http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacover-up)).
There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups.

One is money.
The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power (http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-Leading-Journalists-Expose/dp/1573929727). Indeed, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.” (http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/2003-2004workshops/taha.pdf)

In addition, the government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade. The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the Obama administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tacit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government's goodies.

3. Drumming Up Support for War

In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.

It is painfully obvious that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government's claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government's war agenda.
Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/index-premiere.html) the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:

"the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked."And as NBC News' David Gregory (later promoted to host Meet the Press) said (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/05/28/david-gregory-rewrites-history-says-the-press-did-a-good-job-on-iraq/):

"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say 'this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this,' that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role"But this is nothing new. In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars.

For example, Hearst helped drum up support for the Spanish-American War (http://www.pbs.org/crucible/frames/_journalism.html).

And an official summary of America's overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950's states, "In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq." (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/summary.pdf) (page x)

The mainstream media also may have played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian (http://web.archive.org/web/20011006161822/http://www.pearlharbor41.com/praise.htm) (Bob Stineet) argues (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743201299/104-2012810-3385542?v=glance&n=283155) that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) .

And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist says (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/norman_solomon/2007/11/us_media_poodles.html), "viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.")

As the mainstream British paper, the Independent, writes (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-%20the-news-780672.html):

There is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news. The article in the Independent discusses the use of "black propaganda" by the U.S. government, which is then parroted by the media without analysis; for example, the government forged (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-%20the-news-780672.html) a letter from al Zarqawi to the "inner circle" of al-Qa'ida's leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war, which was then publicized without question by the media..

So why has the American press has consistenly served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war?

One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/05/fox-in-henhouse.html) or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC is owned by General Electric (http://www.google.com/search?q=nbc+is+owned+by&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).
Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government's imperial war agenda.
And the media support isn't just for war: it is also for various other shenanigans by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentarysdocuments (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml):

There was "a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression." Moreover, "the tycoons told the general who they asked to carry out the coup that the American people would accept the new government because they [I]controlled all the newspapers." (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/25/17852/8697) See also this book (http://www.amazon.com/Plot-Seize-White-House-Conspiracy/dp/1602390363).

Have you ever heard of this scheme before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?
4. Censorship by the Government

Finally, as if the media's own interest in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts) if they've been too critical. The media companies have felt great pressure from the government to kill any real questioning of the endless wars.

For example, Dan Rather said (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/182654/1125580), regarding American media, "What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states".
Tom Brokaw said (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10038103 84) "all wars are based on propaganda.
And the head of CNN said:

"there was 'almost a patriotism police' after 9/11 and when the network showed [things critical of the administration's policies] it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and "big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'"Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5260#more-5260) that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"]. As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."
"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.
* * *
"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"

Of course, if the stick approach doesn't work, the government can always just pay off (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=journalists+paid+government&btnG=Google+Search) reporters to spread disinformation. Indeed, an expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations (http://youtube.com/watch?v=C4rFXjGJ5os) (the expert has an impressive background (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0&feature=related)).

And famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists (http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php). See also this (http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/the-cia-and-the-culture-war/index.html?hp) New York Times piece, this essay (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html) by the Independent, this speech (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-invisible-government/) by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this (http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-mockingbird) and this roundup (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html).

Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the real stories or question the government's actions or policies in any meaningful way is that we live in a country that is not all that free (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm) (see point number 6). Mussolini said that fascism is the blending of the government and corporate interests (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fascism+government+corporate&btnG=Google+Search), and the American government and mainstream media have in fact been blended together to an unprecedented degree.

See this book (http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Deception-Media-Cover-up-11/dp/0865715734) and the following 5-part interview for further information on 9/11 and the media: (Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSy8b-IiNL8) • Part 2 (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-5124896494550655291&esrc=sr7&ev=v&q=%22barrie+zwicker%22+%22towers+of+deception%22&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DuOC1yoOp3sU&usg=AL29H23Nob-Q8HW800vMQfT3-dzQkbGeUA) • Part 3 (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-5494715476156335808&esrc=sr6&ev=v&q=%22barrie+zwicker%22+%22towers+of+deception%22&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Ds77ZYv3cOUA&usg=AL29H21vjEbXFlm3g-yYQ9XNedGlROL_aA) • Part 4 (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-3943285193651729763&esrc=sr5&ev=v&q=%22barrie+zwicker%22+%22towers+of+deception%22&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DyUajAkBUyp0&usg=AL29H23NLOn6hIDC39iNOgajzfJEaafH3A) • Part 5 (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-3678052474819530658&esrc=sr4&ev=v&q=%22barrie+zwicker%22+%22towers+of+deception%22&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DzPTuwuUisF4&usg=AL29H23LHK3M-5BjibvIh3s96sIGhVUEIA)

Can We Win the Battle Against Censorship?

We cannot just leave governance to our "leaders", as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to the corporate media. We need to "be the media" ourselves.

"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Powerlessness and silence go together. We...should use our privileged positions not as a shelter from the world's reality, but as a platform from which to speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used."
– Margaret Atwood

"There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that [nothing] cannot suppress."
- Howard Zinn (historian)

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:49 PM
How the US Government Spreads Disinformation Through the Media, via the CIA and FBI

Playlist URL:

Transcript: (scroll down to approx. 3/4 down page)

In this 8-part series Dr. William F. Pepper leads the co-publisher of Covert Action Quarterly, William Schaap, through a history of US Government Approved disinformation, beginning with examples in WWI and then WWII, when things really began to take off. The techniques of disinformation that the government employed during war-time were carried over into peace-time under the aegis of the Cold War. Schaap sites specific examples of CIA and FBI disinformation, concluding with Hoover's FBI attacks on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6 (due to tape changes, some footage is lost in this section, please refer to transcript)

Part 7

Part 8


Testimony of Mr. William Schaap,
attorney, military and intelligence specialization,
co-publisher Covert Action Quarterly,
on the role of the U.S. Government in
the assassination of Martin Luther King
MLK Conspiracy Trial Transcript - Volume 9
November 30, 1999




Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:53 PM
Domestic Propaganda and the News Media Open-Content investigative project managed by blackmax (http://www.historycommons.org/user.jsp?oid=1631453644-2711)

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=military_analysts (http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=military_analysts)

is the home page for the Domestic Propaganda and the News Media investigative project, one of several grassroots investigations (http://www.historycommons.org/timelines.jsp) being hosted on the History Commons website. The data published as part of this investigation has been collected, organized, and published by members of the public who are registered users of this website.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 06:58 PM
Draft Policy Would OK Troops’ Tweets

* By Noah Shachtman Email Author
* September 29, 2009 |
* 5:23 pm

The Defense Department may allow troops and military employees to freely access social networks — if a draft policy circulating around the Pentagon gets approved, that is.

For years, the armed services have put in place a series of confusing, overlapping policies for using sites like Twitter and Facebook. But a draft memo, obtained by Nextgov, allows members of the military to use Defense Department networks to get on the social media sites — as well as on “e-mail, instant messaging and discussion forums.”

The new policy “addresses important changes in the way the Department of Defense communicates and shares information on the internet,” writes Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn. “This policy recognizes that emerging internet-based capabilities offer both opportunities and risks that need to be balanced in ways that provide an information advantage for our people and mission partners.”

Over the summer, it looked like access to Web 2.0 sites might be banned altogether in the military. U.S. Strategic Command told the rest of the Defense Department it was considering a near-total block on social media, because the sites have become sieves for Trojans and spam. Not long afterward, the Marine Corps banned Web 2.0 sites from its networks. The moves only added to the military’s Web 2.0 confusion. Months earlier, the Army ordered all U.S. bases to provide access to social media. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff set up a Twitter account, which today has more than 7,000 followers.

That prompted Defense Secretary Robert Gates to order the first Department-wide review of how the American military uses the sites. It’s a review that’s not yet complete, cautions Pentagon social media czar Price Floyd. “No decisions have been made,” he tells Danger Room. “The memo hasn’t gone to the leadership yet.”

But a decision is expected shortly, he added — within a matter of weeks. And if Secretary Gates and the Pentagon’s poobahs approve the draft memo, servicemembers finally be allowed to tweet and blog, with the full backing of the U.S. military.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/dr...-troops-tweets/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/draft-policy-would-ok-troops-tweets/)


Pentagon Web 2.0 Strategy Could Give Spies, Geeks New Roles

* By Noah Shachtman Email Author
* September 30, 2009 |
* 10:52 am

Letting troops blog and Tweet is just the start. The Defense Department’s spooks, spinners, geeks, and top generals would all get new roles and responsibilities, if the Pentagon approves a draft policy on how the armed services handle Web 2.0.

The draft memo outlining that policy, first revealed yesterday by Nextgov, is designed to end years of confusion over the military’s interactions of social media. It hasn’t been okayed by the Pentagon’s leadership. But if it does, the new guidelines would allow servicemembers to use the Defense Department’s unclassified networks to hop on everything from “social networking sites” to “image and video hosting websites” to “Wikis” to “personal, corporate or subject-specific blogs” to “data mashups.” (That’s right: “mashups” are now being discussed at the Defense Department’s highest levels.)

According to the memo, troops can Facebook or YouTube or Flickr all they want — it doesn’t have to be work-related. The servicemembers just can’t claim to be officially representing the military or “have an online presence that could be viewed as representing the Department of Defense (e.g., may not use official title, military rank, military identifiers (i.e., e-mail address), or post imagery with their military uniform).” Of course, the servicememebers would also have to comply with pre-existing regulations “regarding responsible and effective use of Internet-based capabilities,” too.

Some in the military have called for banning or severely restricting the Web 2.0 sites, because of their potential to leak secrets or spread Trojans. It’d be up to the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence “develop and maintain threat estimates” from these “current and emerging Internet-based capabilities,” the memo states. The Pentagon’s top spook would also be responsible for making sure operational security “education, training and awareness activities” would also include blogs and the like.

The heads of the military’s various “components” — from the Secretary of the Army to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness — would get some extra work, as well. They’d have to put up “Computer Network Defense mechanisms that provide adequate security to access Internet-based capabilities” from the military’s networks.

The Defense Department’s public affairs chiefs would oversee policies for official social media sites. While the military’s Chief Information Officers would put together policies for Web 2.0’s “use, risk management and compliance oversight,” and be on the lookout for “emerging Internet-based capabilities in order to identify opportunities for use and assess risks.”

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/pe...eeks-new-roles/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/pentagon-web-20-strategy-could-give-spies-geeks-new-roles/)

UPDATE: Here’s the memo itself:


SUBJECT: Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) - Responsible and Effective Use of Internet-based Capabilities

References. See Attachment 1

Purpose. This memorandum establishes Departmental policy on the responsible and effective use of Internet-based capabilities, including publicly accessible social networking services, which are not owned, operated, or controlled by the DoD. The policy addresses important changes in the way the Department of Defense communicates and shares information on the Internet. This policy recognizes that emerging Internet-based capabilities offer both opportunities and risks that need to be balanced in ways that provide an information advantage for our people and mission partners. It does not change DoD policy concerning operation and security of the DoD Information Enterprise, including the Global Information Grid (GIG), nor does it change the current procedures under which public affairs offices release information to the media or general public. This DTM is effective immediately and will be converted to a new DoD issuance or incorporated into an existing DoD issuance within 180 days.

Applicability. This DTM applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands (COCOMs), the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the "DoD Components") and authorized users of the Non Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNET).

Definitions. These terms and their definitions are for the purpose of this DTM.

External Official Presence. Representation on the Internet external to the DoD, e.g., outside of the .MIL domain, by DoD organizations in an official public affairs capacity.

Internet-based capabilities. The full-range of publicly accessible information services resident on the Internet external to the DoD, e.g., outside of the .MIL domains, including Web 2.0 tools such as social networking services, social media, user generated content sites, social software, as well as email, instant messaging, and discussion forums. This does not include DoD-owned, DoD-operated, or DoD-controlled capabilities.

Policy. It is DoD policy that:

The Department of Defense shall permit and encourage official use of Internet-based capabilities to leverage their potential while managing risk to build an information advantage for DoD personnel and mission partners.

The establishment of External Official Presences by DoD organizations is permitted with the approval of the appropriate DoD Component Head. Approval signifies that the DoD Component Head concurs with the intended use and has determined that the Internet-based capability has an acceptable level of risk.

External Official Presences are considered public affairs activities. As such, they shall comply with Reference (a) and clearly identify that their content is provided by the Department of Defense. The DoD shall maintain a publicly accessible Internet repository of External Official Presences.

Business transformation, professional networking, education, and other official uses of Internet-based capabilities unrelated to public affairs are permitted. However, because these interactions take place in a public venue, personnel acting in their official capacity shall maintain liaison with public affairs staff to ensure organizational awareness.

Personal, unofficial use of Internet-based capabilities by DoD employees from the NIPRNET is permitted, but users shall not claim representation of the Department or its policies, or those of the U.S. government.

All use of Internet-based capabilities from the NIPRNET shall comply with all applicable policy regarding the sharing and safeguarding of information including Information Assurance (References (B) and ©), Personally Identifiable Information (Reference (d)), Public Release of Information (Reference (e)), and operations security (Reference (f)); and shall comply with the Joint Ethics Regulations (Reference (g)).

The NIPRNET shall be configured to enable access to Internet-based capabilities.

Internet-based capabilities shall not be used to transact business that generates records subject to records management policy (reference (h)) unless applicable records management requirements can be met.

All use of Internet-based capabilities shall comply with the basic guidelines set forth in Attachment 2.

Responsibilities. See Attachment 3
Releasability. UNLIMITED. This DTM is approved for public release and is available on the Internet from the DoD Issuances Web Site at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives.

As state



(a) DoD Instruction 5400.13, "Public Affairs (PA) Operations," October 15, 2008
(B) DoD Directive 8500.1, "Information Assurance (IA), " October 24, 2002
© DoD Instruction 8500.2, "Information Assurance (IA) Implementation," February 6, 2003
(d) DoD Directive 5400.11, "Department of Defense Privacy Program," May 8, 2007
(e) DoD Directive 5230.09, "Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release, " August 22, 2008
(f) DoD Manual 5205.02-M, "DoD Operations Security (OPSEC) Program Manual," November 3, 2008
(g) DoD Regulation 5500.7-R, "Joint Ethics Regulation," August 30, 1993 (updated March 23, 2006)
(h) DoD Directive 5015.2, "DoD Records Management Program," March 6, 2000
(i) DoD Instruction O-8530.2, "Support to Computer Network Defense (CND)," March 9, 2001


1. GENERAL. This attachment applies to the use of Internet-based capabilities by DoD employees for official and personal purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to:

a. Social networking sites
b. Image and video hosting websites
c. Wikis
d. Personal, corporate or subject-specific blogs
e. Data mashups that combine similar types of media and information from multiple sources into a single representation (i.e., a web page).
f. Similar collaborative, information sharing-driven Internet-based capabilities where users are encouraged to add/generate content.

2. EXTERNAL OFFICIAL PRESENCES. External Official Presences established pursuant to this DTM shall:

a. Receive approval from the responsible DoD Component head. Approval signifies that the Component head concurs with the planned use and has determined that the Internet-based capability has an acceptable level of risk.

b. Register on an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (ASD(PA)) -managed External Official Presences list.

c. Comply with references (B) through (g).
d. Use official branding in accordance with ASD(PA) guidance.
e. Clearly indicate role and scope of the External Official Presence.
f. Provide links to the organization's official public .Mil website.
g. Actively monitor for fraudulent or objectionable use.

3. OFFICIAL USE. DoD employees officially using Internet-based capabilities that are not part of a public affairs activity may discuss their relationship to the Department of Defense and their duties but shall:

a. Comply with references (B) through (g).
b. Ensure that the information posted is relevant, accurate, and professionally portrayed.
c. Provide links to official DoD content hosted on DoD-owned, operated, or controlled sites.
d. Include a disclaimer when personal opinions are expressed. (e.g., "This statement is my own and does not constitute an endorsement or opinion of the Department of Defense").
e. Comply with applicable DoD Component policies regarding responsible and effective use of Internet-based capabilities.

4. UNOFFICIAL USE. When acting in a personal or unofficial capacity, individuals shall:

a. Not claim representation of the Department or its policies.
b. Comply with references (B) through (g).
c Not have an online presence that could be viewed as representing the Department of Defense (e.g., may not use official title, military rank, military identifiers (i.e., e-mail address), or post imagery with their military uniform).
d. Comply with applicable DoD Component policies regarding responsible and effective use of Internet-based capabilities.




a. Develop procedures and guidelines to be implemented by the DoD Components for OPSEC reviews of DoD information shared via Internet-based capabilities
b. Develop and maintain threat estimates on current and emerging Internet-based capabilities.
c. Integrate guidance regarding the proper use of Internet-based capabilities into existing OPSEC education, training and awareness activities.


a. Establish and maintain policy and procedures regarding Internet-based capabilities use, risk management and compliance oversight.
b. Integrate guidance regarding the proper use of Internet-based capabilities with existing IA education, training and awareness activities.
c. Establish mechanisms to monitor emerging Internet-based capabilities in order to identify opportunities for use and assess risks.


a. Extend the existing website registry to include registration of External Official Presences.
b. Provide policy for news, information, photographs, editorial, and other materials distributed via External Official Presences.

4. HEADS OF DOD COMPONENTS. The Heads of the DoD Components shall:

a. Approve the establishment of External Official Presences.
b. Ensure the implementation, validation and maintenance of applicable IA controls and OPSEC measures.
c. Ensure Computer Network Defense mechanisms that provide adequate security to access Internet-based capabilities from the NIPRNET are in place, effective, and compliant with reference (i).
d. Educate, train and promote awareness for the responsible and effective use of Internet-based capabilities.


a. Advise the ASD(NII)/DoD CIO and ensure that the policies and guidance issued by ASD(NII)/DoD CIO are implemented. Provide Component-specific implementation guidance on responsible and effective use of Internet-based capabilities.
b. Provide advice, guidance and other assistance to the Component Head and other Component senior management personnel to ensure that Internet-based capabilities are used responsibly and effectively.
c. Assist the Component Head to ensure effective implementation of Computer Network Defense mechanisms as well as the proper use of Internet-based capabilities with existing IA education, training and awareness activities.
d. Establish risk assessment procedures to evaluate and monitor emerging Internet-based capabilities in order to identify opportunities for use and assess risks.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerro..._draft_memo.txt (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/09/web20_draft_memo.txt)


After Leaflet Drop Kills Afghan Girl, a Search for Safer Psyop Tech. Missiles, Anyone?

* By David Hambling Email Author
* September 30, 2009 |
* 12:01 pm

The Royal Air Force has accidentally killed a young girl in Afghanistan — by dropping a box of leaflets on her. The British Ministry of Defence is carrying out a full investigation. Meanwhile, the seemingly antiquated practice of leaflet bombing continues. In the 21st century, it remains one of the primary tools of psychological warfare; U.S. Special Operations Command is even looking to build leaflet-carrying missiles. And while top American commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has virtually banned “kinetic” air strikes, paper bombs are in regular use.

According to the BBC, the leaflet box was supposed to open in mid-air, spreading pro-coalition propaganda over rural Helmand province. But the container failed to break apart, landing on top of the girl, who died later in the hospital.

Leaflets have been used by militaries since at least the Napoleonic wars, when the British navy dropped them over France using kites. And they continue to be employed, because leaflets have some advantages over other media. Radio and TV are fine if the audience happen to be tuned in at the time, but printed matter is durable. As the U.S. Army’s Psychological Operations Field Manual explains, a printed leaflet has the advantage that it can be passed from person to person without the message being altered. It can convey a complex message which can be reinforced with pictures if the recipient is illiterate. And a leaflet can be hidden and read in private, and shared around with others.

Delivery methods have ranged from artillery and mortar shells to loose airdrop by hand to “leaflet landmines.” The M129E1/E2 Psychological Operations Leaflet Bomb weighs 200 pounds and can disperse some 60,000 to 80,000 leaflets which are scattered by a length of detonator cord.

However, U.S. Special Operations Command is looking for a wider range of options, and their current R&D budget calls for a “Next Generation Leaflet Delivery System,” which will:

…provide forces a family of systems consisting of unmanned air vehicles, drones,
missiles, and leaflet boxes that safely and accurately disseminate variable size and weight paper and electronic leaflets to large area targets, at short (10-750 miles) and long (>750 miles) ranges. These systems can be utilized in peacetime and all threat environments across the spectrum of conflict, and are compatible with current and future U.S. aircraft.

The fact that the commandos are seriously developing missiles to deliver leaflets shows the importance given to this mission. Hopefully, improved safety measures will mean less chance of tragic accidents.But the technology does not stop there. In addition to digital broadcast capability and advanced loudspeakers, new psychological operations tech also includes development of appropriate emerging technologies including “remote controlled electronic paper.”

This sounds a lot like the video advertising inserts being pioneered by Entertainment Weekly, which includes a wafer-thin screen which plays up to 40 minutes of video. (See “video in print” in action here, featuring Tony Stark, appropriately enough.) It’s like an evolution of the musical greeting cards, with added video. But the difference with the Special Operations version is that it is remote-controlled, so presumably new messages or video can be sent as required. The applications for such a device would be endless, and as a shiny gadget it would have a much greater chance of being picked up, retained and shown around — if it can be made cheap enough to distribute in significant quantities.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/le...issiles-anyone/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/leaflet-drop-kills-afghan-girl-commandos-search-for-safer-tech-missiles-anyone/)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:09 PM
Pentagon used psychological operation on US public, documents show

By Brad Jacobson
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 -- 10:12 am

Figure in Bush propaganda operation remains Pentagon spokesman

In Part I of this series, Raw Story revealed that Bryan Whitman, the current deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, was an active senior participant in a Bush administration covert Pentagon program that used retired military analysts to generate positive wartime news coverage.

A months-long review of documents and interviews with Pentagon personnel has revealed that the Bush Administration's military analyst program -- aimed at selling the Iraq war to the American people -- operated through a secretive collaboration between the Defense Department's press and community relations offices.

Raw Story has also uncovered evidence that directly ties the activities undertaken in the military analyst program to an official US military document’s definition of psychological operations -- propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign audiences.

The investigation of Pentagon documents and interviews with Defense Department officials and experts in public relations found that the decision to fold the military analyst program into community relations and portray it as “outreach” served to obscure the intent of the project as well as that office’s partnership with the press office. It also helped shield its senior supervisor, Bryan Whitman, assistant secretary of defense for media operations, whose role was unknown when the original story of the analyst program broke.
Story continues below...

In a nearly hour-long phone interview, Whitman asserted that since the program was not run from his office, he was neither involved nor culpable. Exposure of the collaboration between the Pentagon press and community relations offices on this program, however, as well as an effort to characterize it as a mere community outreach project, belie Whitman’s claim that he bears no responsibility for the program’s activities.

rsilogo Pentagon used psychological operation on US public, documents showThese new revelations come in addition to the evidence of Whitman’s active and extensive participation in the program, as Raw Story documented in part one of this series. Whitman remains a spokesman for the Pentagon today.

Whitman said he stood by an earlier statement in which he averred “the intent and purpose of the [program] is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American public.”

In the interview, Whitman sought to portray his role as peripheral, noting that his position naturally demands he speak on a number of subjects in which he isn’t necessarily directly involved.

The record, however, suggests otherwise.

In a January 2005 memorandum to active members of both offices from then-Pentagon press office director, Navy Captain Roxie Merritt, who now leads the community relations office, emphasized the necessary “synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together” on the military analyst program. [p. 18-19]

Merritt recommended that both the press and community relations offices develop a “hot list” of analysts who could dependably “carry our water” and provide them with ultra-exclusive access that would compel the networks to “weed out the less reliably friendly analysts” on their own.

“Media ops and outreach can work on a plan to maximize use of the analysts and figure out a system by which we keep our most reliably friendly analysts plugged in on everything from crisis response to future plans,” Merritt remarked. “As evidenced by this analyst trip to Iraq, the synergy of outreach shop and media ops working together on these types of projects is enormous and effective. Will continue to examine ways to improve processes.”

In response, Lawrence Di Rita, then Pentagon public affairs chief, agreed. He told Merritt and both offices in an email, “I guess I thought we already were doing a lot of this.”

Several names on the memo are redacted. Those who are visible read like a who’s who of the Pentagon press and community relations offices: Whitman, Merritt, her deputy press office director Gary Keck (both of whom reported directly to Whitman) and two Bush political appointees, Dallas Lawrence and Allison Barber, then respectively director and head of community relations.

Merritt became director of the office, and its de facto chief until the appointment of a new deputy assistant secretary of defense, after the departures of Barber and Lawrence, the ostensible leaders of the military analyst program. She remains at the Defense Department today.

When reached through email, Merritt attempted to explain the function of her office's outreach program and what distinguishes it from press office activities.

“Essentially,” Merritt summarized, “we provide another avenue of communications for citizens and organizations wanting to communicate directly with DoD.”

Asked to clarify, she said that outreach’s purpose is to educate the public in a one-to-one manner about the Defense Department and military’s structure, history and operations. She also noted her office "does not handle [the] news media unless they have a specific question about one of our programs."

Merritt eventually admitted that it is not a function of the outreach program to provide either information or talking points to individuals or a group of individuals -- such as the retired military analysts -- with the intention that those recipients use them to directly engage with traditional news media and influence news coverage.

Asked directly if her office provides talking points for this purpose, she replied, “No. The talking points are developed for use by DoD personnel.”

Experts in public relations and propaganda say Raw Story's findings reveal the program itself was "unwise" and "inherently deceptive." One expressed surprise that one of the program's senior figures was still speaking for the Pentagon.

“Running the military analyst program from a community relations office is both surprising and unwise,” said Nicholas Cull, a professor of public diplomacy at USC’s Annenberg School and an expert on propaganda. “It is surprising because this is not what that office should be doing [and] unwise because the element of subterfuge is always a lightening rod for public criticism.”

Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy, which monitors publics relations and media manipulation, said calling the program “outreach” was “very calculatedly misleading” and another example of how the project was “inherently deceptive.”

“This has been their talking point in general on the Pentagon pundit program,” Farsetta explained. “You know, ‘We’re all just making sure that we’re sharing information.’”

Farsetta also said that it’s “pretty stunning” that no one, including Whitman, has been willing to take any responsibility for the program and that the Pentagon Inspector General’s office and Congress have yet to hold anyone accountable.

“It’s hard to think of a more blatant example of propaganda than this program,” Farsetta said.

Cull said the revelations are “just one more indication that the entire apparatus of the US government’s strategic communications -- civilian and military, at home and abroad -- is in dire need of review and repair.”

A PSYOPS Program Directed at American Public

When the military analyst program was first revealed by The New York Times in 2008, retired US Army Col. Ken Allard described it as “PSYOPS on steroids.”

It turns out this was far from a casual reference. Raw Story has discovered new evidence that directly exposes this stealth media project and the activities of its participants as matching the US government’s own definition of psychological operations, or PSYOPS.

The US Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command fact sheet, which states that PSYOPS should be directed “to foreign audiences” only, includes the following description:

“Used during peacetime, contingencies and declared war, these activities are not forms of force, but are force multipliers that use nonviolent means in often violent environments.”

Pentagon public affairs officials referred to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” in documented communications.

A prime example is a May 2006 memorandum from then community relations chief Allison Barber in which she proposes sending the military analysts on another trip to Iraq:

“Based on past trips, I would suggest limiting the group to 10 analysts, those with the greatest ability to serve as message force multipliers.”

Nicholas Cull, who also directs the public diplomacy master’s program at USC and has written extensively on propaganda and media history, found the Pentagon public affairs officials’ use of such terms both incriminating and reckless.

“[Their] use of psyop terminology is an ‘own goal,’” Cull explained in an email, “as it speaks directly to the American public’s underlying fear of being brainwashed by its own government.”

This new evidence provides further perspective on an incident cited by the Times.

Pentagon records show that the day after 14 marines died in Iraq on August 3, 2005, James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, instructed military analysts during a briefing to work to prevent the incident from weakening public support for the war. Conway reminded the military analysts assembled, “The strategic target remains our population.” [p. 102]

Same Strategy, Different Program

Bryan Whitman was also involved in a different Pentagon public affairs project during the lead-up to the war in Iraq: embedding reporters.

The embed and military analyst programs shared the same underlying strategy of “information dominance,” the same objective of selling Bush administration war policies by generating favorable news coverage and were directed at the same target -- the American public.

Torie Clarke, the first Pentagon public affairs chief, is often credited for conceiving both programs. But Clarke and Whitman have openly acknowledged his deep involvement in the embed project.

Clarke declined to be interviewed for this article.

Whitman said he was “heavily involved in the process” of the embed program's development, implementation and supervision.

Before embedding, reporters and media organizations were forced to sign a contract whose ground rules included allowing military officials to review articles for release, traveling with military personnel escorts at all times or remaining in designated areas, only conducting on-the-record interviews, and agreeing that the government may terminate the contract “at any time and for any reason.”

In May 2002, with planning for a possible invasion of Iraq already in progress, Clarke appointed Whitman to head all Pentagon media operations. Prior to that, he had served since 1995 in the Pentagon press office, both as deputy director for press operations and as a public affairs specialist.

The timing of Whitman’s appointment coincided with the development stages of the embed and military analyst programs. He was the ideal candidate for both projects.

Whitman had a military background, having served in combat as a Special Forces commander and as an Army public affairs officer with years of experience in messaging from the Pentagon. He also had experience in briefing and prepping civilian and military personnel.

Whitman's background provided him with a facility and familiarity in navigating military and civilian channels. With these tools in hand, he was able to create dialogue between the two and expedite action in a sprawling and sometimes contentious bureaucracy.

Buried in an obscure April 2008 online New York Times Q&A with readers, reporter David Barstow disclosed:

“As Lawrence Di Rita, a former senior Pentagon official told me, they viewed [the military analyst program] as the ‘mirror image’ of the Pentagon program for embedding reporters with units in the field. In this case, the military analysts were in effect ‘embedded’ with the senior leadership through a steady mix of private briefings, trips and talking points.”

Di Rita denied the conversation had occurred in a telephone interview.

“I don’t doubt that’s what he heard, but that’s not what I said,” Di Rita asserted.

Whitman said he'd never heard Di Rita make any such comparison between the programs.

Barstow, however, said he stood behind the veracity of the quote and the conversation he attributed to Di Rita.

Di Rita, who succeeded Clarke, also declined to answer any questions related to Whitman’s involvement in the military analyst program, including whether he had been involved in its creation.

Clarke and Whitman have both discussed information dominance and its role in the embed program.

In her 2006 book Lipstick on a Pig, Clarke revealed that “most importantly, embedding was a military strategy in addition to a public affairs one” (p. 62) and that the program’s strategy was “simple: information dominance” (p. 187). To achieve it, she explained, there was a need to circumvent the traditional news media “filter” where journalists act as “intermediaries.”

The goal, just as with the military analyst program, was not to spin a story but to control the narrative altogether.

At the 2003 Military-Media conference in Chicago, Whitman told the audience, “We wanted to take the offensive to achieve information dominance” because “information was going to play a major role in combat operations.” [pdf link p. 2] One of the other program’s objectives, he said, was “to build and maintain support for U.S. policy.” [pdf link, p. 16 – quote sourced in 2005 recap of 2003 mil-media conference]

At the March 2004 “Media at War” conference at UC Berkeley, Lt. Col. Rick Long, former head of media relations for the US Marine Corps, offered a candid view of the Pentagon’s engagement in “information warfare” during the Bush administration.

“Our job is to win, quite frankly,” said Long. “The reason why we wanted to embed so many media was we wanted to dominate the information environment. We wanted to beat any kind of propaganda or disinformation at its own game.”

“Overall,” he told the audience, “we’re happy with the outcome.”

The Appearance of Transparency

On a national radio program just before the invasion of Iraq, Whitman claimed that embedded reporters would have a firsthand perspective of “the good, the bad and the ugly.”

But veteran foreign correspondent Reese Erlich told Raw Story that the embed program was “a stroke of genius by the Bush administration” because it gave the appearance of transparency while “in reality, they were manipulating the news.”

In a phone interview, Erlich, who is currently covering the war in Afghanistan as a “unilateral” (which allows reporters to move around more freely without the restrictions of embed guidelines), also pointed out the psychological and practical influence the program has on reporters.

“You’re traveling with a particular group of soldiers,” he explained. “Your life literally depends on them. And you see only the firefights or slog that they’re involved in. So you’re not going to get anything close to balanced reporting.”

At the August 2003 Military-Media conference in Chicago, Jonathan Landay, who covered the initial stages of the war for Knight Ridder Newspapers, said that being a unilateral “gave me the flexibility to do my job.” [pdf link p. 2]

He added, “Donald Rumsfeld told the American people that what happened in northern Iraq after [the invasion] was a little ‘untidiness.’ What I saw, and what I reported, was a tsunami of murder, looting, arson and ethnic cleansing.”

Paul Workman, a journalist with over thirty years at CBC News, including foreign correspondent reporting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote of the program in April 2003, “It is a brilliant, persuasive conspiracy to control the images and the messages coming out of the battlefield and they've succeeded colossally.”

Erlich said he thought most mainstream US reporters have been unwilling to candidly discuss the program because they “weren’t interested in losing their jobs by revealing what they really thought about the embed process.”

Now embedded with troops in Afghanistan for McClatchy, Landay told Raw Story it’s not that reporters shouldn’t be embedded with troops at all, but that it should be only one facet of every news outlet’s war coverage.

Embedding, he said, offers a “soda-straw view of events.” This isn't necessarily negative “as long as a news outlet has a number of embeds and unilaterals whose pictures can be combined” with civilian perspectives available from international TV outlets such as Reuters TV, AP TV, and al Jazeera, he said.

Landay placed more blame on US network news outlets than on the embed program itself for failing to show a more balanced and accurate picture.

But when asked if the Pentagon and the designers of the embed program counted as part of their embedding strategy on the dismal track record of US network news outlets when it came to including international TV footage from civilian perspectives, he replied, “I will not second guess the Pentagon’s motives.”

Brad Jacobson is a contributing investigative reporter for Raw Story. Additional research was provided by Ron Brynaert.

Many embedded links at original (now dead):


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:14 PM
DoD “Clarifies” Doctrine on Psychological Operations

January 19th, 2010
by Steven Aftergood

The Department of Defense has issued a new publication (pdf) to update and clarify its doctrine on “psychological operations.”

Psychological operations, or PSYOP, are intended to “convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives.”
PSYOP is among the oldest of military disciplines, but the new DoD doctrine continues to wrestle with basic definitional issues.

It endorses a new, negative definition of the term “propaganda,” which had formerly been used in a neutral sense to refer to “Any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.”

From now on, propaganda will refer only to what the enemy does: “Any form of adversary communication, especially of a biased or misleading nature, designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.”

The new doctrine also dictates that the term “perception management” shall be eliminated from the DoD lexicon (pdf).

DoD acknowledges that PSYOP is limited by legal constraints, including statutes, international agreements, and national policies. Among other things, the DoD doctrine states, there is a “requirement that US PSYOP forces will not target US citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances.” Yet in a near contradiction, the doctrine also states that “When authorized, PSYOP forces may be used domestically to assist lead federal agencies during disaster relief and crisis management by informing the domestic population.” Perhaps the PSYOP forces are supposed to inform the domestic population without “targeting” them.
Fundamentally, psychological operations are tethered to the reality of U.S.
government actions, for good or for ill. As the new doctrine notes, “Every activity of the force has potential psychological implications that may be leveraged to influence foreign targets.” But PSYOP cannot substitute for an incoherent policy or rescue a poorly executed plan.

See “Psychological Operations,” Joint Publication 3-13.2, Joint Chiefs of Staff, January 7, 2010: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3-13-2.pdf


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:16 PM
New documents show longtime friendship between J. Edgar Hoover and Paul Harvey
By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 23, 2010; C01

For the better part of six decades, Paul Harvey spun tales on the radio in his staccato baritone, entertaining up to 24 million listeners a day with folksy vignettes ending in unexpected twists.
And now, the rest of the story.
Previously confidential files show that Harvey, who died last February at 90 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/28/AR2009022802096.html), enjoyed a 20-year friendship with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, often submitting advance copies of his radio script for comment and approval. Harvey wrote Hoover and his deputies regularly. Hoover, in turn, helped Harvey with research, suggested changes in scripts and showered the broadcaster with effusive praise.
But the real twist, suitable for one of Harvey's signature "Rest of the Story" vignettes, is how they met -- on opposite sides of an espionage investigation.
The news is contained in nearly 1,400 pages of FBI files, released to The Washington Post in response to a one-year-old Freedom of Information Act request. The trove supplies new details about how America's No. 1 broadcaster came to befriend America's No. 1 G-man.
The records underscore that the men shared deeply conservative convictions and a hatred of communism. And Harvey's vast audience was of intense interest to the image-obsessed Hoover.
Harvey tried to be of service beyond the FBI as well, writing in 1956 to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who had made a name for himself by hunting down alleged Communists in the federal bureaucracy, with tips about "known Reds" at a Texas Air Force base. A senior FBI official added a handwritten notation to ensure that Harvey's letter would not be distributed outside the bureau's top brass: "No dissemination since identity of Harvey cannot be revealed."
An unlikely start
The Cold War beginning of the Harvey-Hoover bond was an incident from 1951, when Harvey was 32. The son of a police officer from Tulsa, Harvey had already made a name for himself as a radio and TV commentator in Chicago, specializing in human-interest stories and strong opinions delivered in shirt-sleeve English. He routinely hammered officials for being lax on security, in particular those in charge of the Argonne National Laboratory, which conducted nuclear testing 20 miles west of Chicago.
After wrapping up his television broadcast on the evening of Feb. 5, 1951, Harvey set out to prove his case -- and make some career-enhancing headlines for himself.
Harvey guided his black Cadillac Fleetwood toward Argonne, arriving sometime past midnight. He parked in a secluded spot, tossed his overcoat onto the barbed wire topping a fence, then scampered over.
Breaking the law in an act of participatory journalism, Harvey planned to scratch his signature on "objects that could not possibly have been brought to the site by someone else," according to a statement later given by an off-duty guard who accompanied him. The signature would stand as proof that Harvey had easily defeated the lab's security.
But seconds after Harvey hit the ground, security officers spotted him, documents show. Harvey ran until, caught in a Jeep's headlights, he tripped and fell. As guards approached, Harvey sprang to his feet and waved.
Guards asked whether Harvey realized he was in a restricted area. "Harvey replied no, that he thought he might be at the airport because of the red lights," one report says. Harvey told the authorities he had been headed to a neighboring town to give a speech when his car died.
On the drive to the lab's security office, an FBI memo says, "every once in a while, Harvey would remark that his car was stalled out there and he would like to have a push."
Under questioning, Harvey eventually dropped his cover story but refused to elaborate, saying he wanted to tell his tale before a congressional committee.
Guards searched his Cadillac and found a nickel-plated .380-caliber Colt automatic. It belonged to a naval intelligence officer whom Harvey had brought along as a witness.
The search also revealed a four-page, typewritten script for an upcoming broadcast. Harvey, it turned out, had planned from the outset to feed the nation a bogus account of his escapade: "I hereby affirm the following is a true and accurate account," the script began. "My friend and I were driving a once-familiar road, when the car stalled. . . . We started to walk. . . . We made no effort to conceal our presence. . . .
"Suddenly I realized where I was. That I had entered, unchallenged, one of the United States' vital atomic research installations. . . . Quite by accident, understand, I had found myself inside the 'hot' area. . . . We could have carried a bomb in, or classified documents out."
Word of the stunt soon made headlines. The U.S. attorney for Illinois empaneled a grand jury to consider an espionage indictment. The Atomic Energy Commission suggested privately that Harvey might avoid prosecution if he praised the commission's professionalism on the air, reports show. A member of Congress worked to kill the investigation, and Harvey went on the air to suggest he was being set up.
An FBI official noted in one memo that "this looks like a publicity stunt and I don't think we should carry the ball if we can avoid it." Agents conducted interviews, kept tabs on developments and sent updates to Hoover and his deputies in Washington. But the bureau avoided taking sides, apparently waiting to see whom public opinion would favor.
Two months after the incident, a federal grand jury officially declined to indict Harvey.
Nothing in Harvey's file suggests Hoover did anything to help. But Harvey appears to have been grateful for something.
Efforts on Friday to reach Harvey's son, Paul Harvey Jr., for comment were unsuccessful.
A friendship forms
In April 1952, Rep. Fred Busbey, an Illinois Republican and longtime friend of Harvey, asked the FBI if he could bring the broadcaster by to thank Hoover. "You will recall that Harvey has a history of emotional instability," said an FBI memo analyzing the request, adding that Harvey appeared to be rehabilitated and was now "very effectively anti-Communist."
Records of the Saturday morning meeting show that Harvey acknowledged he had acted foolishly. Harvey told those present that he had always considered Hoover a great American but that, seen in person, the director far exceeded his expectations.
So began a friendship that continued until Hoover's death in 1972. In the years that followed, Hoover autographed a photo for Harvey, who in turn devoted entire shows to Hoover's heroism and mailed Hoover copies of his commercial recordings on LPs.
Neither man was restrained in his praise of the other. "You were never in better form," Hoover gushed to Harvey about one of his broadcasts in May 1958, and again, in precisely the same words, in February 1959.
Harvey wrote to Hoover in January 1957, saying, "From some future pinnacle, if the Republic has survived, history will record that it was largely due to your vigilance."
In 1963, Harvey dropped by FBI headquarters for a publicity shot with Hoover. Harvey praised the director as "a champion of right-thinking people everywhere," and added that he appeared to be in excellent shape, as well.
A 1957 letter to Harvey from FBI Assistant Director Louis Nichols notes, "For a number of years, you have been kind enough to send me your daily copy."
"All of us in the FBI," Hoover wrote in one note, "count it as a great honor to have you as one of our closest friends."
When Clarence Kelley took over as director in 1973, Harvey's love affair with the bureau continued without pause. Harvey mailed Kelley a swatch of cloth in 1974 and asked him to sign it so it could be sewn into a quilt for his wife, Angel, that would bear the signatures of all the people she most admired.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:20 PM
Why Brian Ross of ABC News Needs to be Fired (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/why-brian-ross-of-abc-news-needs-to-be-fired/)

Posted on January 25, 2010 by willyloman
Can the president kill U.S. citizens at will? Can the CIA? Do these questions deserve “mulling over” Mr. Ross?

by Scott Creighton
Brian Ross is at it again (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/story?id=9651830&page=1). Someone call Glenn Greenwald.
In an article posted on ABC News this morning, Brian Ross seems to be up to his old tricks, helping the dangerous imperialist agenda of yet another White House administration. This time, his facts are even hollower than the last while the implications are far more dangerous to our civil liberties and even our lives.
Right on the front page of ABC News is a headline which reads… U.S. Mulls Legality of Killing American al Qaeda “Turncoat”. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/story?id=9651830&page=1) The basic question seems to be whether or not President Obama can kill U.S. citizens at will. Even more distressing, they seem to be asking whether or not NSA types can assassinate U.S. citizens even without so much as a presidential order to do so. Can you say “plausible deniability”?
Effectively what we are talking about are “death squads”; official organizations carrying out extrajudicial killings of U.S. citizens who have been officially accused of committing no crimes what-so-ever.
As outrageous as this is, Brian Ross gives the matter an air of acceptability in his article, he doesn’t even seem to be questioning the legality of it all.
Not only that but the winner of the 2003 George Polk award for “journalistic integrity and investigative reporting”, by omitting certain very important facts from his story and openly contradicting already recognized facts that he himself reported on not 2 months ago, he appears to be aiding the administration in building an argument for the sanctioned killing of U.S. citizens.

According to the people who were briefed on the issue, American officials fear the possibility of criminal prosecution without approval in advance from the White House for a targeted strike against Awlaki. ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/story?id=9651830&page=1)
The “possiblity” of criminal prosecutions for killing U.S. citizens “without approval in advance from the White House”? Why would Ross even consider the possibility that there wouldn’t be prosecutions and what difference does it make if Obama sanctioned it or not? A seated U.S. president does not have the authority to kill U.S. citizens just because he wants to. Period. End of story. But there is certainly no way that an agency (say like the CIA) has the authority do it acting on their own. What kind of bizzaro world is Brian Ross helping to set up here?
Let’s remember that Brian Ross has been a Vichy reporter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#State_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany ) embedded in the MSM for quite a while now. His collaboration with war-criminal regimes goes way back. Glenn Greenwald has done some of the most important real investigative journalism (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/ross/) to help expose this propaganda expert for what he really is; a traitor. There’s just no other way to put it.
IN 2007, Brian Ross was a key supporter of the criminal Bush administration’s torture program by constantly lying over and over again about the details of the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah. He said it lasted 30 seconds. Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. As Glenn Greenwald points out, Brian Ross had done same glossing over of the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from 2005 to 2008 claiming that he had given everything up after only two and a half minutes of torture when in fact Mohammed had been waterboarded waterboarded 183 times in one month alone (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/18/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-was-waterboarded-183-times-in-one-month/). Not only that, but Ross then helped the criminal torture programs image by helping to spread the disinformation that these torture sessions prevented future attacks. He only made that claim on Fox News where he knew the audience would be a little more receptive, and he also prefaced the “factoid” by claiming “yes. That’s what we were told by sources.” No clarification as to who those “sources” were.
The importance and the effects of Brian Ross’s investigative reporting on the subject of torture was explained by Glenn Greenwald this way;

This claim that Mohammed lasted less than 3 minutes before confessing everything was repeatedly cited on CNN, MSNBC and by other news outlets and countless pundits as proof that (a) waterboarding works to save American lives; (b) it works almost immediately; and therefore (c) it is hard to call it “torture” since it only lasts for seconds. Indeed, Ross’ report was cited to bolster one of the central arguments made (http://blogs.georgetown.edu/?id=19565) by those who insisted that waterboarding could not be “torture” because individuals are subjected to it for such a short duration. Yet all along, Ross’ report about Mohammed — like his report about Zubaydah – was based on nothing more than his mindless recitation of what unnamed Bush administration sources whispered to him about Mohammed’s interrogation treatment, and it was false from start to finish. Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/ross/)
But then, Brian Ross the journalist-collaborator had been spreading lies on behalf of the Bush administration for quite awhile prior to the torture scandal as well as refusing to name his White House sources when those outright lies were exposed. It’s one thing to deliberately report misinformation as news, but when that misinformation is exposed and the reason for it seems clear to be as a justification for an illegal war, a reporter’s right to protect his sources fades to the need to protect the American citizens from future harm. Yet ABC News and Brian Ross still refuse to this day to disclose who fed him lies to help justify an illegal war of aggression.

Using that method, Brian Ross, of course, was responsible for the widespread and completely false reports (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/) in October and November, 2001 that government tests on anthrax resulted in a finding of bentoninte, which — Ross breathlessy said over and over — was a key sign that the anthrax attacks came from Saddam Hussein. Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/ross/)

There are two vital questions that ABC News should answer:
(1) How can ABC News just let these Saddam-anthrax reports — as false as they were consequential — remain uncorrected and unexplained, even through today?
(2) More importantly, Ross claimed at the time, and there is no reason to doubt it, that these false reports — clearly designed to blame Iraq for the anthrax attacks in the eyes of Americans — were fed to him by “at least four well-placed sources.” Who were the well-placed, multiple sources feeding ABC News completely fictitious claims linking Saddam Hussein to the anthrax attacks, including false claims about the results of government tests? What possible justification is there for concealing the identity of those who manipulated ABC to disseminate these fictitious claims? Glenn Greenwald (http://archive.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/09/abc_anthrax/index.html)
Greenwald goes on to detail just how influential Brian Ross’s often repeated lies about Saddam’s connection to the anthrax attacks were. Not only did Ross run around parroting his “intel” on Fox News, but he was clearly very instrumental in getting progressive types to get behind the war as well. You see, if you are going to run a COINTELPRO program you can’t just target the right-wing pro-war crowd. That’s easy. The real challenge is that you have to garner support among the anti-interventionalists as well. That’s where “liberal” war-monger collaborators come into play. This is a key role to fill as evidenced by Brian Ross’s continued support of every single war possibility that comes across his desk. Including Iran. And of course Brian Ross went back to his same old bag of tricks to gin up support for that pending war as well.

I had what I consider to be an illuminating discussion this morning with Jeffrey Schneider (http://www.abcmedianet.com/executive/schneider.shtml), Senior Vice President of ABC News, concerning the story (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/exclusive_iran_.html) published (and broadcast) by ABC’s Brian Ross and Christopher Isham on Monday. That story claimed that “Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months” and therefore “Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009.”
… My principal criticism of the ABC story was that it was exclusively predicated on what ABC vaguely described only as “sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade.” It did not include a single other piece of information about the identity of the “sources” who were making such dramatic, consequential, and potentially war-inflaming claims…
… Schneider began by explaining that decisions about the use of anonymous sources in a story such as this one are “approved at very high levels” at ABC News. The sources for this specific story are, he claimed, ones with whom ABC has a “long relationship” and are ones they “find credible.” He said that both ABC News itself and these specific reporters have proven “over a very long period of time” that they are reliable and credible journalists… Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/05/abc_news/index.html)
Three remarkable instances (1. the justification of illegal torture, 2. the promotion of an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, and 3. the attempt to create an atmosphere conducive to the invasion of Iran) where ABC News acclaimed “journalist” Brian Ross deliberately spread false information and outright lies to the American public based on nothing more than his claim of “anonymous sources told me so”.
This is the resume of one Brian Ross; award winning “journalist” for ABC News as expertly exposed by a real journalist, Glenn Greenwald.
Now lets get back to todays article.
In todays article which is apparently attempting to legitimize the president’s authority to kill U.S. citizens at will, Brian Ross quotes the following sources: “a former U.S. official familiar with the case“, “One of the people briefed“, “ two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials“, “law enforcement officials“.
Not one single source named in Brian Ross’s piece of “investigative journalism”. Not one. But I guess that is ok as that Jeffrey Scheider has already said that the use of such secretive sources is just fine and dandy with the ABC News leadership and it has been for quite sometime.
Perhaps even more damning is the fact that Mr. Ross seems to have forgotten how to do any investigations at all; well that is, aside from parroting what his secret sources tell him to parrot.
Forgotten in Mr. Ross’s article are a couple very important facts about the case of Anwar Awlaki. It would seem that Mr. Ross’s secret sources simply forgot them or perhaps they don’t fit in with the overall jest of the article that suggests there is some kind of debate as to whether or not a president can kill U.S. citizens at will. More amazing still is the fact that many of these facts that Mr. Ross seems to have forgotten, were actually reported on by Mr. Ross himself.
Those facts that Mr. Ross left out:
1. The President has already attempted to kill Anwar Awlaki (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-alive/story?id=9455144).

A week after U.S. and Yemeni officials said the radical Yemen cleric Anwar Awlaki may have been killed in a U.S.-backed Christmas eve air strike, a Yemeni journalist says Awlaki has surfaced to proclaim, “I’m alive.” Brian Ross (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-alive/story?id=9455144)

The Yemeni government has confirmed that today’s US-backed air strike was aimed at assassinating US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, and officials speculated that he might have been slain (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091224/wl_nm/us_yemen_alqaeda_awlaki) in the attack. Raw Story (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/24/yemen-looked-to-assassinate-cleric-in-us-backed-attack/)
2. The attempted assassination killed 23 children and 17 women by mistake (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/peace-prize-president-kills-23-children-and-17-women-to-protect-the-assets-of-the-imf-and-world-bank/).

Along with the two U.S. cruise missile attacks, Yemen security forces carried out raids in three separate locations. As many as 120 people were killed in the three raids, according to reports from Yemen, and opposition leaders said many of the dead were innocent civilians. ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9375236)/Brian Ross
3. They didn’t miss Anwar Awlaki because of “legal questions” they missed him because he wasn’t there (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-alive/story?id=9455144).

“He said the house that was attacked was two or three kilometers away from him and he was not there,” the journalist, Abdulelah Hider Shaea, told ABC News. Brian Ross (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-alive/story?id=9455144)
4. Anwar Awlaki is not “part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes (http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9298-background-here-comes-us-involvement-in-yemen-another-error-inspired-by-a-floating-signifier.html)“.

Awlaki denies he is part of al Qaeda and told the Yemeni journalist… Brian Ross (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-alive/story?id=9455144)

Abdulelah Hider Shaea, a Yemeni journalist who studies Al Qaeda and knows Mr. Awlaki, denied in an interview that the imam was a member of Al Qaeda, saying instead that he served as an articulate window to jihadism for English speakers. New York Times (http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9298-background-here-comes-us-involvement-in-yemen-another-error-inspired-by-a-floating-signifier.html)
5. Emails between Maj. Hasan and Mr. Awlaki were reported to be harmless and in the scope of Maj. Hasan’s work at Ft. Hood (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/09/fort.hood.shootings/index.html)

The intercepts “raised no red flags,” with no mention of threats or violence that would have triggered a U.S. terrorism investigation, senior investigative officials said Monday.
According to the FBI, investigators from one of its Joint Terrorism Task Forces determined “that the content of those communications was consistent with research being conducted by Maj. Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center [in Washington].” CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/09/fort.hood.shootings/index.html)
Clearly these links are not to fringe news sites. They are to the New York Times, CNN, and mainly to Brian Ross and ABC News. There is no excuse for Brian Ross to have left mention of these facts out of an article dealing with such a controversial and potentially dangerous topic as this. Ross himself reported on many of this facts that he deliberately left out or contradicted in this new article.
All that said, the worst part is yet to come. The final sentance in Brian Ross’s yellow journalism piece reads as follows. I don’t need to expand on it any more than simply to quote it. Form your own opinions as to what is implied.

Hundreds of FBI (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/Blotter/nyc-terror-plot-fbi-knocking-reporters-door/story?id=8772524) and other federal agents will fan out this week as part of a secret operation to pursue leads about Americans with connections to Yemen that were previously dismissed as not significant, according to law enforcement officials. Brian Ross (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anwar-awlaki-us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/story?id=9651830&page=2)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:22 PM
John Kiriakou Unwittingly Exposes Brian Ross as an ABC News “Mockingbird” (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/john-kiriakou-exposes-brian-rosss-cointelpro-agenda/)

Posted on January 27, 2010 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
The other day I posted an article about why I think Brian Ross should be fired from ABC News (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/why-brian-ross-of-abc-news-needs-to-be-fired/).
Time and time again Brian Ross has not only ended up on the wrong side of every single important issue since 9/11, but he also has a disturbing tendency to rely almost exclusively on unnamed sources to support his arguments (arguments that are almost always on the side of the CIA backed imperialist agenda). 1. The Iraq connection with the anthrax attacks (wrong, Mr. Ross), 2. illegal use of torture as a justifiable and “useful” practice (wrong again, Mr. Ross), 3. Iran having enough material to make a nuclear weapon by 2009 (so, so wrong, Mr. Ross), and finally what I pointed out as his latest forray into his imperialist collaborations… 4. the president and possibly the CIA has the right to kill U.S. citizens at will (apparently this is a “law” that George W. Bush just made up after 9/11 (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html)… but Mr. Ross fails to point out the root of this assumed presidential authority in his recent article).
You might start to think that Brian Ross is nothing more than the CIA’s man at ABC with all these pro-imperialist agenda positions Mr. Ross has been taking over the years. You think that might be possible? Is Brian Ross nothing more than a well-dressed over-paid Mockingbird? Inquiring minds want to know.

The following is an excert from the 1975 “Church Committee” or the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. It should be pointed out that Paul Harvey at the time of the committee’s investigations came out strongly against the committee and even claimed what they were doing was “treasonous activity”. It has since been revealed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202602.html) that Paul Harvey was very close to J. E. Hoover and even submitted his show scripts to Hoover in advance so that he could “review’ them. Paul Harvey, as it turns out, was just worried that he would be exposed as a CIA Mockingbird asset.

“The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.”
Previously confidential files show that Harvey, who died last February at 90 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/28/AR2009022802096.html), enjoyed a 20-year friendship with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, often submitting advance copies of his radio script for comment and approval. Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202602.html)
Well, guess what? Back in 2007, when there was a huge call to investigate illegal torture conducted by the CIA, out came Brian Ross to repeatedly lie about the torture of certain high level detainees, grossly underestimating the duration of the abuses they endured (one of them, KSM, had been waterboarded more than 180 times in a month, to which Mr. Ross went around and reported he had only been tortured for 2 and a half minutes). His sources for this misinformation went unnamed.
But it turns out that not all of Brian Ross’s sources hid behind a veil of secrecy. One, John Kiriakou, was actually interviewed on the air by… Brian Ross in a prime-time ABC News special. And guess what? Kiriakou was lying. Totally, completely, lying. It was all bullshit. Who says so? Kiriakou does.

“What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts,” he writes. “I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence.” Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/26/cia_man_retracts_claim_on_waterboarding)

“I wasn’t there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I’d heard and read inside the agency at the time,” Kiriakou reportedly said.
“But after his one-paragraph confession, Kiriakou adds that he didn’t have any first hand knowledge of anything relating to CIA torture routines, and still doesn’t,”Stein continued. “And he claims that the disinformation he helped spread was a CIA dirty trick: “In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own.”
The CIA has since destroyed (http://www.zimbio.com/Waterboarding+Wiki/articles/34/CIA+Interrogation+Tapes+Predated+Torture+Memo) all videotapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogations. He was allegedly subjected to waterboarding at least 83 times. Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/revealed-excia-agent-basically-up-waterboarding-details/)
A couple months ago, an investigative journalist found out that Kiriakou wasn’t even in the same country when Zubaydah was detained and tortured and you would think that ABC News and Brian Ross would immediately retract the bullshit story for the good of the integrity of their prized “investigative journalist”.
But you you would be wrong.
Instead, they simply added a footnote to the Brian Ross article and removed the video of the phony interview. They did all this very quietly so as to allow most people who hadn’t seen the real story to continue with the fiction that Brian Ross helped establish.

Kiriakou’s insistence, however vague, that Zubaydah ”revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack” has to be taken with a soupçon of salt.
As Brian Stelter, a New York Times media reporter, wrote last April (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?_r=1&hp), Kiriakou ”was not actually in the secret prison in Thailand where Mr. Zubaydah had been interrogated but in the C.I.A. headquarters in Northern Virginia. He learned about it only by reading accounts from the field.”
ABC’s Ross had glossed over the glaring fact in its broadcast, saying only that Kiriakou himself “never carried out any of the waterboarding” — which got lost in the telling, in light of the main story line picked up by the rest of the media.
ABC has now removed the video of its Kiriakou interview from its site. But the headline, large photo of the CIA man, and story remain, with its opening paragraph, “A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.” You have to dig deep to find that none of it is true. Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/26/cia_man_retracts_claim_on_waterboarding)
There is no excuse for what Kiriakou has done. The damage to America’s national identity irreperable. No one will believe that CIA shill anymore (though he did go to work for John Kerry afterward). And though his revelation is important for the historical accuracy of that period, perhaps the most important aspect of this story is Brian Ross.
The fact that Ross always seems to end up with “secret sources” or those that lie outright while he is defending CIA positions in the left-wing branch of the media is something that cannot be ignored.

“And he claims that the disinformation he helped spread was a CIA dirty trick: “In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own.”
It’s called Project Mockingbird and it was exposed many years ago. Mockingbird was the name of the program the CIA operated using respected journalists in the main stream media to spread their lies and misinformation to the public in order to garner support for whatever imperialist agenda they happen to be working on at the time.

Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40?s), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda… M. Louise (http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/215.html)
They first developed the tactic in other nations as they would pay reporters and other media figures to spread lies and disinformation in order to help create an atmosphere of regime change among the population; regime change that would always favor U.S. corporations and banks. Many dictators and fascist regimes have been put in place this way all across the world and many innocent civilians have paid the ultimate price. Our man in Iran, the Shah, was instilled in this fashion in 1953 and there are many other examples.
I don’t think we need much more evidence that Brian Ross of ABC News is a modern day version of a Mockingbird asset on the CIA payroll so I stand by my original conclusion; Brian Ross should be fired by ABC News and then forced to turn over every single source he has ever used to promote CIA backed falsehoods to the people of America.

“The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn’t stand up, who didn’t write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people.” Robert Parry (http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/215.html)
If it is found through his emails or other private communications that Brian Ross was aware of this misinformation he was selling to the people of America and subsequently took pay-offs for services rendered, then he should be arrested and put on trial. For treason.
You see, Mockingbird is a tactic used by the CIA to covertly undermine targeted democracies. If in fact, Project Mockingbird is still being used in the U.S. and I don’t think there is any question of this, that means they are doing it in order to undermine our democracy. That’s treason.
We should make an example of Brian Ross. If you want to get your country back, you first need to take some control of the media. The best way to do that is to show these talking heads that there is a downside to promoting misinformation to the public. If the investigation goes well and it bears fruit, perhaps we should take it one step further and bring charges against ABC News. If corporations have the same rights as people now, they should also face the same penalties for committing crimes. Imagine using the recent Supreme Court ruling against them; turning the table on them. Expose ABC News as a CIA Project Mockingbird asset and then charge the corporation with treason. Just a thought.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:26 PM
Paid Lying – What Passes For Major Media Journalism
November 9th, 2009

By Stephen Lendman

Today’s major media journalism is biased, irresponsible, sensationalist reporting that distorts, exaggerates or misstates the truth. It’s misinformation or agitprop disinformation masquerading as fact to boost circulation, readership, viewers, or listeners, and on vital issues lie about or suppress uncomfortable truths to provide unqualified support for state and/or corporate interests – to the detriment of the greater good that’s always sacrificed for profits and imperial aims.

As a result, major media sources produce a daily propaganda diet and what Project Censored calls “junk food news,” and get most people to believe it. In their landmark book, Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky explained the “propaganda model” that controls the public message by “filter(ing)” disturbing truths, “leaving (behind) only the cleansed residue fit to print” or air.

Today the media is in crisis and a free and open society at risk at a time fiction substitutes for fact, news is carefully controlled, dissent marginalized, and on-air and print journalists support powerful interests as paid liars, or what famed journalist George Seldes (1890 – 1995) called “prostitutes of the press.”

As a result, imperial wars are called liberating ones. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good. Major topics go unaddressed or are misrepresented. Government and business interests are endorsed wholeheartedly. America is always called “beautiful.” Beneficial social change is considered heresy. The market works best, we’re told, so let it, and patriotism means supporting lawlessness and corporate outlaws by shopping till we drop.

The New York Times – Its Lead Role in Distorting and Suppressing Truth

For many decades, The Times has been the closest thing in America to an official ministry of information and propaganda masquerading as real news, commentary and analysis.

Its unmatched clout once got media critic Norman Solomon to call its front page “the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA;” most everywhere, in fact, because its reports are widely circulated and followed globally.

The Paper of Record has a long history of:

– supporting the powerful;

– backing corporate interests;

– endorsing imperial wars;

– supporting CIA efforts to topple elected governments, assassinate independent leaders, prop up friendly dictators, secretly fund and train paramilitary death squads, practice sophisticated forms of torture, and menace democratic freedoms at home and abroad. For decades, in fact, some Times’ foreign correspondents were covert Agency assets. Others today likely are as well as other prominent fourth estate members.

The Times management is also comfortable with:

– Washington and corporate lawlessness;

– an unprecedented and growing wealth gap;

– Wall Street banksters looting the federal treasury;

– a private banking cartel controlling the nation’s money;

– unmet human needs and increasing poverty, hunger, homelessness, and despair for growing millions in a nation run by rogue politicians who don’t give a damn as long as they’re re-elected;

– a de facto one-party state;

– deep corruption at the highest government and corporate levels;

– democracy for the select few alone;

– sham elections; and

– a deepening social decay symptomatic of a declining state, yet The Times management won’t use its clout to expose and help reverse it.

Of course, the same applies throughout the corporate media, the only variance being audience size, the ability to influence it, and the special impact of TV news and talk radio to arouse their faithful. Plus their power of round-the-clock persuasive repetition.

Examples of Journalism, New York Times Style

After a Washington staged February 29, 2004 middle-of-the-night coup ousted democratically elected Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, The Times March 1 editorial lied by:

– stating he resigned;

– saying sending in Marines to abduct him “was the right thing to do;”

– claiming they only came after “Mr. Aristide yielded power;”

– blaming him for “contribut(ing) significantly to his own downfall (because of his) increasingly autocratic and lawless rule….;” and

– accusing him of manipulating the 2000 legislative elections and not “deliver(ing) the democracy he promised.”

In fact, he’s a beloved democrat first elected in 1990 with 67% of the vote, ousted by a US-supported coup months later, returned to Haiti in 1994, then, because he couldn’t succeed himself in 1996, ran in 2000 and was overwhelmingly re-elected with 92% of the vote. Today in exile, the great majority of Haitians want him back but paramilitary occupiers, under orders from Washington, won’t let him.

Following Hugo Chavez’s December 1998 election, The Times Latin American reporter, Larry Roher, wrote:

Regional “presidents and party leaders are looking over their shoulders (concerned about the) specter (they) thought they had safely interred: that of the populist demagogue, the authoritarian man on horseback known as the caudillo (strongman)” taking power.

Ever since, Times writers consistently:

– turned a blind eye to Venezuelan democracy;

– bashed Chavez as “divisive, a ruinous demagogue, provocative (and) the next Fidel Castro;”

– said he “militarized the government, emasculated the country’s courts, intimidated the media, eroded confidence in the economy, and hollowed out Venezuela’s once-democratic institutions:” common conditions during decades of pre-Chavez rule that columnist Roger Lowenstein falsely said exist now in:

– calling him anti-capitalist for sharing his nation’s oil wealth with the people by providing essential social services, and for lifting the most needy out of poverty; and

– denouncing his making foreign investors pay their fair share.

Lowenstein backed the aborted April 2002 coup by calling Chavez’s ouster a “resignation,” then saying Venezuela “no longer (would be) threatened by a would-be dictator.”

Post-/911, the Times played the lead role in taking the nation to war by highlighting the “day of terror” and saying the “President Vows to Exact Punishment for ‘Evil.’ “

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Judith Miller was a weapon of mass deception with her daily front page Pentagon press release columns masquerading as real news, later exposed as manipulative lies, but they worked.

Following the September 15, 2009 Goldstone Commission report, a same day Neil MacFarquhar column suggested that Israel’s “disproportionate attack” followed Hamas provocations, so perhaps it was justified. While The Times gave Judge Goldstone op-ed space, it:

– published scathing letters denouncing his “one-sidedness” and a September 18 piece saying “the Obama administration said (today) that a United Nations report accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza was unfair to Israel and did not take adequate account of ‘deplorable’ actions by the militant group Hamas in the conflict last winter.”

The paper then imposed a near-blackout on its news and editorial pages to bury the story and kill it through silence – never mind its importance in documenting clear evidence of Israeli war crimes against a civilian population.

National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting (PBS)

Founded in 1970 as an independent, private, non-profit member organization of US public radio stations, NPR promised to be an alternative to commercial broadcasters by “promot(ing) personal growth rather than corporate gain (and) speak with many voices, many dialects.”

Having long ago abandoned its promise, and given its substantial corporate and government funding, NPR is indistinguishable from the rest of the corporate media, just as corrupted, and consider its former head, Kevin Klose.

He was president from December 1998 – September 2008 and CEO from 1998 – January 2009. Earlier he was US propaganda director as head of the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television, and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti, so he fit easily into his new role.

On January 5, 2009, Vivian Schiller succeeded him as president and CEO. Her official bio says she was previously with “The New York Times Company where she served as Senior Vice President and General Manager of NYTimes.com.”

She’ll oversea “all NPR operations and initiatives, including the organization’s critical partnerships with our 800+ member stations, and their service to the more than 26 million people who listen to NPR programming every week.” Most don’t know they’re getting the same corporate propaganda and “junk food news” or that
NPR calls itself “public” to conceal its real agenda, and why critics call it “National Pentagon or Petroleum Radio” with good reason.

Created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) calls itself “a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress…and is the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting. It helps support the operations of more than 1,100 locally-owned and-operated public television and radio stations nationwide, and is the largest single source of funding for research, technology, and program development for public radio, television and related online services.”

Like NPR, it’s heavily corporate and government funded and provides similar services for them. Under George Bush, former Voice of America director Kenneth Tomlinson was chairman of CPB’s Board of Governors until an internal 2005 investigation forced him out for repeatedly braking the law.

On September 16, 2009, a CPB press release announced that “The board of directors (of the CPB) today elected Dr. Ernest Wilson III (as) chairman and re-elected….CEO Beth Courtney (as) vice-chair.”

Wilson previously held senior policy positions as Director of International Programs and Resources on the National Security Council. He was also Policy and Planning Unit Director for the US Information Agency and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Beth Courtney is a George Bush appointee, a past chairman of the board of America’s Public Television Stations and present CPB vice chairman. Currently she also serves on the boards of Satellite Educational Resources Consortium, the Organization of State Broadcasting Executives, the National Forum for Public Television Executives, and the National Educational Telecommunications Association along with other appropriate credentials for her re-appointment.

In its May/June 2004 “Extra” report, FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) asked “How Public Is Public Radio? Writers Steve Rendall and Daniel Butterworth quoted past head Kevin Klose saying:

“All of us believe our goal is to serve the entire democracy, the entire country.”

Not according to FAIR on “every on-air source quoted in June 2003 on four of (NPR’s) news shows: All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday and Weekend Edition Sunday.” Each guest was classified “by occupation, gender, nationality, and partisan affiliation.” Combined, 2,334 sources from 804 stories were quoted.

FAIR found that NPR relies on the same dominant sources as the major media that include government officials, professional experts, and corporate representatives nearly two-thirds of the time.

Spokespeople for public interest groups accounted for 7% of total sources, and ordinary people appeared mostly in “one-sentence soundbites.”

Male guests outnumbered women about 4 – 1, and those quoted most often came from the same elite categories as men.

Overall, NPR represents the same dominant interests as the major commercial media – conservative, pro-business, pro-war, pro-Israel, and very much against the public interest while pretending to support it.

FAIR analyzed PBS’s flagship NewsHour guest list and drew similar conclusions. Like NPR, it’s ideologically right and usually censors progressive content and public interest programming. In a 1990 NewsHour evaluation, FAIR compared its content to ABC’s Nightline and found that it presented “an even narrower segment of the political spectrum.” It then conducted an October 2005 – March 2006 analysis of all of its programs, got similar results, and determined that NewHour is even more ideologically right than NPR that tilts far in that direction itself.

FAIR concluded that NPR and NewsHour content “overwhelmingly represent those in power rather than the public” they’re obliged to serve. While masquerading as public programming, they betray their listeners and viewers by offering the same propaganda and “junk food news” as the dominant corporate media. Considering their funding sources, what else would they do.

An October 6 NPR story is typical of most others. It charged Hugo Chavez with “Targeting Opponents For Arrest.” Reporter Juan Forero claimed “dozens of university students” went on hunger strike outside OAS headquarters in Caracas on September 28 along with others “across the country….in support of Julio Cesar Rivas, a student who was arrested during an anti-government demonstration in August….”

Rivas is the coordinator and founder of Juventud Activa de Venezuela Unida (United Active Youth of Venezuela – JAVU). Earlier, he was part of a staged, violent street protest against Venezuela’s new Education Law. The government says JAVU acts as “shock troops” in opposition protests and is liberally funded by the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), and US Agency or International Development (USAID) to disrupt internal Venezuelan affairs. It’s a familiar scheme, repeated numerous times in the past, to discredit and disrupt the Chavez government in hopes of eventually ousting it.

JAVU has about 80,000 members in most Venezuelan states, and its blog site calls for bringing down the government and supporting the Honduran military coup.

Rivas was released on September 29, but must appear for trial. He’s a Washington-funded provocateur, charged with resisting arrest, instigating crime, conspiracy, inciting rebellion, damaging public property, and using “generic” weapons.

While in custody, Venezuela Public Defender Gabriela Ramirez assured him in person that his full constitutional rights will be protected. Street protests still continue and have been countered by pro-Chavez ones calling for “peace and tolerance.” According to the Federation of Bolivarian students’ Carlos Sierra:

Opposition “students are being used and manipulated by the top leadership of the irrational opposition, which, via the (dominant) media, send them to generate violence and terrorism in the country” much like on previous occasions.

But according to NPR’s Forero, Rivas was “sent to one of Venezuela’s most infamous prisons” where other government opponents are held as political prisoners. Chavez “has been jailing dozens of key opponents – some of them students, some of them veteran politicians” in citing unnamed “human rights groups and constitutional experts (claiming) Venezuela is increasingly singling out and imprisoning its foes in politically motivated witch hunts.”

Forero didn’t mention that Rivas fomented violence. Others arrested also broke the law. No one is a political prisoner, and all Venezuelans get fair and equitable trials, unlike in America where real political arrests, prosecutions and convictions happen regularly against innocent targeted victims – a topic NPR and PBS won’t touch except to vilify them publicly on-air.

Nor do they report truthfully on Occupied Palestine. On October 12, 2009, on NPR’s Morning Edition, reporter Renee Montagne practically extolled Israeli racism in stating:

“There is a new enemy for some Israelis: romance between Jewish women and Arab men, (so) vigilantes have banded together to fight it.” She means from “Jewish settlements” that “have sprung up (in) traditionally Arab” East Jerusalem, but won’t admit they’re on stolen Palestinian land.

NPR’s Sheera Frankel joined a patrol, implied Arabs are inferior to Jews, and suggested they pose a danger to Jewish women and girls. She described vigilantes on the lookout for “Arab-Jewish couples (to) break up their dates,” suggesting it’s the right thing to do, but never questioning the legitimacy of settlements, vigilante violence in East Jerusalem, its lawless disregard for the law, or great harm to innocent people. Instead she called “mixed couples a growing epidemic” of miscegenation – typical of NPR’s racism and one-sided support for Israel.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)

The WSJ is Dow Jones & Company’s flagship publication, now a News Corp. one since Rupert Murdoch bought it in August 2007. Stating its ideology up front, it says it supports “free markets and free people” as well as “free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases (edicts) of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities.”

In October 2007, FAIR bemoaned the Murdock takeover because of his “penchant for using his holdings as vehicles for his personal (views) and business interests.” Earlier FAIR and the Columbia Journalism Review criticized its editorial page for inaccuracy, extreme bias, and dishonesty.

The Journal is unapologetic in saying its philosophy “make(s) no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view….We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether (from) private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government.(We’re) not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical.”

Radical can be revolutionary and beneficial when it backs fundamental progressive change and reform. Webster defines it as:

“marked by a considerable departure from the usual and traditional: extreme; tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions; of, relating to, or constituting a political (or perhaps business) group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change; (or) advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs” such the radical right represented by the WSJ’s management and editorial writers.

Critics agree that they’re on the far right extremist fringe, a supporter of voodoo economics, tax cuts for the rich, a staunch defender of executive privilege, and disdainful of anything to the left of their views as witnessed daily by some of the most outlandish, one-sided, pro-business commentaries countenancing no alternatives, with the rarest of rare exceptions showing up to make the paper look fair, which it’s not.

Consider editorial board member Mary O’Grady in her weekly Americas column on “politics, economics and business in Latin America and Canada.” Her extremism is unmatched. Her style is agitprop; her space a truth-free zone; her language hateful and vindictive; her tone malicious and slanderous; her style bare-knuckled thuggishness; and her material calculating, mendacious, and shameless. Yet she’s a WSJ regular and an award-winning op-ed writer, but surely no journalist according to Webster’s definition:

“writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.”

O’Grady fails on both counts. She’s a kind of print version of Fox News’ Glenn Beck, who promotes himself on glennbeck.com looking arrogant in a uniform reminiscent of the Nazi SS.

Consider O’Grady’s support for the Washington-backed June 28 Honduran coup ousting a democratically elected president. It was followed by months of mass arrests, disappearances, killings, targeting the independent media, suspending the Constitution, declaring martial law, and threatening the Brazilian embassy’s sovereignty where President Manuel Zelaya took refuge after returning.

In one of her many pro-coup articles, O’Grady (on July 13) headlined “Why Honduras Sent Zelaya Away.” In a “perfect world,” according to her, he “would be in jail in his own country right now, awaiting trial. The Honduran attorney general (part of the coup regime) has charged him with deliberately violating Honduran law and the Supreme Court (stacked with pro-coup justices) ordered his arrest in Tegucigalpa on June 28,” the day of the coup.

“But the Honduran military whisked him out of the country, to Costa Rica,” to save itself the embarrassment of jailing a democratically elected leader whose lawful actions were endorsed by the majority of Hondurans wanting progressive constitutional change and a president willing to give it to them.

Yet according to O’Grady, “Mr. Zelaya’s detention was legal, as was his official removal from office by Congress….Besides eagerly trampling the constitution, Mr. Zelaya had demonstrated that he was ready to employ the violent tactics of ‘chavismo’ to hang onto power. The decision to pack him off immediately was taken in the interest of protecting both constitutional order and human life.”

In fact, Zelaya neither espoused or practiced violence, and his call for a public June 28 vote on whether to hold a referendum for a new Constitutional Convention at the same time as the November elections lawfully asked for a “yes” or “no” on one question:

“Do you think that the November 2009 general elections should include a fourth ballot box (the other three were for candidates) in order to make a decision about the creation of a National Constitutional Assembly that would approve a new Constitution?”

According to Article 5 of the 2006 Honduran “Civil Participation Act,” government officials may hold non-binding inquiries (referenda) to determine popular support for proposed measures. Gauging sentiment for a National Constituent Assembly for a new Constitution is legal.

Yet in her June 28 article titled, “Honduras Defends Its Democracy,” O’Grady falsely claimed Zelaya planned “a constitutional rewrite (following) a national referendum” only the Congress can approve. In fact, Zelaya called for a vote to assess public sentiment, pro or con, on whether Hondurans want a Constitutional Convention, an act no different from a public opinion poll that’s perfectly legal or should be anywhere. But according to O’Grady, Zelaya “decided he would run the referendum himself.” It’s typical O’Grady truth reversal that earns her weekly space on the WSJ’s op-ed page.

The BBC’s Long Tradition As An Imperial Tool

State-owned and funded, it’s tradition is long, unbroken, and disturbing as the world’s largest and most influential broadcaster reaching global audiences in 32 languages. From inception in 1925, it’s been reliably pro-government and pro-business, or as its founder Lord Reith wrote the establishment: “They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.” Neither he or his successors disappointed on topics mattering most, including war and peace, corporate crimes, US-UK duplicity, labor rights, democratic freedoms, human and civil rights, social justice, and Western imperialism.

They’re consistently distorted, suppressed, marginalized or ignored throughout decades of misreporting despite claiming “honesty (and) integrity (is) what the BBC stands for (because it’s) free from political influence and commercial pressure.”

As a propaganda service, its record is uncompromisingly anti-union, pro-business, and dependably safe for Whitehall and its allies. It moralizes Western aggression, bashes independent democratic leaders, and cheerleads for the powerful at the expense of providing real news and information for millions believing BBC is credible. For over eight decades, it’s record is solid and predictable – betraying the public trust to reliably serve the powerful. The tradition continues.

Prominent TV Demagogues

Among the many, consider a select few. For example, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, “Mr. Independent” he calls himself. Critics use more descriptive terms, yet according to his loudobbs.tv.cnn.com bio:

He’s “anchor and managing editor of CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight (and also anchor of) a nationally syndicated financial news radio report, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report….” In addition, he writes a weekly CNN.com commentary, is an author and award-winning “journalist,” most recently in 2005 when “the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences awarded (him) the Emmy for Lifetime Achievement” for serving the usual special interests nightly on prime time TV.

In June 2004, he also won “the Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration from the Center for Immigration Studies for his ongoing series ‘Broken Borders,’ which examines US policy towards illegal immigration.” Little wonder in an August 2006 article, this writer called him CNN’s Vice President of Racism. He’s also a paid liar and in America wins awards.

In May 2008, a Media Matters Action Network report titled, “Fear & Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News” highlighted undocumented Latino hatemongering by Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck, each claiming:

– an alleged connection between undocumented Latinos and crime; in fact, clear evidence shows they’re no more likely to break laws than American citizens;

– how they exploit social services and don’t pay taxes; in fact, undocumented immigrants are ineligible, without proof of legal status, for Medicaid, food stamps, State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) and welfare; they do pay income, payroll, property, sales and other taxes and are entitled to public education; according to the National Academy of Sciences, immigrants provide a net annual gain of up to $10 billion to US GDP; according to Rand Corp. economist James P. Smith, the “net present value of the gains from those immigrants who arrived since 1980 would be $333 billion.”

– the “reconquista” myth about a supposed Mexican plot to take over the US Southwest; and

– an epidemic of Latino voter fraud that, according to Dobbs’ incessant drumbeat, puts America’s “democracy absolutely in jeopardy.”

He also propagates the myth that undocumented Latinos caused an increase in US leprosy (or Hansen’s disease). In an on-air April 2005 report (among others), correspondent Christine Romans quoted “medical lawyer” Dr. Madeleine Cosman saying:

“We have some enormous problems with horrendous diseases that are being brought into America by illegal aliens (including) leprosy….” Romans added that, according to Cosman, “there were about 900 (US) cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years.”

According to a May 2007 “60 Minutes” report, the National Hansen’s Disease Program (NHDP) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that “7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three, and nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants.” NHDP added that from 2002 – 2005 (the timeline of Cosman’s claim), only 398 cases occurred. To that, Dobbs responded: “If we reported it, it’s a fact.”

Founded in 1971, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is internationally known for its activism against hate groups and scoring legal victories against white supremacists. It says Dobbs regularly features inaccurate racist reports and features anti-immigrant hatemongers like:

– Glenn Spencer, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, whose web site highlights anti-Mexican vitriol and the idea that Mexico plans a secret takeover of the Southwest;

– Joe McCutchen, head of the anti-immigration Protect Arkansas Now group, that Dobbs calls “a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans;”

– Paul Streitz, co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, who once denounced Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. for “turning New Haven into a banana republic;”

– Barbara Coe, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform who routinely calls Mexicans “savages;” and

– Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman Project and a leading anti-immigration figure.

SPLC explains that Dobbs “doggedly explores and supports the anti-immigration movement (and) won’t report salient negative facts about anti-immigration leaders he approves of….”

Instead, he falsely claims that:

– “just about a third of the prison population in this country is estimated to be illegal aliens;”

– states have been “overwhelmed by criminal illegal aliens;” and

– US borders are “unprotected” allowing “criminal illegal aliens (to) murder police officers.”

In 2007 alone, the connection between illegal immigration and crime was discussed on 94 episodes of Lou Dobbs Tonight, and dozens more focused on an “army of invaders,” immigrants not paying taxes, draining social services, and threatening our white Anglo-Saxon culture.

CNN reporters Casey Wian, Bill Tucker, Kitty Pilgrim and others present a steady diet of subtle and overt racism to incite viewers to believe it. Through constant repetition, it propagates the myth, and according to the Media Matters Action Network report:

Dobbs “is hailed by the entire spectrum of immigration opponents, from the reasonable to the unreasonable. And the degree to which extremist elements see (him) as an ally indicates at the very least that they believe he is helping their cause” because they feel he’s a populist crusader.

Yet according to a July 30 New York Observer report, recent Nielsen data showed that after Dobbs began reporting (on July 15) that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulent (an apparent stunt to increase ratings), his viewership dropped significantly – 15% overall and 27% in the valued 25 – 54 age category.

Fox News Channel (FNC)

When it debuted in 1996, one of its on-air hosts said:

The “Channel was launched (because) something was wrong with news media….somewhere bias found its way into reporting….Fox….is committed to being fair and balanced (covering) stories everybody is reporting – and….stories….you will see only on Fox.”

Later the Columbia Journalism Review said several former Fox employees “complained of ‘management sticking their fingers’ in the writing and editing stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes.” But it hasn’t hurt ratings.

As of Q 1 2009, FNC was the second highest rated cable channel in prime time total viewers. CNN ranked 17th and MSNBC 24th. The O’Reilly Factor has been #1 rated on cable news for 100 consecutive months and gained 27% more viewers year-over-year. Glenn Beck increased 90% over the previous year. Overall, FNC topped CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time total audience.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) said “Fox’s signature political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume (now with Bret Baier) was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal.” In the past year, it gained 39% more viewers.

As for accuracy and being “fair and balanced,” FAIR (in summer 2001) called FNC “The Most Biased Name in News,” yet according to Murdoch in March 2001:

“I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel.”

In FAIR’s Seth Ackerman article and later ones, FNC’s blatant manipulation of the news is exposed. For example, Bret Baier’s “Political Grapevine” is a right-wing “hot sheet” featuring a “series of gossipy items culled from other right-wing” sources. It and other reports are blatantly partisan propaganda against “liberal media bias,” progressives, environmentalists, anti-war activists, civil rights groups, and others to the left of their views.

According to FAIR, the commentary on political punditry programs like The O’Reilly Factor, the Sean Hannity Show, and The Beltway Boys is so slanted that it’s like watching “a Harlem Globetrotters game (knowing) which side is supposed to win.”

FNC’s Bill O’Reilly

His official bio calls The O’Reilly Factor “a unique blend of news analysis and hard hitting investigative reporting dropped each weeknight into ‘The No Spin Zone.” He also hosts a syndicated radio show, writes a weekly column carried in over 300 newspapers, and authored several books that according to New York Times writer Janet Maslin were “either (done) with a collaborator or (O’Reilly) was born with a ghostwriter’s gift for filling space with platitudes….” With good reason, Maslin called him “one of the most controversial human beings in the world….”

In an October 2008 report titled “Smearcasting,” FAIR called him an “Islamophobe” for spreading “fear, bigotry and misinformation” along with 11 other popular figures, including Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin (another FNC regular), David Horowitz, and Pat Robertson.

After 9/11, FAIR said O’Reilly proposed attacking a list of Muslim countries “if they did not submit to the US – starting with Afghanistan.”

On air he said:

“The US should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble – the airport, the power plants, their water facilities and the roads….If they don’t rise up against this primitive country, they starve, period.”

Iraq must also be destroyed he said, and “the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain.” As for Libya, “Nothing goes in, nothing goes out….Let them eat sand.”

FAIR called his penchant for attacking Muslim countries “an O’Reilly trademark”, and “his disregard for Muslim civilians is matched by the anti-Muslim sentiments he frequently expresses on both his nationally syndicated radio show, the Radio Factor,” reaching 3.5 million listeners, and his top-rated FNC show.

Some of his hateful comments include saying:

– areas of London are “just packed with just dense Muslim neighborhoods, which breed this kind of contempt for Western society. Why do they let them in;”

– “We’re at war with Muslim fanatics. So all young Muslims should be subject to (special) scrutiny, (saying it’s not racial, just) “criminal profiling;”

– “the most unattractive women in the world are probably in Muslim countries;” and

– in Iraq, he blamed killing on Islam: “They’re all Muslims, and they’re doing what they do. They’re killing each other. And they’re killing Americans.”

O’Reilly is equally racist about Latino immigrants with frequent comments like:

“The extreme elements in this country want open borders, blanket amnesty, and entitlement for foreign nationals who have come here illegally, and generally want to change the demographics in the USA so political power can be assumed by the left. That is the end game.” He also argues that “Low-skilled immigrant labor costs the taxpayers today $19,000 to (subsidize) people who are using the hospitals (and) the education system….These are rock-solid stats,” but O’Reilly won’t say from where.

They’re blatantly false and may be from a May 2007 Robert Rector/Christine Kim (right-wing think tank) Heritage Foundation paper titled, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers.”

O’Reilly spreads daily misinformation, innuendo, and hateful demagoguery to millions of his daily faithful. Like the others above, they’re paid liars delivering what passes for today’s major media journalism. It’s why so much of the public is misinformed and the reason more hate groups than ever proliferate.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), they numbered 926 in 2008, up from 602 in 2000 and are “animated by the national immigration debate.” Since Obama took office, they’re also driven by their hatred of a black president, exacerbated by a growing economic crisis that’s easy to blame on the undocumented and a non-white head of state.

These groups are ideologically vicious and extremely dangerous when motivated by racist right-wing media commentators reaching far larger audiences than more saner voices drowned out. It’s more evidence of social decay and the urgent need for change.

The Right-Wing Media Attack ACORN

Founded in 1970, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) “is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low and moderate income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in about 75 cities across the country.”

As the nation’s preeminent community organizing group, it backs a living wage, opposes predatory lending and foreclosures, supports affordable housing, better public schools, welfare reform, voting rights, rebuilding New Orleans, and other social and economic justice issues.

For many months as a result, right-wing extremists have tried to discredit its successes online and through the media. Led by Fox News, Lou Dobbs, and others, it’s accused of financial corruption, massive voter fraud, and other indiscretions, mostly fabricated to destroy the group’s credibility, cut off its funding, and harm other community organizing efforts. However, compared to corporate fraud and abuse scandals, ACORN’s occasional missteps are minor, insignificant, and undeserving of inflammatory media headlines.

Nonetheless recent news stories featured false accusations that ACORN engages in prostitution nationwide. The supposed evidence came from two right-wing filmmakers (Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe) posing as prostitute and pimp, conveniently videotaped for airing. In prime time especially, Fox News, Lou Dobbs and others featured it nightly.

On September 14, Dobbs reported “another pimp and prostitute scandal at the left-wing activist organization ACORN. For the third time, ACORN workers for the left-wing advocacy group (got) caught on hidden camera breaking the law. Now calls from Congress to investigate and cut off public funding are growing.”

According to Fox News Bill O’Reilly, “With more than 30 criminal ‘convictions’ on its resume, the organization cannot be trusted.” Based on no credible evidence, other FNC reports accuse ACORN of “operat(ing) as a criminal enterprise,” including prostitution, running a prostitution ring, filing false documents with taxing and other government authorities, bank fraud, violating immigration laws, transporting women and children to America for immoral purposes, and impairing the welfare of minors.

More evidence of reprehensible innuendo, distortion, deceit, and misinformation from major media paid liars. It’s why web sites like this one gain followers.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen.blogspot.com.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:28 PM
The Layman’s Guide to Mind Control (http://solari.com/blog/?p=5960)

Catherine (http://solari.com/blog/?cat=26) and The Solari Report (http://solari.com/blog/?cat=39),
February 4, 2010 at 3:02 pm

http://solari.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/mcgraphiccom1.jpg (http://solari.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/mcgraphiccom1.jpg)

“Your greatest weapon is in your enemy’s mind.”
-The Buddha
Who controls your mind? Is it you? Or is it someone who wants to control you or profit at your expense?

Are your opinions determined by your assessment of the important facts in a given situation? Or are they manipulated by subtle broadcast techniques spawned by billions of dollars of research on how to get you to act against your own best interest?
Are you spending years and thousands of dollars getting an education that gives you an accurate picture of how the world works? Or are you learning a history created by the “winners” – a history that was intentionally designed to serve the future control of a hidden oligarchy at your expense?
Do you keep choosing leaders that have been credentialed and promoted by private interests to engineer the destruction of your rights and the theft of your assets? Why?
Are your thinking and your ability to act deteriorating as a result of intentional promotion of destructive agendas by means of vaccines, processed foods, water fluoridation, pharmaceuticals and chemtrails? Are you lured by false promises of financial reward, inclusion, and social prestige into promoting these and other harmful substances or pretending they are not a problem?
When you choose vendors for your business, is it because they offer the best services with integrity or because they use entrainment and subliminal programming on phone calls without your knowledge? Does their understanding of your business reflect trap doors that they have illegally included in the software programs they sold you or high tech eavesdropping of your internal meetings? Have they planted someone in your business who works for them to “manage” your opinions from the inside?

When your children consume violence on TV and in video games, are they being entertained? Could it be that they are being programmed with the same methods that the intelligence community has used to train assassins to be comfortable with killing?
Were you persuaded to support gun control as a consequence of school shootings by children? Have you considered that some or all of those children may have been “Manchurian candidates,” programmed for covert operations? Indeed, the history of using children for assassination and covert operations is centuries old, including by American military and intelligence agencies.
When you moved your mother from a government subsidized rent-controlled apartment to government assisted living managed by the same property manager and real estate investment fund, was it because her mental acuity had deteriorated simply as part of the aging process? Or was it due to poisons or electromagnetic weaponry arranged by the landlord with the help of a private security firm to increase profitability per elderly tenant by engineering an accelerated deterioration?

Mind control is one of those topics often excluded from polite conversation. It requires us to face the fact that we and the people we love are being manipulated by something that our current education and social status - and even local law enforcement - may not be able to protect us from. It is a topic that can be overwhelming, even terrifying.
Yet the first step toward protecting ourselves is to be able to understand our environment, make decisions clearly, and act in our own best interest - even organize with others to do so.
As unnerving as learning about it can be, mind control is a topic essential to your health and safety. To protect yourself, you must protect your mind and maintain an accurate map of the world around you – including the ways that others are trying to use your mind as a weapon against you.
The good news is that learning about mind control also involves discovering your mind’s extraordinary power - a positive step towards using your mental powers to serve your purpose and act in the highest and best interest of all concerned.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:30 PM
Media Disinformation in America

You Can Say Anything You Want — As Long As It Doesn't Have Any Effect

by William Blum

Global Research, February 7, 2010
The Anti-Empire Report - 2010-02-06

"In America You Can Say Anything You Want — As Long As It Doesn't Have Any Effect." - Paul Goodman

Progressive activists and writers continually bemoan the fact that the news they generate and the opinions they express are consistently ignored by the mainstream media, and thus kept from the masses of the American people. This disregard of progressive thought is tantamount to a definition of the mainstream media. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy; it's a matter of who owns the mainstream media and the type of journalists they hire — men and women who would like to keep their jobs; so it's more insidious than a conspiracy, it's what's built into the system, it's how the system works. The disregard of the progressive world is of course not total; at times some of that world makes too good copy to ignore, and, on rare occasions, progressive ideas, when they threaten to become very popular, have to be countered.

So it was with Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Here's Barry Gewen an editor at the New York Times Book Review, June 5, 2005 writing of Zinn's book and others like it:

There was a unifying vision, but it was simplistic. Since the victims and losers were good, it followed that the winners were bad. From the point of view of downtrodden blacks, America was racist; from the point of view of oppressed workers, it was exploitative; from the point of view of conquered Hispanics and Indians, it was imperialistic. There was much to condemn in American history, little or nothing to praise. ... Whereas the Europeans who arrived in the New World were genocidal predators, the Indians who were already there believed in sharing and hospitality (never mind the profound cultural differences that existed among them), and raped Africa was a continent overflowing with kindness and communalism (never mind the profound cultural differences that existed there).

One has to wonder whether Mr. Gewen thought that all the victims of the Holocaust were saintly and without profound cultural differences.

Prominent American historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. once said of Zinn: "I know he regards me as a dangerous reactionary. And I don't take him very seriously. He's a polemicist, not a historian."

In the obituaries that followed Zinn's death, this particular defamation was picked up around the world, from the New York Times, Washington Post, and the leading American wire services to the New Zealand Herald and Korea Times.

Regarding reactionaries and polemicists, it is worth noting that Mr. Schlesinger, as a top advisor to President John F. Kennedy, played a key role in the overthrow of Cheddi Jagan, the democratically-elected progressive prime minister of British Guiana (now Guyana). In 1990, at a conference in New York City, Schlesinger publicly apologized to Jagan, saying: "I felt badly about my role thirty years ago. I think a great injustice was done to Cheddi Jagan." [1] This is to Schlesinger's credit, although the fact that Jagan was present at the conference may have awakened his conscience after 30 years. Like virtually all the American historians of the period who were granted attention and respect by the mainstream media, Schlesinger was a cold warrior. Those like Zinn who questioned the basic suppositions of the Cold War abroad, and capitalism at home, were regarded as polemicists.

One of my favorite Howard Zinn quotes: "The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright lying. It is omission or de-emphasis of important data. The definition of 'important', of course, depends on one's values." [2] A People's History and his other writings can be seen as an attempt to make up for the omissions and under-emphases of America's dark side in American history books and media.

Haiti, Aristide, and ideology

It's a good thing the Haitian government did virtually nothing to help its people following the earthquake; otherwise it would have been condemned as "socialist" by Fox News, Sarah Palin, the teabaggers, and other right-thinking Americans. The last/only Haitian leader strongly committed to putting the welfare of the Haitian people before that of the domestic and international financial mafia was President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Being of a socialist persuasion, Aristide was, naturally, kept from power by the United States — twice; first by Bill Clinton, then by George W. Bush, the two men appointed by President Obama to head the earthquake relief effort. Naturally.

Aristide, a reformist priest, was elected to the presidency, then ousted in a military coup eight months later in 1991 by men on the CIA payroll. Ironically, the ousted president wound up in exile in the United States. In 1994 the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend — because of all their rhetoric about "democracy" — that they supported the democratically-elected Aristide's return to power. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that after his term ended he would not remain in office to make up the time lost because of the coup; that he would not seek to help the poor at the expense of the rich, literally; and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving starvation wages, literally. If Aristide had thoughts about breaking the agreement forced upon him, he had only to look out his window — US troops were stationed in Haiti for the remainder of his term. [3]

On February 28, 2004, during the Bush administration, American military and diplomatic personnel arrived at the home of Aristide, who had been elected to the presidency once again in 2002, to inform him that his private American security agents must either leave immediately to return to the United States or fight and die; that the remaining 25 of the American security agents hired by the Haitian government, who were to arrive the next day, had been blocked by the United States from coming; that foreign and Haitian rebels were nearby, heavily armed, determined and ready to kill thousands of people in a bloodbath. Aristide was then pressured into signing a "letter of resignation" before being kidnaped and flown to exile in Africa by the United States. [4] The leaders and politicians of the world who pontificate endlessly about "democracy" and "self-determination" had virtually nothing to say about this breathtaking act of international thuggery. Indeed, France and Canada were active allies of the United States in pressing Aristide to leave. [5]

And then US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the sincerest voice he could muster, told the world that Aristide "was not kidnaped. We did not force him onto the airplane. He went onto the airplane willingly. And that's the truth." [6] Powell sounded as sincere as he had sounded a year earlier when he gave the UN his now-famous detailed inventory of the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that Saddam Hussein was preparing to use.

Howard Zinn is quoted above saying "The chief problem in historical honesty is not outright lying. It is omission or de-emphasis of important data." However, that doesn't mean the American mainstream media don't create or perpetuate myths. Here's the New York Times two months ago: "Mr. Aristide, who was overthrown during a 2004 rebellion ..." [7] Now what image does the word "rebellion" conjure up in your mind? The Haitian people rising up to throw off the shackles put on them by a dictatorship? Or something staged by the United States?

Aristide has stated that he was able to determine at that crucial moment that the "rebels" were white and foreign. [8] But even if they had been natives, why did Colin Powell not explain why the United States disbanded Aristide's personal security forces? Why did he not explain why the United States was not protecting Aristide from the rebels, which the US could have done with the greatest of ease, without so much as firing a single shot? Nor did he explain why Aristide would "willingly" give up his presidency.

The massive US military deployment to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake has been criticized in various quarters as more of an occupation than a relief mission, with the airport in the capital city now an American military base, and with American forces blocking various aid missions from entering the country in order, apparently, to serve Washington's own logistical agenda. But the large military presence can also serve to facilitate two items on Washington's political agenda — preventing Haitians from trying to emigrate by sea to the United States and keeping a lid on the numerous supporters of Aristide lest they threaten to take power once again.

That which can not be spoken

"The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction," writes Fareed Zakaria, a leading American foreign-policy pundit, editor of Newsweekmagazine's international edition, and Washington Post columnist, referring to the "underwear bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and his failed attempt to blow up a US airliner on Christmas day. "Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population. Terrorism is an unusual military tactic in that it depends on the response of the onlookers. If we are not terrorized, then the attack didn't work. Alas, this one worked very well." [9]

Is that not odd? That an individual would try to take the lives of hundreds of people, including his own, primarily to "provoke an overreaction", or to "sow fear"? Was there not any kind of deep-seated grievance or resentment with anything or anyone American being expressed? No perceived wrong he wished to make right? Nothing he sought to obtain revenge for? Why is the United States the most common target of terrorists? Such questions were not even hinted at in Zakaria's article.

At a White House press briefing concerning the same failed terrorist attack, conducted by Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan, veteran reporter Helen Thomas raised a question:

Thomas: "What is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm. ... What is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why."

Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. ... [They] attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that [they're] able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."

Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"

Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."

Thomas: "Why?"

Brennan: "I think ... this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."

Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." [10]

American officials rarely even make the attempt to explain why. And American journalists rarely press them to explain why; certainly not like Helen Thomas does.

And just what is it that has such difficulty crossing the lips of these officials? It is the idea that anti-American terrorists become anti-American terrorists to retaliate for what the United States has done to countries or people close to them or what Israel has done to them with unequivocal American support.

Osama bin Laden, in an audiotape, also commented about Abdulmutallab: "The message we wanted you to receive through him is that America shall not dream about security until we witness it in Palestine." [11]

We have as well the recent case of Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor-turned-suicide bomber, who killed seven CIA employees at a base in Afghanistan December 30. His widow later declared: "I am proud of him. ... My husband did this against the U.S. invasion." Balawi himself had written on the Internet: "I have never wished to be in Gaza, but now I wish to be a ... car bomb that takes the lives of the biggest number of Jews to hell." [12]

It should be noted that the CIA base attacked by Balawi was heavily involved in the selection of targets for the Agency's remote-controlled aircraft along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a program that killed more than 300 people in the previous year. [13]

There are numerous examples of terrorists citing American policies as the prime motivation behind their acts [14], so many that American officials, when discussing the newest terrorist attack, have to tread carefully to avoid mentioning the role of US foreign policy; and journalists typically fail to bring this point home to their reader's consciousness.

It works the same all over the world. In the period of the 1950s to the 1980s in Latin America, in response to a long string of hateful Washington policies, there were countless acts of terrorism against US diplomatic and military targets as well as the offices of US corporations.

The US bombing, invasion, occupation and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, and the continuing Israeli-US genocide against the Palestinians have created an army of new anti-American terrorists. We'll be hearing from them for a terribly long time. And we'll be hearing American officials twist themselves into intellectual and moral knots as they try to avoid confronting these facts.

In his "State of the Union" address on January 27, President Obama said: "But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

Well, ending America's many wars would free up enough money to do anything a rational, humane society would want to do. Eliminating the military budget would pay for free medical care for everyone. Free university education for everyone. Creating a government public works project that could provide millions of decently-paid jobs, like repairing the decrepit infrastructure and healing the environment to the best of our ability. You can add your own favorite projects. All covered, just by ending the damn wars. Imagine that.


The Nation, June 4, 1990, pp.763-4

"Failure to Quit: Reflections of an Optimistic Historian" (1993), p.30


Statement of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, March 5, 2004, from exile in the Central African Republic, Pacific News Service (San Francisco); David Swanson, "What Bush Did to Haiti", January 18, 2010; William Blum, "Rogue State", pp.219-20)

Miami Herald, March 1, 2004

CNN, March 1, 2004

New York Times, November 27, 2009

Aristide statement, op. cit.

Newsweek, January 18, 2010, online January 9

White House press briefing, January 7, 2010

ABC News, January 25, 2010

Associated Press, January 7, 2010

Washington Post, January 1, 2010

Rogue State, chapter 1, "Why do terrorists keep picking on the United States?"; this chapter ends in 2005; some later examples can be provided by the author.

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, and Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:33 PM
Web Sites Being Blocked
Censoring the Internet: Moves to silence dissent?
By Barry Napier Wednesday, February 10, 2010

I know for a fact that access to my own website is blocked by many colleges and libraries in the UK, who put me on their ‘proscribed’ list for my non-PC views. But, at least there are other ways to access it. I can put up with this kind of childish game… but there now appears to be a different, deadly-serious game afoot – the complete silencing of dissent on the internet.

It is almost impossible to see dissent displayed in other media, who tend to stick to popularist and government lines. In this way, the current social movement is determined not by the people but by small bullying groups with vested interests. Right now these are leftist, immoral, anti-religionist, Marxist and Fascist. The few are intimidating and controling everyone else.

Until now, the internet has been a refuge, the only place you will find alternative views and opposition to enforced opinions. We have seen this most recently in the matter of climate change, though there are other nasty movements that are opposed on the internet.
Web Sites Being Blocked

Reports are flying around on the internet - until they are stopped - that many sites providing dissident views are not just being blocked but may also be closed down. Some years ago, Asian sites providing blatantly awful sexual images and really bad sexual text, were closed down by Singapore authorities, because youngsters could access the internet and be badly affected. Frankly, I agreed with this. I also agree with those who say such sites should be placed in a special hard-to-reach section of the internet, where access can only be provided to those who deliberately seek-out such disgusting stuff, by going through a process of registration. Yes, this is a form of censorship, but there cannot be total free speech. Everyone knows that, because some things are just too vile to be given ready access. Jihad sites promoting head-chopping are just one example.

But, when it comes to voicing legitimate views about politics and religion, etc., there should be no ban. Only those who wish to tighten their grip with fake theories will resort to controlling the internet for these reasons! They are afraid of alternative views and want to retain power, so they clamp down with false legal prerogatives. The wolves are trying to silence the lambs!

It is now claimed that the printed media, through governments, are considering the ban of all sites publishing political and socially inconvenient material that could take away support from them. There is talk of an ‘Internet 2’ being installed, to replace the current internet. The UN would never admit to it, but given its Marxist structure and intentions, it is not beyond imagination for it to act that way. This isn’t ‘conspiracy theory’ – it is based on hard facts already known to us about the UN, Obama and other politicians like Gordon Brown, who try their very best to omit any opposition from the media.
Free Speech Sites Blocked

In the first week of February, Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com were blocked to readers in New Zealand. The block was removed when the sites made formal complaints. The blocking was done by ISPs using Asia Netcom for international traffic. (infowars.com 8th Feb).

The site receives regular emails from readers, who say the Infowar site is blocked to them. The reason given is ‘hate speech’ or ‘offensive material’. These are the same ‘reasons’ given for blocking my own site in the UK, by academic and library sites, by local councils, by ISPs (Internet Service Providers), and also by routers (who act as go-betweens). Yet, like similar sites, all I am doing is providing alternatives to current social and political propaganda!

A major railway station in the UK, St Pancras, used by millions of international travellers every year, blocks Prison Planet and Infowars and other political sites. MySpace also blocks such sites. And I have known Google to block mention of my name and work on many occasions, depending on the topic! Most of the time these blocks are not known to the websites who are blocked. Many months or even years can elapse before they discover large sections of surfers are precluded from reading their material. Very often, a complaint will resolve the situation… but this is not the point. The point is that websites with valid opinions and views are being censored because owners of ISPs and major sites do not like what is being said.

Time Warner subscribers in California were also barred from reading Infowars and Prison Planet material until readers complained. The UK’s Tiscali blocked the sites after the 7/7 bombings in London, though everyone had a right to be horrified and disgusted by Islamic extremism, and to say so publicly. As Infowars said “the fact that ISPs can selectively block certain websites at the flick of a switch, gives us a frightening preview of what a Chinese-style government regulated internet would look like, which is exactly what influential insiders are calling for.” It is what Obama wants. The UK Labour Party wants the same thing. So does the EU and UN.
Microsoft Involved?

At a Davos Economic Forum, the Chief Research and Strategy Officer for Microsoft said that ‘the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers’ licenses – in other words, government permission to use the web.’ (blog.seattlepi.com) Yes, it is easy to say that this is only theorizing… but Obama is presently slamming the US with his socialist ‘theorizing’, which is destroying the country as a whole!

Google is very pro-green (because of the financial rewards). Though I have requested instant updates when my name or my books are mentioned on the internet, I get nothing routinely about them! Instead, I have to do searches. This applies in particular to anti-green material I produce.

Laws are being formulated in the UK, Australia and US, to ban anything government considers to be ‘undesirable for public consumption’. In the UK, for example, anyone who even queries the normality or morality of homosexuality can be hauled before the courts. The same applies if anyone mentions Islam in a poor light. In both cases, expressing a legitimate opinion is called ‘hate speech’ and the law is used to full effect! The same can easily be done for political and religious material. Socialists cannot stand alternatives to their party thinking. And it is socialists who want bans on the internet. Do I have any respect for socialism? Nope. None at all.

Cass Sunstein has called on Obama to ban internet sites that host non-socialist views, or, a tax, on anything government does not like (Prison Planet, Jan 14th, 2010). As I keep on saying, this is outright Marxism and Fascism in operation. It is going on under your noses… but who will stand and fight? You might think banning a website is no great shakes. But, wait until the same laws are used against you if you say something in the street. Wait for the single-party country as a form of police control! Then, it will be too late.

Laughably, Sunstein wants to ban ‘conspiracy theorizing’. But, if he does that, the theories will prove to be real! In the Infowars site’s comments section, someone said that if Infowars wants to stop Sunstein barring views he doesn’t like, then it is no better than Sunstein. Hardly. Sunstein et al want to ban what does not serve them well, and that promotes only a socialist outlook. People like us only want to ban the banners from banning! Rather different.
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-2010

This UK Bill is currently waiting to be ratified and has just been through the House of Lords for approval. Bear in mind that the Labour government wants to put chains on the internet, to stop anti-socialist material being published. Part of the governments slyness is to allow as many immigrants into the UK as possible (most of them Muslim), because polls show that 80% of them invariably vote for Labour, who are pro-immigration. The hatefulness within Islam does not concern greedy MPs, who only want to keep their seats and therefore their unearned incomes and expenses. Anything that will remove opposition is an acceptable activity!

In the White Paper, ‘Digital Britain’, published June 2009, government wants to extend the role of the government media watchdog, Ofcom, so that it can report on the ‘communications infrastructure and media content’. It also talks about ISPs actively stopping copyright infringement, when it is really the job of those who are infringed. The Bill would also allow the Secretary of State to intervene in internet domain name registration.

As I have said before, don’t just look at the exact wording of laws. Look at their potential to make that wording into huge precedents. Generally, the looser the wording, the more opportunity there is to create precedent. The tighter the language used, the less opportunity there is to make any changes. It is the very words of a law that allow further changes to society to be made.
Obama and the Internet

Obama hates the internet, because it is the one thing he cannot presently control. “The Obama administration has moved quietly to cede control of the Web from the United States to foreign powers.” (Newsmax, 31st Jan., 2010).

“The key to the control America has over the internet is through the management of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the giant servers that service the internet.” (Newsmax). Notice the inclusion of domain names in the proposed new UK law? Domain names are managed through the IANA (The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority). Without an IAN nobody could operate on the internet, or even receive or send emails.

I wonder who this proposed ‘foreign power’ might be? Oh, you’ll never guess! It is the UN!! “The ‘international community’… want an international body such as the United Nations… to manage all aspects of the internet on behalf of all nations.” In ordinary language that means socialism will control anything it does not like, such as anti-socialism, including religious, political, freedom and morality sites.
Media Moguls

We all know that paper news is dwindling as the internet assumes poll place in providing news and comments. So, when a major media hitter such as Rupert Murdoch says “The current days of the internet will soon be over”, we should ask why he should say it.

In other reports I have told of the biggest media companies taking control of all media output. It is already part of UN structure and the structure of the environmental scam. Now, readers of news on some established media sites, such as newspapers, have to pay a fee to read items. It is but a short step for the moguls, who are real forces behind any government, to push for control of the internet. Whether this is under the flag of the UN or any other organisation does not really matter, because the real power is in the hands of big money.

Fees to read articles on the biggest newspaper websites are already proposed by Murdoch and other owners, so we can expect not to access their pages unless we pay fees. This will happen sometime in the next few months or so. (prisonplanet.com 7th May 2009). In this way, the moguls can easily control not just readership, but also dissemination of information.
Silencing Opinion

YouTube has been systematically pruning its site, so that user-contributions are marginalized and big-time media offerings are put on show (income!). Therefore, if these big-timers don’t like certain user-videos, they will be pulled, as is now happening. In particular, anything seen as anti-Muslim is banned or pulled. Same will soon happen with anti-green.

As readership of physical publications dwindles and internet readership grows, the big media companies and papers will charge for access to their newspapers online. But, by doing this they will lose readers! It does not really matter, though, because they will just find other ways to increase revenue. They will also call unanimously for world-control of the internet. Because they are the faceless few behind the financing of everything, they will then control internet content and boost their own incomes. Easy. That is why they want a phasing out of the present system, to be replaced by ‘Internet 2’.

This is socialism in action. It is the silencing of opinion, views and even truth. Money, and the power it engenders, rules. What you say doesn’t count. The recent Superbowl ad by Audi, spoofing Green Police, was funny on a very superficial level… but not to those of us who see it as a very real parody of something already happening in the world today. What better way to get socialist rule accepted? Humour has often been used to ‘soften the edges’ of immorality, social thuggery and economic disaster. But, it isn’t funny.
South Carolina Legislation

Under the title ‘South Carolina Code of Laws (unannotated) Current Through the End of the 2009 Session’, we have ‘Title 23 – Law Enforcement and Public Safety’. (scstatehouse.gov).

Chapter 29 deals with the ‘Subversive Activities Registration Act’. Section 23-29-20 defines what is covered by the Act. It includes organisations that want to overthrow the government by force or unlawful means. Seems okay, except that what is meant by ‘unlawful means’ and ‘force’ becomes crucial. Such organisations include those funded from overseas. This works well with Islamic terrorism… but what about websites that oppose government? The possibility of these being included will be seen in the exact wording of the law. If it is vague at points, or if ‘unlawful means’ and ‘force’ are not fully described, then the possibility (or probability) of a precedent to include websites is a very real threat. Yes, it is the old ‘precedent’ problem again.

Section 23-29-30 claims that freedom of speech is not included amongst those groups to be affected by the law. However, the paragraph that deals with this talks of the freedom “guaranteed by the Constitution”. When looking at this we must acknowledge that Obama cares nothing for the Constitution and has even said he wants to be rid of it. He has not allowed the people to gain legitimate access to his birth certificate nor to any other of his files. So, what trust can we place in this South Carolina legislative language?

The new law seems fine. And so it would be in normal days when there is freedom of information and expression. But, where Obama has a Czar who wants to silence opposition, there is plenty of room for speculation and fear of total socialist clamp-down. It is what Obama has so far done the best: no real political progress, only real oppression and repression. Once the Carolina bill is passed, it will be relatively simple to alter the definitions of one or two vital words, so that websites can be obliterated and taken to court.

Yes, these are my own conclusions. Yes, they are not fully based on what is, universally, but on what could come to be (though the reality is already seen in the UK). As I have said before, just join the dots! Otherwise – and if we don’t speak out – publications such as Canada Free Press may not be around for much longer, much to the delight of all who want to remove our freedoms.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:36 PM
The Lobbying-Media Complex

By Sebastian Jones

February 12, 2010 "The Nation" -- President Obama spent most of December 4 touring Allentown, Pennsylvania, meeting with local workers and discussing the economic crisis. A few hours later, the state's former governor, Tom Ridge, was on MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews, offering up his own recovery plan. There were "modest things" the White House might try, like cutting taxes or opening up credit for small businesses, but the real answer was for the president to "take his green agenda and blow it out of the box." The first step, Ridge explained, was to "create nuclear power plants." Combined with some waste coal and natural gas extraction, you would have an "innovation setter" that would "create jobs, create exports."

As Ridge counseled the administration to "put that package together," he sure seemed like an objective commentator. But what viewers weren't told was that since 2005, Ridge has pocketed $530,659 in executive compensation for serving on the board of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company. As of March 2009, he also held an estimated $248,299 in Exelon stock, according to SEC filings.

Moments earlier, retired general and "NBC Military Analyst" Barry McCaffrey told viewers that the war in Afghanistan would require an additional "three- to ten-year effort" and "a lot of money." Unmentioned was the fact that DynCorp paid McCaffrey $182,309 in 2009 alone. The government had just granted DynCorp a five-year deal worth an estimated $5.9 billion to aid American forces in Afghanistan. The first year is locked in at $644 million, but the additional four options are subject to renewal, contingent on military needs and political realities.

In a single hour, two men with blatant, undisclosed conflicts of interest had appeared on MSNBC. The question is, was this an isolated oversight or business as usual? Evidence points to the latter. In 2003 The Nation exposed McCaffrey's financial ties to military contractors he had promoted on-air on several cable networks; in 2008 David Barstow wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning series for the New York Times about the Pentagon's use of former military officers--many lobbying or consulting for military contractors--to get their talking points on television in exchange for access to decision-makers; and in 2009 bloggers uncovered how ex-Newsweek writer Richard Wolffe had guest-hosted Countdown With Keith Olbermann while working at a large PR firm specializing in "strategies for managing corporate reputation."

These incidents represent only a fraction of the covert corporate influence peddling on cable news, a four-month investigation by The Nation has found. Since 2007 at least seventy-five registered lobbyists, public relations representatives and corporate officials--people paid by companies and trade groups to manage their public image and promote their financial and political interests--have appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, CNBC and Fox Business Network with no disclosure of the corporate interests that had paid them. Many have been regulars on more than one of the cable networks, turning in dozens--and in some cases hundreds--of appearances.

For lobbyists, PR firms and corporate officials, going on cable television is a chance to promote clients and their interests on the most widely cited source of news in the United States. These appearances also generate good will and access to major players inside the Democratic and Republican parties. For their part, the cable networks, eager to fill time and afraid of upsetting the political elite, have often looked the other way. At times, the networks have even disregarded their own written ethics guidelines. Just about everyone involved is heavily invested in maintaining the current system, with the exception of the viewer.

While lobbyists and PR flacks have long tried to spin the press, the launch of Fox News and MSNBC in 1996 and the Clinton impeachment saga that followed helped create the caldron of twenty-four-hour political analysis that so many influence peddlers call home. Since then, guests with serious conflicts of interest have popped up with alarming regularity on every network. Just examine their presence in coverage of the economic crash and the healthcare reform debate, two recent issues that have engendered massive cable coverage.

As the recession slammed the country in late 2008 and government bailouts followed, lobbyists and PR flacks took to the air with troubling regularity, advocating on behalf of clients and their interests while masquerading as neutral analysts. One was Bernard Whitman, president of Whitman Insight Strategies, a communications firm that specializes in helping "guide successful lobbying, communications and information campaigns through targeted research." Whitman's clients have included lobbying firms like BGR Group and marketing/PR firms like Ogilvy & Mather, which in turn have numerous corporate clients with a vested interest in shaping federal policies. Whitman is a veteran of the Clinton era and when making television appearances continues to be identified for work he did almost a decade earlier.

According to its website, Whitman Insight Strategies has worked for AIG to "develop, test, launch, and enhance their consumer brand," and continues to assist the insurance giant "as it responds to ongoing marketplace developments." Whitman Strategies has also posted more than 100 clips of Bernard Whitman's television appearances on a YouTube account. During a September 18, 2008, Fox News appearance to discuss Sarah Palin, Whitman proceeded to lambaste John McCain for proposing to "let AIG fail," saying that this demonstrated "just how little he understands the global economy today."

On March 25, 2009, in the midst of a scandal over AIG's executive bonuses, Whitman appeared on Fox News again. "The American people were understandably outraged about AIG," he began. "Having said that, we need to move beyond anger, frustration and hysteria to really get down to the brass tacks of solving this economy," he advised the public. In neither instance was Whitman's ongoing work for AIG mentioned.

Another person with AIG ties is Ron Christie, now at the helm of his own consultancy. While working at Republican-leaning firm DC Navigators, now Navigators Global, from 2006 through September 2008, Christie was registered to lobby on behalf of the insurance giant, lobbying filings show. During that period, AIG shelled out $590,000 to DC Navigators.

On September 18, 2008, Christie went on Hardball to discuss the government's response to AIG's near implosion days earlier. He was introduced only as a Republican strategist. As Chris Matthews mocked a presidential press conference on the financial crisis held earlier that day, Christie interrupted to say President Bush was "smart to have gotten a former person from Goldman Sachs who is a very bright man, who understands the markets and liquidity." Christie was referring to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who had once been the chair and CEO of Goldman Sachs and who played a pivotal role in the AIG bailout. "This is not a political sideshow. This is putting the right person in his administration to deal with this crisis," Christie said.

Bigger players were on AIG's payroll, too: shortly after receiving its first bailout, in 2008, AIG hired PR mega-firm Burson-Marsteller to handle "controversial issues." In April 2009, B-M hired former White House press secretary Dana Perino, already an established TV pundit. A month later she was picked up as a contributor to Fox News, where she has had occasion to discuss the economic meltdown.

This past July, for example, Perino joined a roundtable on Fox Business Network's Money for Breakfast, which briefly noted her affiliation with B-M but neglected to mention its link to AIG. When a fellow guest commented that AIG had been "highly regulated" before the crash, Perino pounced, suggesting that current financial reform efforts demonstrate how "Washington has a tendency to overreact in a crisis." When Gary Kalman of USPIRG suggested that regulations had, in fact, been rolled back for decades, Perino scoffed, "I don't think there are many business people who would actually agree with that."

(Whitman, Christie and Perino did not return requests for comment.)

Another conflict of interest plagued the televised debate over how to reform healthcare. Terry Holt, once a spokesman for the Republican National Committee and for House minority leader John Boehner, has also been, on and off since 2003, a lobbyist for the health insurance trade group America's Health Insurance Plans. When he and three other Republican operatives formed communications and lobbying firm HDMK in 2007, one of their first clients was AHIP.

On March 5, 2009, Holt, introduced simply as a Republican, told MSNBC anchor David Shuster that the Obama administration was "going to, you know, cut Medicare benefits for something like 11 million seniors to start this big healthcare reform project." By October AHIP was running ads in several states against the health reform bill that asked, "Is it right to ask 10 million seniors on Medicare Advantage for more than their fair share?"

Holt also made several appearances to discuss healthcare policy on CNN, where his affiliation with insurers was cited on several occasions, starting in September, though not during a September 14 appearance on The Situation Room, when Holt discussed healthcare reform efforts. The network subsequently experienced a small scandal in October when blogger Greg Sargent revealed that political analyst Alex Castellanos, a frequent commentator on CNN, had been helping craft attack ads for AHIP--including the one that referred to the "10 million seniors" losing Medicare benefits--while discussing healthcare policy on air, identified only as a Republican strategist.

When I interviewed Holt recently, he told me that there was one occasion when his work for AHIP was not mentioned on CNN, and that afterward, a producer contacted him to discuss his work for the trade group. Holt said that he believes that cable appearances "operate best with maximum transparency."

"When you're addressing the public, it's a reasonable expectation that they be fully aware of your perspective--where you're coming from--and I see my obligation as informing the news organization that's asking me to appear or to comment about my standing and letting them be the judge," he said.

Democratic lobbyists and corporate consultants have also made appearances to discuss health reform with no reference to their pharmaceutical or insurance company clients. On September 24, 2009, Dick Gephardt appeared on MSNBC's Morning Meeting, where he labeled the public option "not essential." Gephardt was asked by host Dylan Ratigan to discuss healthcare reform in light of his experience as a Congressman during the Clinton effort in 1993 and now simply as "an observer through this process." There was no mention of his work advising insurance and pharmaceutical interests through his lobbying firm Gephardt Government Affairs, nor any mention that Gephardt is a lobbyist for NBC/Universal.

Likewise, Tom Daschle dropped by MSNBC on May 12 and July 2, 2009, and NBC's Meet the Press on August 16, 2009. At each appearance he discussed healthcare reform with no mention of his work on behalf of lobbying firm Alston & Bird, which advises insurer UnitedHealth Group. Only during a December 8 appearance on MSNBC's Dr. Nancy was Daschle finally confronted, albeit with kid gloves, about how his simultaneous work for lobbying firms on behalf of health insurers and meetings with administration officials on healthcare reform appeared to be at odds. "I certainly want to be appreciative of perception, so we're going to take great care in how we go forward," Daschle promised. A month later, on January 11, the former Senate majority leader returned to MSNBC to discuss healthcare with Andrea Mitchell. In the nearly ten-minute interview, his insurance work went unmentioned.

As of this writing, healthcare and financial reform legislation have largely stalled. And although it would be foolish to argue that Daschle's TV appearances sank the public option or that Dana Perino's punditry fatally wounded a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, there can be no doubt that there is a cumulative effect from hundreds of appearances by dozens of unidentified lobbyists and influence peddlers that helps to drive press coverage and public opinion.

Janine Wedel, an anthropologist in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University and author of the new book Shadow Elite, told me in a recent interview that while these influence peddlers are not necessarily unethical, they "elude accountability to governments, shareholders and voters--and threaten democracy."

"When there's a whole host of pundits on the airwaves touting the same agenda at the same time, you get a cumulative effect that shapes public opinion toward their agenda," she said.

Frequent television news commentators are also often given access to policy-makers, who may find that they are meeting with not just a TV pundit but also a paid lobbyist. This past March, for example, the White House held an exclusive "communications message meeting" for high-profile Democratic strategists with top presidential aide David Axelrod. Of the eighteen attendees, almost all television regulars, a third were lobbyists or public relations flacks, such as Kelly Bingel, a lobbyist for AHIP and a partner at mega-firm Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, and Rich Masters, a partner at PR/lobbying outfit Qorvis Communications, where he works on behalf of trade group Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

Ultimately, no matter how often or how cleverly lobbyists and PR operatives have used cable news appearances to their business advantage, it is hard to fault them for the practice. In many cases, they have made no attempt to hide their work for corporate clients; some, like Terry Holt, have gone out of their way to inform producers and bookers of the work they're doing on behalf of clients.

This leaves final responsibility in the hands of the cable news networks that invite lobbyists and corporate flacks on the air and fail to identify their affiliations. This past fall Aaron Brown, host of CNN's NewsNight from 2001 until 2005, when the network pushed him out, and currently a professor of journalism at Arizona State University, told me that he didn't think the problem was a lack of standards but a lack of enforcement. Bookers--"young, inexperienced people under a lot of pressure"--are unlikely to ask guests about potential conflicts of interest. "I think they're often derelict in vetting," says Brown.

For Brown, though, the lack of disclosure is symptomatic of larger problems in cable journalism, rooted in the shift to putting numerous analysts and strategists on television as an easy, inexpensive way to fill time. It's "a lot cheaper than sending a correspondent to Afghanistan," he says.

"What I find unconscionable about this is that it's not like a struggling newspaper is looking for an inexpensive way to do journalism because they have no money. These are highly successful profit centers for the corporations that they're spawned from," Brown said.

Jeff Cohen, who helped found the nonprofit group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), echoes some of Brown's critiques. Cohen worked for MSNBC for several months in 2002 and published a book in 2006, Cable News Confidential, about the experience. When I asked him why men like Gephardt and McCaffrey could go on television with no reference to their consulting and lobbying, Cohen explained that, based on his experience at MSNBC, "these regulars get introduced the way they want to be introduced.

"This is the key: Gephardt will always be the former majority leader of the House. Period.... These guys know they won't be identified by what they do now but instead by what their position was years or decades ago," Cohen said.

Some of this has changed in recent months, with CNN starting to identify the industries some analysts work for. For its part, Fox News has long identified the lobbying or PR firms of some--though not all--guests, but the network does not give viewers any information about the kinds of clients these firms represent. (CNN would not return calls, and Fox News did not provide comment.)

Then there's MSNBC, the cable network with the most egregious instances of airing guests with conflicts of interest. Only on MSNBC did Todd Boulanger, a Jack Abramoff-connected lobbyist working for Cassidy and Associates, go on a TV rehabilitation tour with no identification of his work, all while he was under investigation for corruption (he pleaded guilty in January 2009). Only on MSNBC was a prime-time program, Countdown, hosted by public relations operative Richard Wolffe and later by a pharmaceutical company consultant, former Governor Howard Dean, with no mention of the outside work either man was engaged in. And MSNBC has yet to introduce DynCorp's Barry McCaffrey as anything but a "military analyst."

When I spoke with MSNBC in mid-January, the network seemed eager to prove it is fixing the problem. David McCormick, the ombudsman for NBC News, deals with questions about standards and practices at MSNBC. (Both organizations use the same policies-and-guidelines booklet, which McCormick helped develop; CNBC has more stringent disclosure requirements as a result of SEC rules.) McCormick told me that the issue of conflict of interest has been on his mind of late. He said that MSNBC intended to contact its guests and brief them on its disclosure policies, adding that "trust is a huge part of the business" and that the network relies on guests "to let us know of any potential conflicts."

"We've been talking to our folks for a number of years about the importance of transparency and letting the viewers in on where folks--it could be contributors, analysts or experts that we don't pay--fit into the mosaic of a story," said McCormick. "Are we perfect about it? No."

In fact, potential conflicts of interest have been a topic of concern for more than a decade. An October 1998 copy of the "NBC News Policies and Guidelines" devotes an entire chapter to "Guests/Analysts/Experts/Advocates." It states:

It is essential that our viewers understand the particular perspective of all guests, analysts and experts (whether paid or not) who appear on our programs....
?Our viewers need all relevant information so they can come to their own conclusions regarding the topic at hand. It is not enough to say: "John Doe of XYZ Foundation."...Likewise, it may not be enough to say Jane Doe, NBC consultant or analyst.... Disclosure may be made in copy or visually. But it must be done in a clear manner.

McCormick told me that financial conflicts of interest were "in the same category as ideological or political interests," but also suggested that MSNBC's practice of posting information about guests on its website was an adequate way to air potential conflicts of interest. McCormick emphasized that this reform was "a work in progress."

A few days later, on January 22, I happened to catch MSNBC's Morning Joe. Mark Penn, identified only as a Clinton administration pollster and Democratic strategist, was suggesting that the Obama administration put healthcare reform on ice. Unmentioned: Penn's role as worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which has an entire healthcare division devoted to helping clients like Eli Lilly and Pfizer "create and manage perceptions that deliver positive business results."

At times, it begins to seem as though the problem is beyond fixing, an unfortunate but unavoidable reality of our media and political landscape, in which the lines between public service and corporate advancement are so blurred. It is clear that the pressure applied on the networks so far has not resulted in systemic change. Even in the aftermath of increasing scrutiny--particularly after David Barstow's Pulitzer Prize-winning exposés in the Times--General McCaffrey continues to appear on television without any caveats about his work for military contractors. As Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald has observed, none of the networks involved in the scandal have ever bothered to address Barstow's findings on air, and they noticeably omitted Barstow's name from coverage of the 2009 Pulitzers. "It's almost like a mysterious black hole that this issue, which is enormous, is getting no attention from the offenders themselves," the Society for Professional Journalists' ethics committee chair Andy Schotz told me recently.

Jay Rosen, a media critic and journalism professor at New York University, has a different take. "More disclosure is good--I'm certainly in favor of that--but why are these people on at all?" asks Rosen. "They have views and can manufacture opinions around any event at any time."

Rosen echoes something Brown mentioned to me. Watching cable news cover the 2008 election with more analysts crammed at one table than ever before--as if to ask, "How many people can we put on the set at one time?"--Brown said he was "amazed how little they had to offer." He went on, "We live in a time where there are no shortages of opinions and an incredible deficit of facts."

For an accompanying slideshow of the talking heads that are leading double lives as paid lobbyists for corporations, click here (link no longer active): http://www.thenation.com/slideshow/2010030...ndits_slideshow (http://www.thenation.com/slideshow/20100301/pundits_slideshow)


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:45 PM
Combating the Disinformation, Psyops, and Cover-ups of the US Military

A Scrape in the Teflon US Military Propaganda: Interview with Captain Eric H. May
by Kim Petersen and B.J. Sabri / February 24th, 2010
Few people have heard of the Battle of Baghdad. They might remember Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, Iraq’s information minister, warning of a surprise awaiting U.S. troops if they attacked Saddam International Airport. Later, al-Sahhaf claimed that the Iraqi Republican Guard had slaughtered U.S. troops and was in control of the entire airport. His claims, according to one intelligence officer, were true, but were countered by a US military-media campaign of evasions and distortions which switched the subject from the airport to Private Jessica Lynch and ridiculed al-Sahhaf as “Baghdad Bob.”
What came to be called the Battle of Baghdad Cover-Up (BOBCUP), was an illegal deception of the American people, as well as a desecration of the military men who had fought and died only to be pushed into the memory hole by Big Brother Bush. Captain Eric H. May, a former U.S. Army intelligence and public affairs officer, responded by investigating and confirming BOBCUP, which he reported to an Army Inspector General and to a corporate media that were both cowed and complicit. Realizing that the entire US establishment was dedicated to waging a criminal global war and erecting an oppressive homeland state, Capt. May honored his military oath “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” He formed and assumed command of a cyber intelligence group, which he named Ghost Troop to honor the unacknowledged ghosts from the Battle of Baghdad. Before long the unit swelled to several hundred members, including veterans of all services, as well as a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy and a U.S. ambassador.
Initially, Ghost Troop’s mission was to penetrate the propaganda of the corporate media, government, and military; and to provide essential information being withheld to the American people. Shortly after the Madrid bombing of 3/11, 2004, Capt. May and his chief officers determined that Madrid had been a “false flag” terrorist act carried out by the pro-war Spanish government in an attempt to turn the war weary Spanish people into hawks. They reasoned that the 9/11 attacks, which achieved the same purpose in the USA, were also false flag terrorism. Finally, they agreed that the U.S. government was routinely telling the public that there “was going to be another 9/11? because it meant to administer it. With grim humor, Ghost Troop began to refer to this future false flag as “9/11-2B.” Using their military and media savvy to frustrate the 9/11-2B false flag became their second mission, and consumed most of their efforts.
Those who know Capt. May well consider his unique mission of conscience to be the stuff of legend. The Lone Star Iconoclast in Central Texas has long demanded that Congress investigate his uncanny ability to warn the Internet about false flag dangers: he has forecast petrochemical refinery explosions in Southeast Texas, each of which may have been a foiled terror attack, six times. He exposed a US WMD team that had infiltrated the Texas City refinery area in February 2006. Publisher W. Leon Smith credits him with saving the Republic by his leadership of Ghost Troop to prevent 9/11-2B.1 (http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/02/combating-the-disinformation-propaganda-and-cover-ups-of-the-military-industrial-complex/#footnote_0_14372)
There is a growing movement in the 9/11 “truth” and patriot movements to press for Congress to award him the nation’s highest military honor. Shortly after the publication of the Iconoclast editorial, Dr. James H. Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and a close collaborator and friend of the captain’s gave voice to many with his glowing accolade: “This is a completely brilliant and fully justified recommendation, which I wholeheartedly support. I have not admired anyone during my life as much as I have Captain May. He is a superb analyst and remarkable human being.”
Capt. May was a vibrant, fit man — a martial arts expert — when he began to lead Ghost Troop. He was constantly under threat from the military, the FBI and various national police and intelligence agencies. He was mysteriously stricken with ALS, commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig’s disease, subsequent to his dissidence. Despite the advanced condition of the disease, Capt. May, now a paralyzed disabled veteran, was good enough to partake in the following interview.2 (http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/02/combating-the-disinformation-propaganda-and-cover-ups-of-the-military-industrial-complex/#footnote_1_14372)
***** Kim Petersen: I first became acquainted with you when you responded to Dissident Voice pulling an article (http://dissidentvoice.org/May06/Petersen31.htm) on damning revelations about US military atrocities in Iraq made by a purported Army Ranger, Jesse Macbeth. However, Iraq Veterans Against the War disavowed backing Macbeth, and the veracity of Mr. Macbeth’s claims of service in the US Army were questioned. Lacking substantiation of Mr. Macbeth’s claims DV pulled the article (http://dissidentvoice.org/May06/Petersen22.htm). Other media outlets followed suit. You decried this as a “hideous failure of American journalism.” Do you still see Macbeth as a victim of “swiftboating”?
Captain May: In a word, yes. Jesse Macbeth is a perfect example of a crucial dissident voice who had both courage and a vital message. An Arab-American radio show host, Dr. Hesham Tillawi of Arab Voices (http://www.arabvoices.net/) asked me to review the Macbeth tape just before the swiftboat attacks began, and it seemed absolutely credible to me, a veteran of four decades of military service. Macbeth was specific in terminology, tactics and training. He was also specific about Middle East geography, lifestyle, habits and attitude. There had already been two local Arizona mainstream media stories about him — neither previously challenged — as a war veteran. He had already been drawing benefits from the Veterans Administration without difficulty, meaning that the military considered him much more than a training washout, the story with which they later attacked him.
When Iraq Veterans Against the War failed to support him, it was because an IVAW administrator, Amanda Braxton, a lifelong civilian, had been buffaloed by the best swiftboating attack since the presidential election of 2004. It was led by men whose records in special operations, propaganda and Republican war rallying made them seem more like mercenaries than media. When I interviewed Braxton, she admitted that she had been frightened into turning on Macbeth. Further, she mentioned that his IVAW cohorts had never doubted that he was a war veteran. This was the best evidence of all that he was on the level.
Given my familiarity with the military system, I made calls all the way to the top level of the Army requesting confirmation from the official record supporting swiftboater claims that Macbeth had never seen the war — and found that the Army was trying to dodge any comment about him. Yes, Macbeth was swiftboated because his message was that we were using SS-style tactics against Middle Eastern Muslims — something the Middle East is well aware of. The alternative media chickened out on a crucial story, allowing the mainstream media and political establishment to cover it up. I wrote an article about it before moving on to other critical stories:
“Updating a War Crime Witness: Jesse Macbeth (http://www.mail-archive.com/political-research@yahoogroups.com/msg04031.html),” Ghost Troop Archive, June 2006.
KP: I had heard about the Battle of Baghdad at the airport from my colleague BJ Sabri, where reportedly US troops had suffered many losses, but you are the first person I know to have reported about it online. You wrote that it was kept from public consciousness, “hidden under the distraction story of Private Jessica Lynch.” The Battle of Baghdad still has not emerged into public consciousness. Why do you think this is so?
Capt.: In Ghost Troop, we never left the cover-up unchallenged. In early April of 2007, as the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Baghdad approached, The Lone Star Iconoclast (http://lonestaricon.com/) published an interview with me updating my research on the cover-up. A few days later Al Jazeera published an interview with Iraqi General Al-Rawi, who had commanded Saddam’s forces at the airport. A few weeks later the U.S. Congress held hearings about media and military failure to report the truth from Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in the cases of Pvt. Jessica Lynch and Cpl. Pat Tillman. I believe that Ghost Troop and the Iconoclast gave Al Jazeera and Congress the encouragement they needed to do as much as they did. I believe that the continuing cover-up by the mainstream and alternative media goes far to demonstrate that they are in large part controlled by the same pro-war establishment that has orchestrated everything from 9/11 to the present to turn the American dream of security into the Muslim nightmare of invasion.
BJ Sabri: There were many published emails that you wrote where you defend the right for information and to find out the truth, at least about the Battle of Baghdad; now, if that is the case, and since you were a material witness to history, and since many accounts confirm that the United States used a neutron bomb to the end the battle that cost the US military dearly, I ask you a very precise question: Did the United States use such a neutron bomb in Iraq?
Capt.: When the Battle of Baghdad occurred, I was at home in Texas, my active duty military days behind me, watching events on CNN. At that point I knew that something catastrophic had happened in Saddam International Airport, but I had no idea that it was something nuclear. Over the next couple of years I received many reports from both Arab and Western witnesses that we had used a neutron warhead. It wasn’t until I reached the anti-war Camp Casey outside George W. Bush’s Texas headquarters in Crawford in 2005 that I spoke with numerous witnesses together. They included Army and Marine veterans of the Battle of Baghdad, Arab witnesses and journalists. All their accounts, taken together, convinced me that the neutron warhead was employed. Gen. Al-Rawi confirmed the nuke in his Al Jazeera interview:
“US accused of using neutron bombs (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/04/200852514126899448.html),” Al Jazeera, 4/9/2007.
BJ: You say, “War is just homicide on a national scale.” Homicide against whom: U.S. military personnel, who are the aggressors or the Iraq nation — military, and civilians — who were attacked without casus belli? Still, homicide sounds ordinary in these circumstances, why not use a precise term such as premeditated mass murder, in which both aggressors and aggressed suffered unnecessary death? In addition, whether homicide or mass murder, it seems that the criminals who planned and carried it out will go unpunished. Does this mean the United States government and military are above the law?
Capt.: I realize that my phrase “war is just homicide on a national scale” is cold-blooded, but it is a professional military man’s first premise in understanding or discussing the phenomenon. I accept your objection that I don’t offer human judgments as to who is involved in self-defense and in aggression, with its implication that such judgments must be made. I’ve been forthright elsewhere in my moral evaluation of the “Global War on Terror,” admitting that we Americans have been duped into war crime, and calling for punishment of our leaders:
“Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld: Geneva Conventions now, Nuremberg Principles later (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/July/3%20o/Hamdan%20vs%20Rumsfeld%20Geneva%20Conventions%20no w,%20Nuremberg%20Principles%20later%20By%20Captain %20Eric%20H.%20May.htm),” Al Jazeerah, 7/3/2006.
BJ: In your email (http://www.ghosttroop.net/mselannov12.htm), you write, “I am pleased to see that the anti-war is joining the infowar …” You sound like an anti-war activist. Are you really an anti-war military man? If you are anti-war, why did you take part in such war that you may have been privy to as being based on pretexts?
Capt.: I was no longer a serving soldier at the time of 9/11 or the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For the most part I accepted the official propaganda. It wasn’t until realizing the cover-up of the Battle of Baghdad that I became interested in analyzing the wars or the policies behind them. I was never an anti-war military man until after I examined the post-9/11 wars in the Middle East.
My comrade in the antiwar, former Marine Corps Major William B. Fox, wrote a well researched article about my intellectual and ethical awakening:
“Captain Courageous and the Quicksand War (http://tinyurl.com/46ohb7),” The Lone Star Iconoclast, 3/26/2008.
BJ: I read somewhere in the wealth of information you provided, how you imagined George W. Bush should articulate his message to the nation about the course of war. Because you put words in his mouth, you, nevertheless, injected your personal feelings about the imperialist wars “by American definition, patriotic.” What do you think now about the endless wars of what many experts contend is a Zionist-controlled United States government?
Capt.: You are referring to “Cavalrymen and Cowards (http://archive.ucimc.org/newswire/display/15976/index.php),” which was a philippic I directed at Bush shortly after the Battle of Baghdad cover-up. At that point I still had no judgment about whether or not the war in Iraq was legal or illegal. I was chiding him for not having enough guts to admit facts. It’s likely that Bush himself read my words, since I interviewed with his team about becoming his speechwriter before he became president, when he was still the governor of Texas and we shared some acquaintances.
As far as those experts who consider the United States to be Golem, mindlessly carrying out proxy wars for Zionists, at this stage of my development I would call myself one of them. Until we awaken as a nation to Israel’s machinations and manipulations against our own interests, we are in great danger ourselves, and represent a great danger to the rest of the world.
KP: Nine/11 provided a pretext for the so-called War on Terror, and Ghost Troop has been vigilant in defending against another 9/11. Does an Obama government affect the need for such vigilance?
Capt.: Not in the least. In his first year in office, Obama has demonstrated conclusively that he is a puppet for the war cabal. He needs another 9/11-style event to re-energize the dictatorial Homeland and the imperial Global War, which are nothing more than euphemisms for “Vaterland” and “World War.”
In Ghost Troop we use an operational codename for this required next 9/11: We call it “9/11-2B” — the 9/11 that the establishment assures us is going “to be.” Just this month Obama’s intelligence officials were projecting 9/11-2B in 3 to 6 months. The way we look at it, that means this puppet president wants to set up such an attack before the Congressional elections of next fall. His recent emphasis on beefing up our cyber security is an indicator that 9/11-2B will entail an attack on the Internet, the sole remaining free media, and the greatest impediment to totalitarian rule of the United States.
BJ: Going back to the issue of how you think George W. Bush should articulate his message to the nation. You stated in your article “Philippic contra George W. Bush (http://www.ghosttroop.net/philippiccontrabush.htm)” that he should say, “We will not rest until the mission for which they gave their lives is accomplished. We will not stop until we have vanquished tyranny and terror abroad, and brought our heroes home. That will be our tribute to the fallen. God Bless America, Garry Owen, and goodnight.” To me, you kept George Bush’s essence, but just embellished the rhetoric. Can you explain?
Now, you put words in his mouth (meaning that you, in turn, articulated your own political vision and projected it into Bush’s mind). Since you injected personal feelings about U.S. imperialist war in Iraq “by America’s definition: patriotic,” what do you think now about the endless wars?
Capt.: In the philippic against Bush I attacked him as a lying coward, and to drive the point home I wrote the words that I would have written for him had I been his speechwriter at the time of the Battle of Baghdad — which I nearly was. I was writing rhetoric, putting the best face on the facts as I then believed them to be. Please bear in mind that I was writing a historic document here by slamming the most powerful man on earth at a time when he had shown himself to be tyrannical and murderous. People who write philippics — which can only earn the name “philippic” when published to a murderous tyrant — have good reason to worry that the bold act will cost them their lives, and I believe it nearly cost me mine. A couple of days after I wrote it, political dissidents in the U.S. and UK began to be assassinated, which was the topic of a recently published article about them and me:
“Captain Courageous Witnessed: Dr. Kelly Assassinated! (http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/December/27%20o/Captain%20Courageous%20Witnessed%20Dr%20Kelly%20As sassinated%20By%20W%20Leon%20Smith.htm),” Al Jazeerah, 12/10/2009.
BJ: Do you really think that these wars are about tyranny and terror? In wider sense, do you think it is about time that the American people stop following what their rulers incite them to do in the names of causes that actually do not exist except on a propagandistic level?
Capt.: I do think that these wars are about tyranny and terror: the tyranny and terror emerging from the efforts of Western psychopaths who have taken over the reins of power. They intend to do far worse deeds than they have done. The only way we can stop them is by doing what you suggest: awakening the American people to the perils of being misled by perfidious leaders and an evil establishment. I am proud to be, like you, among the dissident voices engaged in this historic struggle, in which we have transformed the Internet into the printing press of the New American Revolution.

“Captain Eric H. May Deserves Congressional Medal of Honor (http://www.lonestaricon.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=472:captain-eric-h-may-deserves-congressional-medal-of-honor&catid=31:editorial&Itemid=71),” The Lone Star Iconoclast, 2 February 2010. [? (http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/02/combating-the-disinformation-propaganda-and-cover-ups-of-the-military-industrial-complex/#identifier_0_14372)]
Introduction with assistance of Capt. May. [? (http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/02/combating-the-disinformation-propaganda-and-cover-ups-of-the-military-industrial-complex/#identifier_1_14372)]

Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:48 PM
How Reagan’s Propaganda Succeeded

By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
March 8, 2010

In the 1980s, CIA propaganda experts and military psy-war specialists oversaw the creation of special programs aimed at managing public perceptions in targeted foreign countries as well as inside the United States, according to declassified documents at Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Library.

These recently discovered documents buttress previously disclosed evidence that Reagan’s CIA Director William J. Casey played a key behind-the-scenes role in pushing this political action initiative, which recruited well-heeled private-sector conservatives to subsidize the secretive government operations.

The documents show that Casey used a senior CIA propaganda and disinformation specialist named Walter Raymond Jr., who was placed inside the National Security Council in 1982, to oversee the project and to circumvent legal prohibitions against the CIA engaging in propaganda that might influence U.S. public opinion or politics.

Though Raymond formally quit the CIA after going to the NSC, documents from Raymond’s personal NSC files reveal that he often passed on recommendations regarding the propaganda initiative after meetings at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, or after conversations with Casey himself.

In one Nov. 4, 1982, “secret” memo, Raymond described Casey reaching out to right-wing mogul Richard Mellon Scaife, who was already working with other conservative foundation executives to fund right-wing publications, think tanks and activist groups seeking to shift U.S. politics to the Right.

Raymond told then NSC advisor William P. Clark that “Bill Casey asked me to pass on the following thought concerning your [scheduled] meeting with Dick Scaife, Dave Abshire [then a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board], and Co.

“Casey had lunch with them today and discussed the need to get moving in the general area of supporting our friends around the world.”

Besides a desire to “invigorate international media programs,” Casey wanted to help U.S.-based organizations, such as Freedom House, that could influence American attitudes about foreign challenges, Raymond said.

“The DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] is also concerned about strengthening public information organizations in the United States such as Freedom House,” Raymond told Clark. “To do this we have identified three overt tracks:

“–enhanced federal funding;

“–the Democracy Project study (although publicly funded this will be independently managed);

“–private funds.”

“A critical piece of the puzzle is a serious effort to raise private funds to generate momentum. Casey’s talk with Scaife and Co. suggests they would be very willing to cooperate.”

(In the following years, Freedom House emerged as a major critic of Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government, which Reagan and Casey were seeking to overthrow by covertly supporting contra rebels.)

Returning from Langley

A Dec. 2 note addressed to “Bud,” apparently senior NSC official Robert “Bud” McFarlane, described a request from Raymond for a brief meeting. “When he [Raymond] returned from Langley, he had a proposed draft letter … re $100 M democ[racy] proj[ect],” the note said.

While Raymond passed on Casey’s instructions, the CIA director told White House officials to play down or conceal the CIA’s role.

“Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, urging creation of a “National Endowment” that would support “free institutions throughout the world.”

On Jan. 21, 1983, Raymond updated Clark about the project, which also was reaching out to representatives from other conservative foundations, including Les Lenkowsky of Smith-Richardson, Michael Joyce of Olin and Dan McMichael of Mellon-Scaife.

“This is designed to develop a broader group of people who will support parallel initiatives consistent with Administration needs and desires,” Raymond wrote.

In the late 1970s and through the 1980s, those and other conservative foundations poured millions of dollars into right-wing think tanks, media outlets and anti-journalism attack groups that targeted American reporters who challenged the Reagan administration’s propaganda.

The early planning papers also indicated a desire to use this relatively overt system to funnel money to pro-U.S. trade unions in Asia, Africa and Latin America in support of a variety of political operations, including setting up television stations and funding print publications.

Some examples were $150,000 to a Bolivian trade union; $50,000 to Peru as a “direct counter to Soviet funding”; $50,000 to Grenada “to the only organized opposition to the Marxist government of Maurice Bishop (The Seaman and Waterfront Workers Union). A supplemental to support free TV activity outside Grenada”; $750,000 to Nicaragua “to support an array of independent trade union activity, agricultural cooperatives”; and $500,000 for “Central America labor publishing house and distribution center for printed materials – TV materials, cooperatives, land reform, etc. – to counter Marxist literature.”

The document’s reference to money being spent to counter Bishop’s government in Grenada adds weight to long-held suspicions that the Reagan administration engaged in propaganda and destabilization campaigns against Bishop, who was ousted by internal rivals and killed in October 1983, setting the stage for the U.S. invasion of the tiny Caribbean island.

The invasion of Grenada, though condemned by much of the world as an act of U.S. aggression, proved popular in the United States, an important step in readying the American people for larger military adventures ahead.

Taking Shape

Eventually, Casey’s concept of a global initiative led to the founding of the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983 ostensibly for the purpose of promoting foreign democratic institutions. But the NED also created a cover for the United States to funnel money to pro-U.S. groups in hostile countries. And it subsidized Washington’s growing community of neoconservatives who wrote op-ed articles in leading newspapers and went on TV news shows advocating an aggressive U.S. foreign policy.

Since 1983, NED has been involved in numerous controversies, including allegations that it helped buy the Nicaraguan election in 1990 by spending some $9 million, including $4 million poured into the campaign of U.S.-backed candidate Violeta Chamorro.

NED’s hand also has been detected in “velvet revolutions” staged in Ukraine, Georgia and other eastern European nations. NED has been active, too, in Iran, fueling government suspicions there that its opposition, which took to the streets after last June’s presidential election, represented another U.S.-backed scheme to achieve regime change.

Though many of Raymond’s documents at Reagan’s Library in Simi Valley, California, remain secret, the recently discovered material – and some of the previously released documents – offer a panorama of how the administration’s perception management campaigns evolved, from the early days of Casey prodding the process forward to later years when Raymond’s apparatus grew increasingly powerful and even paranoid.

According to a secret action proposal that Raymond submitted on Dec. 20, 1984, to then national security adviser McFarlane, Raymond wanted an even greater commitment of manpower.

“I have attempted to proceed forward with a whole range of political and information activities,” Raymond wrote. “There are a raft of ties to private organizations which are working in tandem with the government in a number of areas ranging from the American Security Council to the Atlantic Council, to the nascent idea of a ‘Peace Institute.’”

Among the examples of his “specific activities,” Raymond listed “significant expansion of our ability to utilize book publication and distribution as a public diplomacy tool. (This is based on an integrated public-private strategy). … The development of an active PSYOP strategy. … Meetings (ad hoc) with selected CIA operational people to coordinate and clarify lines between overt/covert political operations on key areas. Examples: Afghanistan, Central America, USSR-EE [Eastern Europe] and Grenada.”

‘Active Measures’

Another part of Raymond’s domain was “the Soviet Political Action Working Group.” This group discussed what it regarded as “Soviet active measures” and worked on “themes” that soon resonated through Washington, such as the argument regarding “moral equivalents.”

Raymond reported that the “moral equivalents” theme was discussed at the working group’s Dec. 15, 1983, meeting. The idea of “moral equivalents” involved U.S. government officials upbraiding journalists and opinion leaders who tried to apply common moral standards to pro- and anti-U.S. groups.

Reagan administration officials would insist that human rights crimes by the pro-U.S. side of a conflict should not be criticized as severely as similar crimes by the anti-U.S. side because that would apply a “false moral equivalence,” suggesting that the United States was no better than its enemies. To take such a position was regarded as unpatriotic or disloyal.

Along those lines, one of Raymond’s sub-groups, “the Active Measures Working Group,” met “to develop an action plan to turn Soviet active measures back onto the Soviets, i.e. take the offensive.”

Attendees included Raymond and another CIA operations veteran, Ray Warren, a Casey favorite who was placed inside the Pentagon; Herb Romerstein, a former investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities; and Robert Kagan, a prominent neoconservative who was an aide to Elliott Abrams at the State Department and later led the Office of Public Diplomacy on Latin America.

The Active Measures Working Group brought in from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and U.S. Special Forces, personnel who specialized in psychological operations, such as a “Col. Paddock (OSD/PSYOP),” a “Mr. Hunter (1st PSYOP Bn)”; a “Colonel Dunbar (1st PYSOP Bn),” and “Lieutenant Colonel Jacobowitz (DOD/PSYOP).”

In previously disclosed documents, Lt. Col. Daniel “Jake” Jacobowitz was listed as the executive officer inside the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy on Latin America, where the White House also placed five psychological warfare specialists from the 4th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The main job of these psy-ops specialists was to pick out incidents in Central America that would rile the U.S. public. In a memo dated May 30, 1985, Jacobowitz explained that the military men were scouring embassy cables “looking for exploitable themes and trends, and [would] inform us of possible areas for our exploitation.”

The June 19, 1986, minutes of the working group stated that “Colonel Paddock reported that OSD/PSYOP has been working on some unclassified publications, mainly on Central American issues, in cooperation with State’s Office of Latin American Public Diplomacy.”

At the working group meeting on July 31, 1986, Col. Paddock passed out copies of a joint Pentagon/State Department publication, “The Challenge to Democracy in Central America,” which was then being disseminated to members of Congress, the Washington press corps and the American public.

The publication sought to portray Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government as a state sponsor of terrorism, a major propaganda theme that the Reagan administration was using to justify its covert support of the contra rebels, who themselves were infamous for acts of terrorism, including extra-judicial executions and attacks on civilian targets.

Chastising the Enemy

Despite the evidence that it was the Reagan administration that was knee-deep in propaganda, the psyop official, “Mr. Hunter” – whose fuller identity remained classified in the meeting’s minutes – briefed the group on what he described as anti-U.S. “disinformation campaigns,” including “charges of immoral conduct by US troops in Honduras.”

In the world of Raymond’s psyop meetings, nearly every negative piece of news about U.S. activities in the world was dismissed as “Soviet active measures,” presumably even the fact that some U.S. troops operating in Honduras engaged in what surely could be called “immoral conduct.”

Bureaucratic deception was also part of the secret operations inside the NSC. In the mid-1980s, I was told by one senior NSC official that a key early document laying the groundwork for raising money for the contra war in defiance of a congressional prohibition was marked as a “non-paper,” so it would not be regarded as an official document (even though it clearly was).

Similarly, Raymond sent one Nov. 28, 1986, memo to an unnamed CIA officer reminding him to attend what Raymond called “the next non-group meeting.” So it appears that Reagan’s NSC sought to get around requirements for safeguarding historical records by circulating “non-papers” and meeting in “non-groups.”

Raymond’s domestic propaganda activities were explored by congressional Iran-Contra investigators in 1987. However, their findings faced fierce internal opposition from House and Senate Republicans.

In a bid for bipartisanship, House Democratic committee chairman Lee Hamilton agreed to a compromise in which a chapter on Raymond’s operation was dropped while a few segments were inserted elsewhere in the final report.

That meant, however, that the American people never got to read the chapter’s stunning conclusion: that the Reagan administration had built a domestic covert propaganda apparatus managed by a CIA disinformation specialist working out of the National Security Council.

“One of the CIA’s most senior covert action operators was sent to the NSC in 1983 by CIA Director [William] Casey where he participated in the creation of an inter-agency public diplomacy mechanism that included the use of seasoned intelligence specialists,” the chapter’s conclusion stated.

“This public/private network set out to accomplish what a covert CIA operation in a foreign country might attempt – to sway the media, the Congress, and American public opinion in the direction of the Reagan administration’s policies.”

Tracing the Origins

The 84-page “lost” chapter, entitled “Launching the Private Network,” traced the origins of the propaganda network to President Reagan’s “National Security Decision Directive 77” in January 1983 as his administration sought to promote its foreign policy, especially its desire to oust Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government. [There appear to have been several versions of this “lost chapter.” This one I found in congressional files.]

The chapter also cited a Jan. 13, 1983, memo by then-NSC Advisor Clark regarding the need for non-governmental money to advance the cause. “We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding,” Clark wrote.

However, what the newly discovered documents from Raymond’s files make clear is that the initiative dated back to 1982 and was pushed more by Casey and his CIA associates than by the NSC advisor.

The “lost chapter” does explain how Reagan administration officials soon began crossing lines that separated an overseas propaganda program from a domestic propaganda operation aimed at U.S. public opinion, the American press and congressional Democrats who opposed contra funding.

“An elaborate system of inter-agency committees was eventually formed and charged with the task of working closely with private groups and individuals involved in fundraising, lobbying campaigns and propagandistic activities aimed at influencing public opinion and governmental action,” the draft chapter said.

The draft chapter doesn’t initially use Raymond’s name – presumably because his work at the CIA remained classified – but its description of the CIA officer in charge of the NSC-run propaganda operation clearly refers to Raymond.

According to the draft report, the CIA officer [Raymond] had served as Director of the Covert Action Staff at the CIA from 1978 to 1982 and was a “specialist in propaganda and disinformation.”

“The CIA official discussed the transfer with [CIA Director] Casey and NSC Advisor William Clark that he be assigned to the NSC [in June 1982] and received approval for his involvement in setting up the public diplomacy program along with his intelligence responsibilities,” the chapter said.

“In the early part of 1983, documents obtained by the Select [Iran-Contra] Committees indicate that the Director of the Intelligence Staff of the NSC [Raymond] successfully recommended the establishment of an inter-governmental network to promote and manage a public diplomacy plan designed to create support for Reagan Administration policies at home and abroad.”

Raymond “helped to set up an elaborate system of inter-agency committees,” the draft chapter said, adding:

“In the Spring of 1983, the network began to turn its attention toward beefing up the Administration’s capacity to promote American support for the Democratic Resistance in Nicaragua [the contras] and the fledgling democracy in El Salvador.

“This effort resulted in the creation of the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean in the Department of State (S/LPD), headed by Otto Reich,” a right-wing Cuban exile from Miami.

Stiffing Shultz

Though Secretary of State George Shultz wanted the office under his control, President Reagan insisted that Reich “report directly to the NSC,” where Raymond oversaw the operations as a special assistant to the President and the NSC’s director of international communications, the chapter said.

“At least for several months after he assumed this position, Raymond also worked on intelligence matters at the NSC, including drafting a Presidential Finding for Covert Action in Nicaragua in mid-September” 1983, the chapter said.

In other words, although Raymond was shifted to the NSC staff in part to evade prohibitions on the CIA influencing U.S. public opinion, his intelligence and propaganda duties overlapped for a time as he was in the process of retiring from the spy agency.

And despite Raymond’s formal separation from the CIA, he acted toward the U.S. public much like a CIA officer would in directing a propaganda operation in a hostile foreign country. He was the go-to guy to keep this political action operation on track.

“Reich relied heavily on Raymond to secure personnel transfers from other government agencies to beef up the limited resources made available to S/LPD by the Department of State,” the chapter said.

“Personnel made available to the new office included intelligence specialists from the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army. On one occasion, five intelligence experts from the Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, were assigned to work with Reich’s fast-growing operation. …

“White House documents also indicate that CIA Director Casey had more than a passing interest in the Central American public diplomacy campaign.”

The chapter cited an Aug. 9, 1983, memo written by Raymond describing Casey’s participation in a meeting with public relations specialists to brainstorm how “to sell a ‘new product’ – Central America – by generating interest across-the-spectrum.”

In an Aug. 29, 1983, memo, Raymond recounted a call from Casey pushing his P.R. ideas. Alarmed at a CIA director participating so brazenly in domestic propaganda, Raymond wrote that “I philosophized a bit with Bill Casey (in an effort to get him out of the loop)” but with little success.

The chapter added: “Casey’s involvement in the public diplomacy effort apparently continued throughout the period under investigation by the Committees,” including a 1985 role in pressuring Congress to renew contra aid and a 1986 hand in further shielding S/LPD from the oversight of Shultz.

Casey even monitored personnel changes. A Raymond-authored memo to Casey in August 1986 described the shift of S/LPD – then run by neoconservative theorist Kagan who had replaced Reich – to the control of the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, which was headed by Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, another prominent neoconservative.

Oliver North and Friends

Another important figure in the pro-contra propaganda was NSC staffer Oliver North, who spent a great deal of his time on the Nicaraguan public diplomacy operation even though he is better known for arranging secret arms shipments to the contras and to Iran’s radical Islamic government, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal.

The draft chapter cited a March 10, 1985, memo from North describing his assistance to CIA Director Casey in timing the disclosures of pro-contra news “aimed at securing Congressional approval for renewed support to the Nicaraguan Resistance Forces.”

However, the discarding of the draft chapter and the ultimate failure of the Iran-Contra report to fully explain the danger of CIA-style propaganda intruding into the U.S. political process had profound future consequences. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the Casey-Raymond media operations of the 1980s helped bring the Washington press corps to its knees, where it has remained most of the time through today.

To soften up the Washington press corps, Reich’s S/LPD targeted U.S. journalists who reported information that undermined the administration’s propaganda themes. Reich sent his teams out to lobby news executives to remove or punish out-of-step reporters – with a disturbing degree of success.

In March 1986, Reich reported that his office was taking “a very aggressive posture vis-à-vis a sometimes hostile press” and “did not give the critics of the policy any quarter in the debate.” [For details, see Parry’s Lost History.]

Though Casey died in 1987 and Raymond in 2003, some U.S. officials implicated in the propaganda operations remain important Washington figures, bringing the lessons of the 1980s into the new century.

For instance, Elliott Abrams – though convicted of misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra Affair and later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush – returned as deputy advisor to George W. Bush’s NSC, where Abrams oversaw U.S.-Middle East policy.

Today, Kagan writes influential op-eds for the Washington Post and is a senior associate at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace. Oliver North landed a show on Fox News. Otto Reich was an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008.

Beyond the individuals, the manipulative techniques that were refined in the 1980s – especially the skill of exaggerating foreign threats – have proved durable. Such scare tactics brought large segments of the American population into line behind the Iraq War in 2002-03.

It took years and many thousands of deaths before Americans realized they had been manipulated by deceptive propaganda, that their perceptions had been managed.

In his book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, Bush’s former White House press secretary Scott McClellan described Iraq War propaganda tactics that would have been familiar to Casey and Raymond.

From his insider vantage point, McClellan cited the White House’s “carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval” – and he called the Washington press corps “complicit enablers.”

The newly discovered documents in Raymond’s files at the Reagan Library offer a glimpse at how these manipulative techniques took root.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:51 PM
Here's what really goes on in the news departments of TV stations.

Brian Springer's "Spin' - pirated news footage (also known as "wild feeds") which show how the news makers talk and act when they think we're not looking.




It's an hour long, so make preparations as necessary.

Artist Brian Springer spent a year scouring the airwaves with a satellite dish grabbing back channel news feeds not intended for public consumption. The result of his research is SPIN, one of the most insightful films ever made about the mechanics of how television is used as a tool of social control to distort and limit the American public's perception of reality.

Take the time to watch it from beginning to end and you'll never look at TV reporting the same again. Tell your friends about it. This extraordinary film released in the early 1990s is almost completely unknown. Hopefully, the Internet will change that.

Note: We have posted excerpts of this film. You can find these excerpts by going to the "Spin" section of Brasscheck TV.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:54 PM
Inside the Air Force’s Secret PsyOps Plane
· By Nathan Hodge
· May 27, 2010 |
11:31 am

OFF THE EASTERN SEABOARD — Name a recent U.S. military operation, and you can pretty much guarantee that a specially modified Air Force plane was somewhere in the vicinity, trying to influencing the minds of the people below. It’s called the Commando Solo. Ordinarily, civilians are not allowed on board.

The 193rd Special Operations Wing operates a fleet of three of these EC-130J aircraft, cargo haulers that have been converted into flying radio and television stations. These “psychological operations” aircraft can broadcast their own signal over AM and FM radio, UHF and VHF television bands — or override broadcast stations on the ground, something they apparently did during operations in Bosnia and Iraq.

I recently accompanied a Commando Solo crew on a training mission. It was an unusual opportunity to see the crew at work testing their radio and television equipment at full power.

The crew calls it “200-mile work”: In order to avoid interference with domestic frequencies — the aircraft can crank up to 1,000 watts of effective radiated power — the aircraft flies more than 200 miles off the East Coast.

Once we’re safely out over the Atlantic, says Weapons Systems Officer Lt. Col. Mike Rice, “it’s game on.”

As Weapon Systems Officer, Rice is responsible for aircraft defensive systems and data links. He also backs up the pilots during all phases of flight. The Weapons Systems Officer is also something like a station manager: He creates the broadcast plan, ensures it is broadcast to the highest level of fidelity possible and oversees a five-man mission crew.

These aircraft play a crucial role in reaching — and persuading — vulnerable civilian populations. During the recent Haiti earthquake-relief mission, Commando Solo aircraft based out of Puerto Rico relayed live broadcasts of Voice of America call-in shows in Creole, Haiti’s national language. During breaks in the programming, the plane broadcast public service announcements, giving earthquake victims information on everything from emergency sanitation to food-distribution points.
But Commando Solo also has a key mission in combat zones. As Danger Room reported in 2001, these aircraft played a crucial role in post-September 11 operations, reinforcing anti-Taliban messages, and helping persuade Afghans that U.S. intentions were good. Commando Solo radio broadcasts helped fill an important information gap in a country where a large part of the population was illiterate, and where television reception can be extremely spotty.

In other words, the aircraft needs to be able to operate anywhere globally; the broadcasting systems have to compatible with worldwide broadcasting formats and television encoding systems.

This training mission is straightforward: They set up different orbits and drop out different antennas. The EC-130J crews also practice aerial refueling, and occasionally perform some high-speed training missions with special operations forces.

A four-hour training flight is much more “event-intensive” than a real-world mission, where the main goal is to get on station and start broadcasting. I listen to some of the back-and-forth radio chatter, as the crew spools out various antennas: A vertically-polarized broadcasting antenna is lowered by a cable attached to a 500-pound weight. A horizontal trailing wire antenna is unreeled out of the back, sort of like casting a fishing line. This is a view of an antenna being reeled in, as seen through a periscope in the floor of the aft cargo compartment.
During the training mission, the crew also monitors a bank of receivers, to listen to and test a broadcast that’s being pumped out by the aircraft.

It’s not your father’s Vietnam-era C-130. The Commando Solo planes are built around the modern C-130J, which has a fully glass cockpit and modern avionics.
And of course, there’s a microwave in the cockpit, which makes life for the crew a bit easier on a long mission. This is the first flight as aircraft commander for Lt. Matthew Plasterer. During the pre-flight brief, he asks Technical Sgt. Jeremy Smith a crucial maintenance question: “Is the microwave working?”
Smith answers in the affirmative.

“Yeah, that’s almost a red ‘X’ [major maintenance issue] if it isn’t,” Plasterer grins.
Much of the crew are part-timers: Officially, the wing is part of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, although most of its missions are for Air Force Special Operations Command. The vice wing commander, Col. Jerry Otterbein, pictured here, is a commercial pilot for American Airlines in civilian life.

The day’s broadcast? Well, this is a training flight, so the crew is not playing a special, pre-packaged broadcast. Today’s broadcast during the four-hour flight is a double feature: First, a DVD of Transformers, followed by a screening of Hancock.
Not that the crew is enjoying the in-flight movie. Because this is a training exercise with lots of different events — Weapons Systems Officer Rice describs his checklist as a “sushi menu” of different procedures — the crew stays quite busy during the flight. Conditions in the back of the aircraft are quite cramped, and the aircraft has a pretty substantial cooling system to keep all the electronics from overheating.
Television broadcasts are limited to one analog channel; depending on where they are broadcasting, the crew has to re-tune the system, relying on international frequency guides. In the future, however, the system might eventually need an upgrade.

“With the world going to a digital format, we don’t have the capability,” Rice says. “It’s purely analog.”

Measuring the effectiveness of a bomber or a strike fighter is fairly straightforward: The art of bomb damage assessment, measuring the size of a bomb crater or effective blast radius of airdropped weapons. What about when your weapon is a television or radio signal, and your goal is the somewhat more nebulous aim of “influencing” a target?

“The biggest challenge is measuring our effectiveness,” said Rice. “We don’t have a way to look at it — we don’t have BDA.

In Haiti, however, “it was pretty evident that we were making a difference,” Rice adds. Many Haitian broadcasters were knocked out, and the military airdropped hand-cranked radios so Haitians could get timely information on relief efforts and food distribution. For example, Rice says they might change a delivery point for a delivery of humanitarian packages; a Commando Solo plane would broadcast the information; and within hours, Haitians would start forming queues at the new distribution point. “Haiti was one of the few times where we got clear feedback,” he said.

With operations like Iraq, the results are a bit more intangible. Rice says many of the Commando Solo broadcasts during early phase of Operation Iraq Freedom were simple rebroadcasts of the BBC: It was perceived as a more neutral, and therefore more trusted, outlet, by Iraqis. In Afghanistan, lots of the broadcasts post-9/11 were simple Afghan pop music. After years of rule by the Taliban, which forbade pop music, Afghans were eager to tune in.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/in.../#ixzz0pAyw0Uic (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/inside-the-air-forces-secret-psyops-plane/2/#ixzz0pAyw0Uic)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:55 PM
From http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2010/07/2010..._spike_act.html (http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2010/07/20100702_spike_act.html)

Did you know that awesome PSYOPS website PsyWar is now on Twitter as @psywarorg?



Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 07:58 PM
Managed News: Inside The US/NATO Military Industrial Media Empire
By Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff
Submitted by Joe on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 7:12pm


Managed News: Inside The US/NATO Military Industrial Media Empire

By Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff

“There is nothing so strong or safe in an emergency of life as the simple truth.”
–– Charles Dickens

We face what appears to be a military industrial media empire so powerful and complex that truth is mostly absent or reported in disconnected segments with little historical context. A case in point: The London Times reported on June 5, 2010, that American troops are now operating in 75 countries. Has President Obama secretly sanctioned a huge increase in the number of US Special Forces carrying out search-and-destroy missions against al-Qaeda around the world? If so, this increase is far in excess of special-forces operations under the Bush administration and reflects how aggressively Obama is pursuing al-Qaeda behind his public rhetoric of global engagement and diplomacy. Somehow this information didn’t make it into the US media.

The US, in cooperation with NATO, is building global occupation forces for the control of international resources in support of Trilaterialist—US, Europe, Japan— corporate profits. A New York Times report on the availability of a trillion dollars in mineral wealth in Afghanistan, on top of the need for an oil/gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea, suggests other reasons for U.S objectives in the region.

Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service writes on June 15, 2010, “The timing of the publication of a major New York Times story on the vast untapped mineral wealth that lies beneath Afghanistan's soil is raising major questions about the intent of the Pentagon…Blake Hounshell, managing editor at Foreign Policy magazine, says that the US Geological Service (USGS) already published a comprehensive inventory of Afghanistan's non-oil mineral resources on the Internet in 2007, as did the British Geological Survey. Much of their work was based on explorations and surveys undertaken by the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s.”

Given the previous reports, there is nothing new about resources in Afghanistan that the Pentagon and US multinational corporations didn’t already know. On the contrary, the public should consider whether the surfacing of this resource story is a managed-news press release being done at a time of sensitive concerns regarding NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. A deliberate news insertion such as the mineral wealth story is designed to create support for a US/NATO global empire agenda.

Managed news includes both the release of specific stories intended to build public support as well as the deliberate non-coverage of news stories that may undermine US goals. Have you been told about the continuing privatization of this global war? Independent journalist Jeremy Scahill, wrote in The Nation magazine November 23, 2009, how Blackwater (Xe) operatives in the Pakistani port city of Karachi are gathering intelligence and helping to direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign in that country.

There has not been much coverage of the report in Global Research, May 27, 2010, regarding new US capabilities for cyber warfare, announced recently by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as the activation of the Pentagon's first computer command and the world's first comprehensive, multi-service military cyber operation. CYBERCOM is based at Fort Meade, Maryland, which also is home to the National Security Agency (NSA).

The US’s Israeli partner in the Middle East demonstrated a skilled manipulation of the global media’s coverage of the May 31 attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. Israel controlled the news and images that emerged from the attack on the ships, asserting that the invading Israeli paratroopers were viciously attacked by crewmembers—resulting in the killing of several in “self defense.” Israel sought to divert the focus of public discussion away from the illegitimate use of excessive force against a group of humanitarians– of diverse religious and national affiliations– to the blaming of the victims for causing their own deaths.

Managed news creates a Truth Emergency for the public inside the US/NATO Military Industrial Media Empire. Deliberate news management undermines the freedom of information on the doings of the powerful military/corporate entities though overt censorship, mass distractions, and artificial news— including stories timed for release to influence public opinion (i.e., propaganda).

A Truth Emergency is the lack of purity in news brought about by this propaganda and distraction. It is the state in which people, despite potentially being awash in a sea of information, lack the power of discernment resulting in a knowinglessness about what is going on in the world. In short, we are living in a time where people do not know whom to trust for accurate information and yearn for the truth.

One antidote to the ongoing Truth Emergency is the creation of validated independent news by colleges and universities around the globe where students and professors use research skills and databases to fact check and verify information that is reported to the public. For more about this, and what we can all do to counter managed news, see Project Censored International's new website at http//:mediafreedominternational.org. Together, we can build accountability in our media and breathe life back into our withering republic.
Peter Phillips is professor of sociology at Sonoma State University, President of Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored, former director of Project Censored, and co-editor of Censored 2010.

Mickey Huff is associate professor of history at Diablo Valley College, Director of Project Censored/Media Freedom Foundation, and co-editor of Censored 2010.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:02 PM
Judge Rules CIA Can Suppress Information About Torture Tapes and Memos --Ruling Allows CIA to Conceal Evidence of Its Own Illegal Conduct, Says ACLU

15 Jul 2010

A federal judge [Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York] today ruled that the government can withhold information from the public about intelligence sources and methods, even if those sources and methods were illegal. The ruling came in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation filed by the American Civil Liberties Union for Justice Department memos that authorized torture, and for records relating to the contents of destroyed videotapes depicting the brutal interrogation of detainees at CIA black sites. The government continues to withhold key information, such as the names of detainees who were subjected to the abusive interrogation methods as well as information about the application of the interrogation techniques.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/judg...tapes-and-memos (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/judge-rules-cia-can-suppress-information-about-torture-tapes-and-memos)

http://www.legitgov.org/Judge-Rules-CIA-Ca...Tapes-and-Memos (http://www.legitgov.org/Judge-Rules-CIA-Can-Suppress-Information-About-Torture-Tapes-and-Memos)

[What else has he been involved in?!]

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:10 PM

Submitted by Danse on Mon, 08/23/2010 - 9:08pm

* Consumerism
* democracy
* Propaganda
* psyops

"If it is your desire to understand how we are manipulated into believing the things we do -- watch this film. Every American should see it...for the sake of our future."
- Timothy Gatto, fmr Chairman, Liberal Party of America

I'm pleased to present the first feature in my documentary series, entitled Psywar ("The real battlefield is the mind"). It premiered on Global Research and should be appearing on some other alternative news websites in the coming days.

The film explores the evolution of propaganda and public relations in the United States, with an emphasis on the “elitist theory of democracy” and the relationship between war, propaganda and class.

This is not a high budget affair, but was financed via a blue collar job, and is being released online for free. The interviews contained within are original and were conducted by proxy.

Some quotes in support of the film by figures such as William Blum are available on the Acclaim page of the website. A few also appear in the trailer:

View on ExposureRoom [embedded at original link below]

Here is the full feature:
View on ExposureRoom [also embedded at original link below]

Although Psywar does not explore 911 or false flag operations, it is certainly relevant to these issues, as 911 was perhaps the greatest exercise in psychological warfare ever conceived. I intend to deal with the 911 and the war on terror in subsequent entries. A few notable 911 truth scholars do appear discussing related subjects, including Peter Phillips and Graeme MacQueen.

This film is designed both as an introduction to the concept of psychological warfare by governments against their citizens, and as an exploration of certain dominant themes in American propaganda. Significant time is also devoted to different conceptions of "democracy" as theorized by figures like Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays and ultimately the founding fathers of the United States itself.

The film was embedded at this link:

and the comments below include links, references to downloading, torrent/streaming, et al.

This link in particular: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=0EG7PZEW

It's 109 minutes... bring popcorn etc.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:16 PM
From http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/info...entag.html#more (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/info-war-pentag.html#more)

Info Wars: Pentagon Could Learn From Obama, Israel
By Noah Shachtman February 25, 2009 | 9:00:00 AMCategories: Info War

Yesterday, I spoke to the Phoenix Challenge, the information operations symposium put on by the Defense Department. Most of the conference was highly classified. I had to surrender my BlackBerry before I was escorted in. And when my session was through, I was promptly escorted out.

But just because the event was secret squirrel doesn't mean you guys should miss the chance to check out my talk. So here are my notes.

On a second pass, I'd probably be more nuanced, covering what the Pentagon might learn from "the two most significant information operations of recent memory. I'm speaking, of course, about Israel's war against Hamas – and Barack Obama's war against Hillary Clinton and John McCain."

But this was my first take. Have a read, after the jump.

- I'm not going to presume to tell you how to do your jobs. Instead, I figured I'd share some general principles about how information tends to spread online. Then I'll look at the two most significant information campaigns of recent memory. I'm speaking, of course, about Israel's war against Hamas – and Barack Obama's war against Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

- I'll skip the part where I tell you that just about the whole world is connected these days. Bottom line: When everybody's connected, word spreads fast.

- How long did it take for that rumor to spread that al Qaeda has caught the bubonic plague? Or the zinger about the terror group using gay rape as an initiation rite? (By the way: Whoever in this room came up with that one – kudos to you, sir.)

- Rule # 2: With that many people connected, keeping control of information is just about impossible. Especially when you combine new media's connectivity with old media's resources to investigate. How long did it take for one sentence from Senator Feinstein's testimony about U.S. drones on Pakistani soil to become worldwide news? 24 hours? How long did it take to find Google Earth images, confirming that sentence? Another 48?

- With that many people talking at once, it's really hard to get a handle on which are important, which aren't. In military circles especially, I've noticed a tendency to want to "check the box" of cyberspace. Yes, I've left a message in the comment thread of a blog. Therefore, I've "engaged the blogosphere! Check! Next assignment!" Well, no.

- Online, people tend to form cocoons of conversation. Conservatives talk to conservatives, liberals to liberals. Science fiction fans gather in one corner. Basketball fans, another. That can trick you into thinking you're spreading your message, when you're really just talking to yourself. Take the bloggers' roundtables, run by the Defense Department's public affairs shop. Great resource. But they tend to talk mostly to bloggers who already support them. Which means the influence is minimal.

- To cut through the noise – and to penetrate all those little echo chambers -- you need a message that's sharp, and simple. Bland statements-by-committee just don't work. In fact, the more you vet and control your statements, the less effective it is. Which is why the military has so often done a lousy job. Every statement has to be approved, ten rungs up the chain. Many of the smartest things are said in secret. What's said in public is often wrapped in a an impenetrable field of jargon and acronym.


- Now, if you want to look at an information campaign run right, look no further than our new president. Listen to the chatters on cable TV every night during the campaign, and you'd think he was getting his butt handed to him. And it's true, he suffered all kinds of tactical losses.

- But in cyberspace, something very different was happening. He was building a strategic victory. His campaign enforced a clear, simple brand – and then let others take it from there.

- Online, a zillion web sites, blogs, Youtube videos, Facebook and MySpace groups, and Twitter feeds popped up. Some were done with campaign approval. Many were not. But even the ones built with campaign money weren't tightly controlled. In fact, some even openly contradicted the campaign. When Obama came out in favor of immunity for the telecom companies who had helped the government in its domestic surveillance efforts, groups of Obama supporters, on his own website, organized to oppose him. The campaign just let it happen.

- Next, the campaign recognized that there's a huge desire out there right now to contribute to causes they believe in. Whether it's correcting answers on Wikipedia or becoming a cyber-soldier in the online war between Russia and Georgia, people now have a sense that they possess a small part of a much greater puzzle. And they want to connect their piece.

- The Obama campaign made it *ridiculously* easy to do so – whether it was donate money, recruiting volunteers, or spreading the word. Back when I worked for the Clinton campaign, if I wanted to get people to call their neighbors to remind them to vote, I'd corral everyone into a union basement, give them scripts, and closely monitor what they said. During last year's campaign, all it took was a few clicks for an Obama volunteer to start make those same calls, on her own. Except this time, she'd do it on her own phone, in her own phone. With nobody watching over her shoulder.

Don't get me wrong: The campaign's inner circle showed a Mafia-like omerta, when it came to preventing leaks. It was the most leak-free political team in recent memory. But the wider campaign was a different story. The Obama crowd showed that you don't need to control those supporters much at all. You just need a strong brand, and a strong architecture – and let your supporters do the rest.


Over the New Year's holiday, however, it looked like a second – and very different – model for information warfare was emerging. It came from Israel, and its battle against Hamas. And rather than ease back on the control, Israel tried to exert it more tightly than any military in a long time.

The battle started with a classic piece of military deception – Defense Minister Ehud Barak feigning a peace initiative, and then launching a massive set of airstrikes. From there, the strategy seemed simple: Lock the traditional media out of Gaza, and spread its own messages, through YouTube, Twitter, and the like.

- But when I went to Israel in January, it became pretty clear that this wasn't the strategy at all. In fact, there was no coherent information strategy – other than, to hell with what the rest of the world thinks.

- Israeli generals told me that one of the big mistakes they made in their 2006 war with Hezbollah was worrying to much about global opinion. It inhibited their operations, and got people on both side killed. This time, they'd do the exact opposite. And not care a bit about what anyone else thought.

- The online piece was no strategy either. I met the kid who ran Israel's YouTube site. He's a young guy named Lee -- born in a small town in Hawaii, converted to Judaism at Yale, and moved to Israel last year. He thought it'd be kinda cool to share some videos online. So up went the site.

- The architecture wasn't the only thing that was slap-dash. The branding was awfully confused, too. You have foreign ministry telling the Arab world that Israel is a crazed animal that needs to be kept in check – or else. Then you've also got officials trying to convince the world that every one of its strikes was taken with the utmost care. That they're dropping flowers, instead of bombs.

- In text messages and hacked TV broadcasts, the Israelis told the people of Gaza that Hamas' leaders were a bunch of cowards. But then would tell outside reporters that Hamas was much smarter, tougher, etc than Fatah. It all was a mishmosh. It made no sense.

- This wasn't an information strategy. It was, at best, a series of tactics. An information holding campaign, designed to keep the world at bay for a couple of weeks. And when those couple of weeks ended – and reports of mass casualties started seeping out, and western reporters managed to find their way in – the whole thing collapsed. World opinion swung wildly against Israel. In Gaza and in the West Bank, many opinion polls say Hamas is now more popular than its rivals in Fatah. Which makes you wonder exactly how much was accomplished by this war.

- But I did find one spokesman for the Israeli cause who was remarkably articulate, and moving. He was a UAV remote pilot named Gil. He was a young father of three, and he spoke with incredible passion about the absolutely brutal moral choices he had to make in this war. How he'd see a rocket being launched from a Gaza school, and have to choose between hurting Palestinian kids if he attacked – and risking Israeli children if he didn't. He talked about all the times he held back from giving the order to attack – even when his own troops were under fire. The care and the compassion he displayed put him in marked contrast with the indiscriminate killing carried out by Hamas, firing rockets by thousands into Israeli schoolyards.

- I thought: How much better off would Israel have done in the information war, if they had equipped this guy to fight it?

- And then I thought: Would the United States have done things any differently?

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:19 PM
New York Times Complicit in FBI Anthrax Coverup

by Sheila Casey / February 26th, 2009
Back in 2001, just months after the anthrax attacks that killed five people, several articles came out in mainstream newspapers that pointed clearly to the CIA and Army as the most likely sources of the weaponized anthrax. Articles in The Baltimore Sun (http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/balt-sun.html), Miami Herald (http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html), Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A34707-2001Dec12&notFound=true) and New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E1D71639F937A3575AC0A9679C8B 63) laid out the facts that incriminated Battelle Memorial Labs in West Jefferson, Ohio, and the Army’s lab at the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah as the only logical sources for the anthrax. These facts, as reported in 2001, include:
1. For over a decade, Army scientists at Dugway have been making weapons-grade anthrax that is “virtually identical” to the anthrax used in the attacks.
2. The anthrax used in the 2001 attacks was extremely concentrated, with a trillion spores per gram. The Dugway anthrax had a similar concentration.
3. The FBI was increasingly focused on US government bioweapons research programs as the source of the deadly anthrax.
4. Both the lab in Utah and the lab in Ohio received anthrax samples from the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, although USAMRIID deals only with wet anthrax and ships it wet.
5. The investigation was focused on the Dugway anthrax, and Dugway was described as the only facility that was known to be weaponizing anthrax.
6. One FBI official said that the CIA’s anthrax was “the best lead we have at this point.”
7. Army officials said that Fort Detrick did not have the equipment for weaponizing anthrax.
The FBI has never explained what became of this initial focus on the labs in Utah and Ohio. Instead, after the death of Fort Detrick anthrax researcher Bruce Ivins in July 2008, the FBI attempted to make the case that Ivins was the murderer and all other suspects had been cleared of suspicion.
Since Ivins’ death, the media have, with very few exceptions, passively swallowed the line dispensed by the FBI, and have acted as little more than stenographers in parroting the hollow arguments presented by the FBI that Ivins is guilty.
On December 12, 2001, The Baltimore Sun published a seminal article (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1212-01.htm) by Scott Shane that clearly laid out just how strong the evidence was against the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. Subtitled “Organisms made at a military laboratory in Utah are genetically identical to those mailed to members of Congress,” Shane’s article also includes this eyebrow-raising line: “Scientists familiar with the anthrax program at Dugway described it to The Sun on the condition that they not be named.”
Apparently Shane has forgotten all that he reported seven years ago. Now with The New York Times, Shane’s latest piece, published January 4, 2009, raises troubling questions about the independence of The Times, and the memory hole that Shane must have used to shunt away all that he once knew about the case the FBI code-named Amerithrax.
Shane calls his 5,200-word article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/us/04anthrax.html?pagewanted=all) “the deepest look so far at the investigation.” Titled “Portrait Emerges of Anthrax Suspect’s Troubled Life,” it is primarily a hatchet job on Bruce Ivins. Filled with innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations, the purpose of the article is clearly to solidify the perception that Ivins was the killer, and to pooh-pooh the widely held belief that the anthrax came from a CIA or military lab in Utah or Ohio.
Shane dismisses these beliefs breezily, stating: “The Times review found that the FBI had disproved the assertion, widespread among scientists who believe Dr. Ivins was innocent, that the anthrax might have come from military and intelligence research programs in Utah or Ohio.” Not a single piece of evidence is presented to back up this sweeping claim.
Halfway through his article, Shane springs another shocker on us. “By early 2004, FBI scientists had discovered that out of 60 domestic and foreign water samples, only water from Frederick, Maryland, had the same chemical signature as the water used to grow the mailed anthrax.”
Really? Do FBI scientists think that anthrax researchers go to the kitchen sink for the water they use to grow the anthrax? According to Wikipedia, biochemistry labs use only highly purified water, such as double-distilled. Distilled water is created by boiling water and collecting the steam. To obtain double-distilled water, the process is done twice, so that all impurities and minerals are removed. Distilled water has the same chemical signature, namely none, no matter where in the world it originates.
It is unprecedented to have a major development in a high profile case go unreported for a full five years. Not only has the FBI never before mentioned this so-called discovery about the signature of the water, but when they were specifically asked if anything could be learned from the water, they said no.
The question came up on August 18, 2008, when the FBI held a science briefing to follow up on the highly publicized August 6 press conference (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93415845) by DOJ attorney Jeff Taylor. The science briefing was hosted by Dr. Vahid Majidi, Assistant Director of the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate.
Dr. Majidi was asked: “In your looking at the elemental and chemical properties, could you tell anything about the water that was used to filter this anthrax, and did that do you any good?”
Dr. Majidi replied: “No. No.”
Yet here we are, five months later, with Scott Shane telling us that the FBI has known since 2004 that the anthrax was grown near Fort Detrick, because of the chemical signature of the water.
Beyond these outrageous claims, Shane’s article is busy assassinating Bruce Ivins’ character. We have Nancy Haigwood saying of Ivins “he did it,” for no apparent reason other than she doesn’t like him and thinks he’s odd. She also thinks Ivins vandalized her house 27 years ago and impersonated her. No reason is given for why she believes these things.
Shane editorializes heavily. He charges that Ivins was “chipper” even as five people were dead or dying of anthrax inhalation, and was relishing his moment in the spotlight. No evidence is presented for how Shane reached these conclusions about Ivins.
Words Shane uses to describe Ivins (including quotes from others) are: corny, dour, scary, provocative, emotionally laden, thin-skinned, aggressive, goody two shoes, very sensitive, creepy, possessing an unnerving hubris, stressed, depressed, rude, sarcastic, nasty, devious, jumpy and agitated.
We find out that Ivins had been a nerdy, awkward teenager, was not popular in high school, and was still bitter about this.
He liked to eat a mixture of peas, yogurt and tuna for lunch and wore outdated bell-bottoms, practices that, according to Shane, got him labeled an “oddball.” The words odd, oddball or oddities appear five times in Shane’s article.
The final reference, regarding “a man whose oddities, for many people, made the FBI’s anthrax accusation more plausible,” tips Shane’s hand. His constant harping on Ivins oddness betrays the poverty of the FBI’s case, which Shane acknowledges has “yielded nothing more persuasive than a strong hunch” that Ivins was the killer.
Fortunately for many of us, being odd is not a crime.
But was Ivins odd? The Frederick News Post published a letter from Amanda Lane (http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/archives/display_detail.htm?StoryID=85883) on August 10, 2008 that includes: “I want to shout from the mountain tops that Bruce was the kind of man we look up to . . . He was a decorated scientist and the humblest of men who didn’t use his title as a status symbol. He picked up a mop or emptied the trash without a moment’s hesitation. If he thought you were having a bad day he would offer candy or a catchy tune to cheer you up. If someone had to stay late to accomplish a task, Bruce would work with you so that the task would get completed faster.
“He was not the greatest athlete, but he was the best cheerleader present at every game to support his friends. I will truly miss his good humor, as there are few people in life who measure up to this man. I hope that he knew how much joy he brought to my life and others around him. If I learned anything from Bruce, it was to enjoy life and to always smile. His friendship brightened so many lives. I hope that Americans will remember Bruce for the funny and compassionate person that he was, because that is all Bruce knew how to be.”
Although Shane does mention that Ivins’ colleagues cherished him, the implication is that they didn’t really know him, as “he hid from them a shadow side of mental illness, alcoholism, secret obsessions and hints of violence.”
The New York Times has published a hit piece, devoid of incriminating facts, more gossip than journalism. Shane’s article raises disturbing questions about the relationship between The New York Times and the US government. What happened to the FBI’s original focus on the CIA and Army labs? Who is behind the drive to pin the attacks on a dead man who possessed neither the means nor the motive to carry them out? And why is The Times acting as a PR arm for those with an agenda that has nothing to do with journalism?
Sheila Casey is a DC-based journalist. Her work has appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, Reuters, The Denver Post, Buzz Flash, Common Dreams and the Rock Creek Free Press. She blogs at blog (http://www.sheilacasey.com/). Read other articles by Sheila (http://dissidentvoice.org/author/SheilaCasey/), or visit Sheila's website (http:///).
This article was posted on Thursday, February 26th, 2009 at 7:42am and is filed under Disinformation (http://dissidentvoice.org/category/disinformation/), Media (http://dissidentvoice.org/category/media/), Military/Militarism (http://dissidentvoice.org/category/militarymilitarism/), Terrorism (http://dissidentvoice.org/category/terrorism/).


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:22 PM
US Domestic Covert Operations

From the Archive: WAR AT HOME

From: yibgle@cts.com (Gary Lee)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 14:21:22 GMT
Organization: The Gloons of Tharf
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy

/** pn.publiceye: 23.5 **/ ** Written 7:12 pm Jan 25, 1991 by nlgclc in cdp:pn.publiceye **
Path: crash!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news.b luesky.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu! news.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.missouri.edu!pe ncil.cs.missouri.edu!rich From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive Subject: From the Archive: WAR AT HOME (4/5) Followup-To: alt.activism.d Date: 11 Mar 1995 19:09:20 GMT Organization: ? Lines: 617 Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu Message-ID: <3jssh0$11fr@news.missouri.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu Resent-From: rich Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu Harassment Through
Psychological Warfare

While boring from within, the FBI and police also attack dissident movements from the outside. They openly mount propaganda campaigns through public addresses, news releases, books, pamphlets, magazine articles, radio, and television. They also use covert deception and manipulation. Documented tactics of this kind include: False Media Stories: COINTELPRO documents expose frequent collusion between news media personnel and the FBI to publish false and distorted material at the Bureau's behest. The FBI routinely leaked derogatory information to its collaborators in the news media. It also created newspaper and magazine articles and television "documentaries" which the media knowingly or unknowingly carried as their own. Copies were sent anonymously or under bogus letterhead to activists' financial backers, employers, business associates, families, neighbors, church officials, school administrators, landlords, and whomever else might cause them trouble.
One FBI media fabrication claimed that Jean Seberg, a white film star active in anti-racist causes, was pregnant by a prominent Black leader. The Bureau leaked the story anonymously to columnist Joyce Haber and also had it passed to her by a "friendly" source in the Los Angeles Times editorial staff. The item appeared without attribution in Haber's nationally syndicated column of May 19, 1970. Seberg's husband has sued the FBI as responsible for her resulting stillbirth, nervous breakdown, and suicide.
Bogus Leaflets, Pamphlets, and Other Publications: COINTELPRO documents show that the FBI routinely put out phony leaflets, posters, pamphlets, newspapers, and other publications in the name of movement groups. The purpose was to discredit the groups and turn them against one another.
FBI cartoon leaflets were used to divide and disrupt the main national anti-war coalition of the late 1960s. Similar fliers were circulated in 1968 and 1969 in the name of the Black Panthers and the United Slaves (US), a rival Black nationalist group based in Southern California. The phony Panther/US leaflets, together with other covert operations, were credited with subverting a fragile truce between the two groups and igniting an explosion of internecine violence that left four Panthers dead, many more wounded, and a once-flourishing regional Black movement decimated.
Another major COINTELPRO operation involved a children's coloring book which the Black Panther Party had rejected as anti-white and gratuitously violent. The FBI revised the coloring book to make it even more offensive. Its field offices then distributed thousands of copies anonymously or under phony organizational letterheads. Many backers of the Party's program of free breakfasts for children withdrew their support after the FBI conned them into believing that the bogus coloring book was being used in the program.
Forged Correspondence: Former employees have confirmed that the FBI has the capacity to produce state-of-the-art forgery. This capacity was used under COINTELPRO to create snitch jackets and bogus communications that exacerbated differences among activists and disrupted their work.
One such forgery intimidated civil rights worker Muhammed Kenyatta (Donald Jackson), causing him to abandon promising projects in Jackson, Mississippi. Kenyatta had foundation grants to form Black economic cooperatives and open a "Black and Proud School" for dropouts. He was also a student organizer at nearby Tougaloo College. In the winter of 1969, after an extended campaign of FBI and police harassment, Kenyatta received a letter, purportedly from the Tougaloo College Defense Committee, which "directed" that he cease his political activities immediately. If he did not "heed our diplomatic and well-thought-out warning," the committee would consider taking measures "which would have a more direct effect and which would not be as cordial as this note." Kenyatta and his wife left. Only years later did they learn it was not Tougaloo students, but FBI covert operators who had driven them out.
Later in 1969, FBI agents fabricated a letter to the mainly white organizers of a proposed Washington, D.C. anti-war rally demanding that they pay the local Black community a $20,000 "security bond." This attempted extortion was composed in the name of the local Black United Front (BUF) and signed with the forged signature of its leader. FBI informers inside the BUF then tried to get the group to back such a demand, and Bureau contacts in the media made sure the story received wide publicity.
The Senate Intelligence Committee uncovered a series of FBI letters sent to top Panther leaders throughout 1970 in the name of Connie Mathews, an intermediary between the Black Panther Party's national office and Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, in exile in Algeria. These exquisite forgeries were prepared on pilfered stationery in Panther vernacular expertly simulated by the FBI's Washington, D.C. laboratory. Each was forwarded to an FBI Legal Attache at a U.S. Embassy in a foreign country that Mathews was due to travel through and then posted at just the right time "in such a manner that it cannot be traced to the Bureau." The FBI enhanced the eerie authenticity of these fabrications by lacing them with esoteric personal tidbits culled from electronic surveillance of Panther homes and offices. Combined with other forgeries, anonymous letters and phone calls, and the covert intervention of FBI and police infiltrators, the Mathews correspondence succeeded in inflaming intra-party mistrust and rivalry until it erupted into the bitter public split that shattered the organization in the winter of 1971.
Anonymous Letters and Telephone Calls: During the 1960s, activists received a steady flow of anonymous letters and phone calls which turn out to have been from the FBI. Some were unsigned, while others bore bogus names or purported to come from unidentified activists in phony or actual organizations.
Many of these bogus communications promoted racial divisions and fears, often by exploiting and exacerbating tensions between Jewish and Black activists. One such FBI-concocted letter went to SDS members who had joined Black students protesting New York University's discharge of a Black teacher in 1969. The supposed author, an unnamed "SDS member," urged whites to break ranks and abandon the Black students because of alleged anti-Semitic slurs by the fired teacher and his supporters.
Other anonymous letters and phone calls falsely accused movement leaders of collaboration with the authorities, corruption, or sexual affairs with other activists' mates. The letter on the next page was used to provoke "a lasting distrust" between a Black civil rights leader and his wife. Its FBI authors hoped that his "concern over what to do about it" would "detract from his time spent in the plots and plans of his organization." As in the Seberg incident, inter-racial sex was a persistent theme. The husband of one white woman active in civil rights and anti-war work filed for divorce soon after receiving the FBI-authored letter reproduced on page 50.
Still other anonymous FBI communications were designed to intimidate dissidents, disrupt coalitions, and provoke violence. Calls to Stokely Carmichael's mother warning of a fictitious Black Panther murder plot drove him to leave the country in September 1968. Similar anonymous FBI telephone threats to SNCC leader James Forman were instrumental in thwarting efforts to bring the two groups together.
The Chicago FBI made effective use of anonymous letters to sabotage the Panthers efforts to build alliances with previously apolitical Black street gangs. The most extensive of these operations involved the Black P. Stone Nation, or "Blackstone Rangers," a powerful confederation of several thousand local Black youth. Early in 1969, as FBI and police infiltrators in the Rangers spread rumors of an impending Panther attack, the Bureau sent Ranger chief Jeff Fort an incendiary note signed "a black brother you don't know." Fort's supposed friend warned that "The brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking their thing and there's supposed to be a hit out for you." Another FBI-concocted anonymous "black man" then informed Chicago Panther leader Fred Hampton of a Ranger plot "to get you out of the way." These fabrications squelched promising talks between the two groups and enabled Chicago Panther security chief William O'Neal, an FBI-paid provocateur, to instigate a series of armed confrontations from which the Panthers barely managed to escape without serious casualties.
Pressure Through Employers, Landlords, and Others: FBI records reveal repeated maneuvers to generate pressure on dissidents from their parents, children, spouses, landlords, employers, college administrators, church superiors, welfare agencies, credit bureaus, and the like. Anonymous letters and telephone calls were often used to this end. Confidential official communications were effective in bringing to bear the Bureau's immense power and authority.
Agents' reports indicate that such FBI intervention denied Martin Luther King, Jr., and other 1960s activists any number of foundation grants and public speaking engagements. It also deprived alternative newspapers of their printers, suppliers, and distributors and cost them crucial advertising revenues when major record companies were persuaded to take their business elsewhere. Similar government manipulation may underlie steps recently taken by some insurance companies to cancel policies held by churches giving sanctuary to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala.
Tampering With Mail and Telephone Service: The FBI and CIA routinely used mail covers (the recording of names and addresses) and electronic surveillance in order to spy on 1960s movements. The CIA alone admitted to photographing the outside of 2.7 million pieces of first-class mail during the 1960s and to opening almost 215,000. Government agencies also tampered with mail, altering, delaying, or "disappearing" it. Activists were quick to blame one another, and infiltrators easily exploited the situation to exacerbate their tensions.
Dissidents' telephone communications often were similarly obstructed. The SDS Regional Office in Washington, D.C., for instance, mysteriously lost its phone service the week preceding virtually every national anti-war demonstration in the late 1960s.
Disinformation to Prevent or Disrupt Movement Meetings and Activities: A favorite COINTELPRO tactic uncovered by Senate investigators was to advertise a non-existent political event, or to misinform people of the time and place of an actual one. They reported a variety of disruptive FBI "dirty tricks" designed to cast blame on the organizers of movement events.
In one "disinformation" case, the [FBI's] Chicago Field Office duplicated blank forms prepared by the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam ("NMC") soliciting housing for demonstrators at the Democratic National Convention. Chicago filled out 217 of these forms with fictitious names and addresses and sent them to the NMC, which provided them to demonstrators who made "long and useless journeys to locate these addresses." The NMC then decided to discard all replies received on the housing forms rather than have out-of-town demonstrators try to locate nonexistent addresses. (The same program was carried out when the Washington Mobilization Committee distributed housing forms for demonstrators coming to Washington for the 1969 Presidential inaugural ceremonies.)
In another case, during the demonstrations accompanying inauguration ceremonies, the Washington Field Office discovered that NMC marshals were using walkie-talkies to coordinate their movements and activities. WFO used the same citizen band to supply the marshals with misinformation and, pretending to be an NMC unit, countermanded NMC orders.
In a third case, a [Bureau] midwest field office disrupted arrangements for state university students to attend the 1969 inaugural demonstrations by making a series of anonymous telephone calls to the transportation company. The calls were designed to confuse both the transportation company and the SDS leaders as to the cost of transportation and the time and place for leaving and returning. This office also placed confusing leaflets around the campus to show different times and places for demonstration-planning meetings, as well as conflicting times and dates for traveling to Washington.
** End of text from cdp:pn.publiceye **


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:23 PM
Air Force Releases ‘Counter-Blog’ Marching Orders

By Noah Shachtman (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/noah-shachtman/) http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif ("")
January 6, 2009 |
1:00 pm |
Categories: Info War (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/category/info-war/)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2009/01/06/air_force_blog_char.jpg (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2009/01/06/air_force_blog_char.jpg)
Bloggers: If you suddenly find Air Force officers leaving barbed comments after one of your posts, don’t be surprised. They’re just following the service’s new "counter-blogging" flow chart (http://freshspot.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451f23a69e2010536ab4efc970b-popup). In a twelve-point plan, put together by the emerging technology division of the Air Force’s public affairs arm, airmen are given guidance on how to handle "trolls," "ragers" — and even well-informed online writers, too. It’s all part of an Air Force push to "counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force (http://www.webinknow.com/2008/12/the-us-air-force-armed-with-social-media.html)," Captain David Faggard says.
Over the last couple of years, the armed forces have tried, in fits and starts, to connect more with bloggers. The Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense now hold regular "bloggers’ roundatbles (http://www.defenselink.mil/Blogger/Index.aspx)" with generals, colonels, and key civilian leaders. The Navy invited a group of bloggers to embed with them on a humanitarian mission (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/meet-kearsarge.html) to Central and South America, last summer. Military blogger Michael Yon recently traveled to Afghanistan with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmMzZjNjZmQwZTQ0ZmNlNzcyZGYyMGFlYTFhMWFhNzc=&p=1).
In contrast, the Air Force has largely kept the blogosphere at arms’ length. Most of the sites are banned from Air Force networks (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/air-force-banni.html). And the service has mostly stayed away from the Pentagon’s blog outreach efforts. Captain Faggard, who’s become the Air Force Public Affairs Agency’s designated social media guru, has made strides in shifting that attitude. The air service now has a Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/AFPAA), a blog of its own (http://airforcelive.blogspot.com/) — and marching orders, for how to comment on other sites. "We’re trying to get people to understand that they can do this," he tells Danger Room.

The flow chart lays out a range of possible responses to a blog post. Airmen can offer a "factual and well-cited response [that] is not factually erroneous, a rant or rage, bashing or negative in nature."
They can "let the post stand — no response." Or they cancan "fix the facts," offering up fresh perspective.
No matter what, the chart says, airmen should "disclose your Air Force connection," "respond in a tone that reflects high on the rich heritage of the Air Force," and "focus on the most-used sites related to the Air
Despite the chart’s sometimes-stiff language, former military spokesman Steven Field says he’s "a fan." Field (http://dring.wordpress.com/), who’s been occasionally critical of the armed services’ blog outreach efforts, tells Danger Room: "I’ve always thought that a military-like process would be a good bridge to connect the services with the blogosphere. There’s a field manual for everything in the military, so this flow-chart presents online communications in a DoD [Department of Defense]
friendly format."

One stipulation — While it should be a guide of communications, it shouldn’t become a ball-and-chain. Online comms require some level of nimble, on-your-feet response. As long as the Air Force doesn’t use the
"evaluate" phase to get approval from every Tom, Dick and Harry in the
Pentagon, it should be a good tool.
"Now they just need to lift those damn IP [Internet Protocol] filters," Field adds, so airmen can actually read those blogs that they’re supposed to respond to.

Air Force Blocks Access to Many Blogs (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/air-force-banni.html#previouspost)
Who Gets Through the Air Force’s Blog Block? (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/the-air-force-h.html#previouspost)
Air Force Backtracks on Social Network Ban (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/in-late-january.html#previouspost)
No More YouTube, MySpace for U.S. Troops (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/no_youtube_mysp.html#previouspost)
Top General: Let Soldiers Blog (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/a-leading-gener.html#previouspost)
If You’re Gonna Get Blocked by the Air Force… (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/if-youre-gonna.html#previouspost)
Army Audits: Official Sites, Not Blogs, Breach Security (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/army-report-off.html#previouspost)
Army: Milblogging is "Therapy," Media is "Threat" (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/army_milbloggin.html#previouspost)
New Army Rules Could Kill G.I. Blogs (Maybe E-mail, Too) (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/new_army_rules_.html#previouspost)

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/usaf-blog-respo/#previouspost#ixzz12eLD9RZO

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:26 PM
Fusion Center Agents Working Public Forums?

by Carol Ingram

Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/), March 29, 2009
usanewsthatmatters.spaces.live.com/blog (http://usanewsthatmatters.spaces.live.com/blog)

People continue to ask me, "what is a fusion center?" At first, I was perplexed by the term, but as I looked further.....it seems to be a coordinated effort by Homeland Security, through various state run agencies, to monitor websites and forums in their area. They monitor for illegal activities, including terrorism. However, there is a likely scenario that goes beyond law enforcement, but a potential brainwashing tactic, under the direction of the Obama administration.

What we're seeing on many forums, attached to radio talk shows, or to local counties that have general forums, allowing national/political input....we're seeing a growing trend of forum infiltration by persons that monitor those forums to quickly debunk, and/or provide disinformation, when the subject matter is about Barack Obama.

We saw a mirror image of those tactics with those employed by the Obama campaign to do just that, from their own website, as well as on other public websites. The effort paid-off, as voters (already) disenchanted with the McCain campaign and a very rough (prior) Bush administration, the Obama blogsters and website monitors went after anyone that spoke-out against Obama.

With the recent attacks on Rush Limbaugh, and the increase of callers, supporting Obama, the same trend can be seen on the Sean Hannity radio show. Never before has a president, or candidate ever put forth an effort to counter any and all statements on the radio, TV, and on forums, by using dedicated supporters. The Republican party could learn from Obama's strategies, however....the truth and promises of the Obama administration are seemingly tainted with lies and confusion.

But that doesn't stop the supporters that evidently are now being paid, to keep up Obama's image, going as far as to agree with every single thing he does and says. Much of what Obama is doing, is in-line with previous Bush policies, which these Obama supporters would the ones complaining the loudest (before).

The selection of posts (by Mike) from a local county forum in the southeast area, is a typical example of what we refer to as, "hijacking a forum."

"Mike" as he likes to be called, is likely a "Fusion Agent" working for the Obama administration, completely prepared with copy/paste Obama articles and some personal comments, but it is quite apparent that "Mike" is on a full time mission to counter any and all statements involving Obama. This type of tactic on a small community of those that voted for Obama and now dissatisfied with his performance, he finds it necessary to keep those folks interested and not informed about the true political climate. When an opposing statement against Obama is posted, he quickly jumps on them to the point of embarrassment. If "Mike" cannot counter the post effectively enough, he ignores the post and creates five to six new Obama posts to quickly push the truth to the bottom of the page. This is referred to as reverse bumping.

Below are examples of a potential "Fusion Agent" (Mike) at work on a small community that cannot effectively respond to his constant pushing, in-order to assure Obama a second term. If you read all his posts and notice the times, you can easily see that he does this, not as a concerned citizen for Obama, but as a paid person to harass the community of Benton County.

The more that we learn about "Fusion Centers" and their involvement with psyops, and the potential danger they cause to this nation, the free thinking individual will continue to be classified and stigmatized, through brain washing tactics, much the same way it was done by lumping everyone together as a potential militia member, if you support Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and/or display an anti-Obama sticker on your vehicle. (See MIAC Report)

The propaganda is coming at us from all directions. It is extremely important that Americans begin to do their own research to validate anything and everything they hear in media, or on forums, such as below. Relying (only) on mainstream media, is no longer a reliable source of truth, because they are all controlled by the Obama administration, as are the "Fusion Centers" located in a every state in America. If you would like to give "Mike" your two cents, you can log-on the Benton County Issues.Com without signing-in. Just pick a name and post under "National/Political" section where "Mike" likes to wait patiently for you.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:30 PM
Mockingbird agenda at Daily Kos

Submitted by DonnyBrook (http://911blogger.com/users/donnybrook) on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 7:50pm

Daily Kos (http://911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/2715)
Moulitsas (http://911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/11864)
operation mockingbird (http://911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/9574)

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Net's leading liberal website in terms of traffic and political influence, Daily Kos, has a rather curious and odd background for a leader of the Left—one that might explain his official policy of banning any Diarist who posts information or opinion dissenting from the 9/11 Commission's unraveling myth about the attacks.
Markos served in the U.S. Army from 1989 to 1992, where he was a staunch Reagan Republican, campaigning for George H.W. Bush. It was the "near miss" of being sent to Gulf War I that sparked his political conversion, he says. He hails from a wealthy El Salvadorian family, one of whose members was Minister of Education with the notorious junta during the civil war.
In a speech to the Commonwealth Club in 2006, Kos admitted to interviewing with the CIA for a 6-month period after a time of "underemployment." His statements there betray either a stunning ignorance, or sneaking sympathy with the CIA's long history of democratic subversion and support of rightist dictatorships abroad, including the one that sponsored death squads in his former homeland:

"This is a very liberal institution. And in a lot of ways, it really does attract people who want to make a better, you know, want to make the world a better place . . . Of course, they've got their Dirty Ops and this and that, right but as an institution itself the CIA is really interested in stable world. That's what they're interested in. And stable worlds aren't created by destabilizing regimes and creating wars. Their done so by other means. Assassination labor leaders . . . I'm kidding!... And even if you're protecting American interests, I mean that can get ugly at times, but generally speaking I think their hearts in the right place. As an organization their heart is in the right place. I've never had any problem with the CIA. I'd have no problem working for them . ."
Links to the Commonwealth Club audio, and other biographical documents on Moulitsasa can be found here. (http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2007/08/indictment-of-markos-ca-moulitsas-ziga.html)
Moulitsas began working for the Howard Dean campaign, and simultaneously launching Daily Kos, in 2002, shortly after his romance with the CIA. One may speculate that perhaps the romance never fully ended—and wonder if the CIA's IT venture capital subsidiary, In-Q-Tel, may have provided development and/or funding assistance to spark the meteoric rise of Daily Kos, now a virtual kingmaker in the Democratic party. The site endorses and directly raises funds for certain Democratic candidates and PACs, amassing over $2 million in the last two election cycles. Markos and his business partner, Jerome Armstrong, have also hired themselves out as political consultants to certain candidates—a stark conflict of interest for journalists. Markos answers that he is not so much a journalist, but an "activist."
The CIA has also been accused of providing seed money for both Facebook, and Google, according to former CIA clandestine officer Robert David Steele. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/061206seedmoney.htm) As one critic has noted: "The CIA does not merely look into social media—they appear to own it."
If Moulitsas is a digital-age Mockingbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird) (the CIA's Cold War program of infiltrating and co-opting the American media; ), perhaps he is exercising a role similar to that of Rahm Emmanuel, who as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 elections, steered party funds to pro-war Democrats while starving anti-war candidates. If that is the agenda of Daily Kos—to maintain the Democratic party's inertia as co-dependent enablers of the military-industrial complex and it's boondoggle War on Terror—it seems to be succeeding wildly. Suppressing any alternative narrative of 9/11, the foundational keystone of this war, would be a crucial element of such a strategy.


DonnyBrook's blog (http://911blogger.com/blog/492)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:31 PM
Google censors article on censorship
June 3, 6:40 PM

Google for the first time has censored one of my examiner.com articles on its main search engine. Most intriguing is that this case of censorship originates in a very inspiring news event.

My censored article, published on examiner.com one week ago today, told about the wonderfully refreshing story of Stanford professor Ronald Levy being the first ever Jewish recipient of the Arab equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize. It's a very encouraging development which you think would be widely reported. Yet as pointed out in my article, there was practically no media coverage of this heartening news.

A careful Google search showed that the only major U.S. or English-language European media to report this landmark event was Reuters. Yet even the Reuters article completely failed to mention Levy's Jewish heritage and the incredible significance of a Jew being awarded the prestigious $200,000 prize for the very first time.

It's quite interesting that the only major media source I found anywhere which reported this wonderful peace overture from Saudi Arabia was Israel's respected daily Haaretz, which posted a detailed and optimistic article titled "U.S. professor becomes first Jew to win 'Arab Nobel Prize'".

This media censorship in itself was astonishing, but I was even more astounded when the day after I published this article, I could not find it in a Google search. I often check Google after I publish articles to see how each article is listed, and to check its ranking. Every article I have ever checked usually shows up on the main Google search page within 12 hours, and always within 24 hours. Why on Earth did Google censor this particular article for the first time?

You can verify this for yourself. It's now been over a week and Google still has not indexed the article. Go to my article at this link. Take any string of 10 words or so in length (other than the quote from Haaretz and the first paragraph). Copy the string of words into the search box at www.google.com and put quotation marks at the beginning and end of the string of words. When you then click the search button, you will likely find no results, and certainly no results with that article. (Example here)

You can do this with any other article I've written for examiner.com before that one, and it will show up in the search. Note that if you do a search on the title or first paragraph of my article, you will find that a number of other websites reported the article, giving only the title and an introduction, and were listed on Google.

Since I posted that article, I've written three other, non-related articles. Two of those posted normally to Google, but the one on CIA mind control programs is now the second article ever not to be listed. So it appears I may now have someone monitoring which of my articles get indexed and which don't. On Google's specialized search for news, this kind of censorship of some of my more sensitive articles has been going on for a long time, but now it is happening on their regular searches, too.

[Update June 4th: Not long after I posted this message at 4:40 PM PDT yesterday, the article on the CIA was indexed on Google. On checking this morning, the nobel prize censorship article still had not been indexed. I checked again at 1 PM and it was indexed! Yea!!! Thanks to all who contacted Google. I also sent a call-to-action message on this to our WantToKnow.info emial list of over 6,000 subscribers this morning, so that may have played a role, too. Together, we make a difference!]

Why all the censorship?

Why did Google censor this article? Many people are not aware that the military and intelligence services have embedded key agents in all major media organizations (including Google and Yahoo) to monitor what is reported. Often, these agents work under cover. They are hired on as regular staff, yet secretly they are working for the military, FBI, or CIA to influence news selection and content. I highly suspect that these agents somehow censored my article at Google (and Yahoo) and may even have had a role in the original inspiring article not being published.

For one clear example of this, read the Project Censored news article titled "Embedded in media, U.S. Army’s Psychological Operations Personnel Worked at CNN." Here's a quote from that article:

"Psyops personnel, soldiers, and officers, have been working in CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta through our program ‘Training With Industry,’" Major Thomas Collins of the U.S. Army Information Service said in a telephone interview. Collins asserted, "They worked as regular employees of CNN. They helped in the production of news." The military/CNN personnel belonged to the airmobile Fourth Psychological Operations Group stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. One of the main tasks of this group of almost 1,200 soldiers and officers is to spread “selected information."

Two New York Times articles also reveal infiltration of the media. The first describes "an extensive and largely hidden Pentagon campaign to transform network military analysts into 'surrogates' and 'message force multipliers'". The second, titled "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand," states:

"Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity ... is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air."

To read key excerpts of these two revealing New York Times articles with links to the full originals on the Times website, click here and here.

In my work as a top language interpreter at the U.S. Department of State, I worked with a number of FBI agents and military officers of all ranks. I probably encountered a number of CIA agents, as well, though they are careful never to admit it. I learned from a few of these insiders first-hand how politics is sometimes manipulated in big ways to profit those in power at the expense of the public.

Though I think there is a need for organizations like our military and intelligence services to protect the public and prevent violent groups from endangering public safety, I find the excessive secrecy and blatant manipulation of public perception in which these agencies engage to actually work against the public interest. Too often, they end up supporting the interests and war agenda of the power elite, while neglecting the interests of the general public. Why do you think they might want to censor inspiring articles on Jewish-Arab relations? Could such articles defeat their war agenda?

Katharine Graham, former owner of the Washington Post, once commented, "We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows." For more on this, click here. Thankfully blossoming citizen-based Internet news websites like examiner.com and articles like this are increasingly breaking through this blatant media and Internet censorship.

The box immediately below provides several ideas on what you can do to further educate yourself on these important matters and work to stop the censorship. Note that though it is very difficult to contact Google directly, you can leave messages on their "Help Forum" at this link or this one, asking them to reinstate my original article and stop censoring others. I also invite you to comment below and let me know what you think. Should the military and intelligence services be able to censor our news? Why do you think they censored the inspiring article on a Jewish professor winning a major Arab prize?

What you can do:

* Inform your media and political representatives of this important information. To contact those close to you, click here. Urge them to discuss news censorship by military and intelligence agencies and to work to stop this disempowering behavior.
* Contact Google and Yahoo and insist that they not censor news articles from reliable news sources, and that they keep the military and intelligence services out of the process.
* Learn more about media censorship in this powerful lesson from the free Insight Course.
* Read concise summaries of revealing media reports revealing censorship available here.
* Visit our Media Information Center at www.WantToKnow.info/mediainformation.
* Spread this news to your friends and colleagues, and bookmark this article on key news websites using the icons listed below so that we can fill the role at which the major media is sadly failing. Together, we can make a difference.

Fred Burks served as personal language interpreter to Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Gore, and other top dignitaries in secret meetings. As part of an international network of researchers and news analysts, Fred obtains and disseminates key, reliable information about powerful, yet little-known forces which shape our world.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:33 PM
Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land

U.S. Media & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

How Israel manipulates and distorts American public perceptions

"Through the voices of scholars, media critics, peace activists, religious figures, and Middle East experts, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land carefully analyzes and explains how--through the use of language, framing and context--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media, and Israeli colonization of the occupied terrorities appears to be a defensive move rather than an offensive one."

79-minute video

downloadable PDF transcript


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:34 PM
A "separatist" journalism grows in Bolivia

The new attacks on Walter Chávez confirm that the CIA is rolling out a Psychological Operations plan in the country

By Wilson García Mérida
August 3, 2009
Spanish original here: http://www.bolpress.com/art.php?Cod=2009073108
Translated by Scott Campbell

(Datos & Análisis).- The Psychological Operations Command of the Pentagon, which operates in Venezuela through a mercenary communications firm tied to the CIA, is expanding its actions in Bolivia. Proofs of this are the recent media attacks suffered by libertarian journalist Walter Chávez, whose presence in the last meeting of Evo Morales’ cabinet caused an insipid national scandal. With the same bad intentions, this emerging separatist journalism continues making apologies for the frustrated attempts at Balkanization by mercenary Eduardo Rozsa and cynically spreading misinformation about the undeniable advances of the agrarian revolution in Pando.


Annually, and in a very selective manner, the U.S. government’s information service, more well known by its initials in English, BBG, “invites” journalists who in general work for large media companies, preferably editors-in-chief, columnists, TV anchors or “star” reporters, with the goal of formatting not just the style but also, above all, the subject matter, these reporters, “privileged” by the attentions of the U.S. embassy, will convey in their daily work.

With rare exceptions, practically all the Bolivian journalists who today occupy “decisive” positions in the conglomerates and networks of the communications business, have been favored with at least a trip to U.S. cities, at the invitation of the BGG, from which they return convinced that the Indian who governs Bolivia is a terrorist. These are pleasure trips with stays in five-star hotels in order to participate in “seminars” and “guided visits” to important U.S. media outlets. Once they return from these trips, these colleagues put themselves at the service of fascist politicians directly connected with the media outlet owners.

This form of “cooptation” which is part of the CIA’s strategy to exercise control over information systems in Latin America, has voraciously intensified and widened since the attacks that felled the twin towers in 2001. And today it is intensifying in Bolivia.

Soldiers of fallacy

After the Persian Gulf crisis, the war against Iraq and the attacks of September 11, the United States discovered that control of information and all of the technological apparatus inherent in it were the most efficient weapons of war. The journalist is conceived of as a key part of these invisible, yet lethal, social battles called “Psychological Operations” (PsyOps), whose objective is to prevent “the enemy” (in this case the government of Evo Morales) from having favorable public opinion for their actions. The modern warlike design of the United States opts for shooting lies, prior to bullets or together with them, producing equally devastating effects.

Federico Montanari, quoted by Joám Evans, affirms that today, “It is communication itself that can be turned into a continuation of war by other means,” through a “reversible continuum of politics and war, between which war and politics meld through communication.” And this brings us psychological war as such, understood as, “The planned use of propaganda and other actions oriented to generate opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of foreign groups, be they enemies, neutral, or friends, in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives [of the U.S.].” (Daugherty)

And the professionals called upon to carry out these “Psychological Operations” are not exactly psychologists, but above all journalists, reporters and publicists.

Latin America is today, as the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Balkans were in their time, the stage where an information war is being unleashed with complete vehemence, and it is such that the Pentagon, in its fervor to relieve itself of the uncomfortable presence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on the world stage, has reinforced its “Psychological Operations Unit,” based in Fort Bragg, where 1,200 specialists work, charged with creating “reliable messages” to support the interventionist politics of the United States. And coating these deeds is the shiny gloss of the CIA.

According to Rodrigo Guevara, the Pentagon’s PsyOps Command is charged with “packaging” together “pre-fabricated” speeches and writings for the “consumption” of the objective-population. During the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to reporting from the Times, USAID (the U.S. cooperation agency on which the BGG relies), developed and distributed tens of thousands of iPod-style audio devices (digital music players with hard drives or flash memory) which transmitted packaged civic messages, “but they did it through a contractor to assure that the ‘fingerprints’ of the Pentagon or the U.S. government weren’t on them.”

Rodrigo Guevara explains that along with hiring mercenary communications firms, the Pentagon also turns to bribing journalists in occupied or besieged countries. Or they co-opt them through the pleasant trips organized by the BGG.

In its war against Hugo Chávez and the Venezuelan people, the PsyOps Command of the Pentagon hired a mercenary communications firm, the Rendon Group, which is charged with “packaging” the spin that guides the Venezuelan journalists subordinated to this bellicose form of distorting information. Such methods are now in Bolivia.

Anything goes against the Peruvian

The informational thuggery foisted on Bolivia by the CIA and Pentagon is causing the growth of a separatist, prejudiced, and openly racist journalism which seeks to emphasize the weaknesses of President Evo Morales. In Bolivia, the famed “journalistic objectivity,” ethics, and impartiality in the handling of the facts are relics of the past. Today it is more important to be able to convince people that the enemy is in the other lane, that he is an Indian and a terrorist, even though in doing so one has to defame and misinform to the detriment of the people’s right to know the truth.

Examples abound; but the recent case of Peruvian journalist Walter Chávez, who was “surprised” by the cameras entering a meeting of Evo Morales’ cabinet during an event held in the municipality of Huajchilla, which was cause for scandalous front-page headlines, plainly shows the way in which Bolivian journalism, dominated by large media companies, has turned itself into a shameful appendage of the separatist and racist strategies still underway. “Accused terrorist turns up at Evo’s cabinet,” is one of the lie-filled headlines which seek to intimidate public opinion into a fervor, encouraged by the CIA, to undercut the citizenry’s confidence in the indigenous government.

Walter Chávez, as we all know in our country, is an intellectual educated at San Marcos University, Peru, and has been in Bolivia since 1992 as a political refugee after being persecuted by the Fujimori dictatorship.

He has worked as a journalist for more than 10 years, founding at the beginning of the 2000s the independent weekly “El Juguete Rabioso” [The Mad Toy], which helped clear the way for Evo’s path to the presidency.

In the middle of 2008, this fascism dug up Fujimori’s old smear over Chávez’s supposed links, never proven, with the MRTA and pushed for his “extradition” to Peru with the unique urge to discredit the Bolivian government.

Chávez was a journalist with La Razón and other traditional media during the neoliberal governments of Paz Zamora, Sánchez de Lozada, Banzer, Tuto Quiroga and Carlos Mesa, and was considered “a good journalist” and it didn’t occur to any of them to extradite him to Peru when they were in power.

But when he was seen next to Evo Morales, he turned out to be a “dangerous terrorist” who had to be expelled from the country, without considering that along with enjoying the rights as a refugee under the aegis of the UN, Walter Chávez created a home in Bolivia, has a daughter born in La Paz, and in many aspects is more of and a better Bolivian than the many politicians and local overlords who seek to Balkanize their country by hiring true terrorists such as the Hungarian-Croat mercenary Rozsa.

In May of 2008, the Supreme Court made a binding ruling that Walter Chávez can not be thrown out of Bolivia in any way, let alone extradited, and that he enjoys the status of a political refugee with all the prerogatives honored by the UN.

And although they achieved the dismissal of Chávez as an advisor to the president, he didn’t lose his ties with Evo Morales nor does he have cause to work in secret.

As such, his “appearance” in the cabinet at Huajchilla was not secret. Walter regularly enters the Palace to meet with Evo Morales, Álvaro García Linera or Juan Ramón Quintana, coordinating a series of investigative works such as the one, for example, he is carrying out together with the Datos & Análisis Information Service in relation to the Rozsa case.

Walter Chávez versus Rozsa Flores

“Opposition worriedly eyes the return of Chávez to Evo’s side,” reads a clearly insidious headline, within the framework of the “psychological operation” to undermine the governability of the regime. Walter Chávez is the scapegoat that the CIA is using so that the separatist journalism can achieve its ends.

They lied with similar malicious intent and perversely manipulative capability when they tried to turn the agrarian revolution in Pando into a simple electoral dirty trick, and they seek to impede the migration of landless peasants from the Andes to the Amazon, stigmatizing this historical event as a “genocide in the making.”

This same separatist journalism which makes a mockery of the right of freedom of movement that helped Walter Chávez as a political refugee, is trying to turn Eduardo Rozsa Flores, the Balkanizer hired by the wealthy landowners in the east, into an innocent victim of Evo Morales’ “terrorist regime.”

It was immoral the way these journalists were able scare off and discredit Spanish colleague Julio César Alonso, who arrived in the country in order to report on Rozsa’s background as a war criminal investigated by the UN.

None of Alonso’s detractors bothered to check the UN files relating to the Balkans, where Rozsa is effectively accused of several murders. Here is what was reported to the Commission on Human Rights in February 1994, in a document titled “Letter dated 10 February 1994 from the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the Chairman of the fiftieth session of the Commission on Human Rights,” where an explicit allusion is made to Rozsa’s pillaging, with a slight error in his last name:

“At the end of 1991, the Osijek operations zone of the Croatian Army had an international brigade established by Eduardo Rosses Flores [sic], the Zagreb-based correspondent of the Catalonian paper “La vanguardia.” The brigade was composed of former French Legion combatants and mercenaries from the wars in the Middle East and Latin America. It often operated on its own in the region of Eastern Slavonia and committed massacres against Serbian civilians in the villages of Divos, Ernestinovo, Tenjski Antunovac and others.”

The United Nations rapporteur charged that the Croatian government protected Rozsa Flores in order to prevent his prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. According to its report to the UN responding to Yugoslavia’s charges, the Croatian government protected him with the argument that since he was a Croatian citizen, he was not a mercenary:

“In respect of the eighth allegation about ’an international brigade’, in fact it concerns the volunteers. There are no data to support the claim that they committed massacres. Their commanding officer, Mr. Eduardo Jorge Roses Flores, born in 1960, is a Croatian citizen.”

In spite of the weight of this historical fact which we are aware of thanks to JC Alonso, for those confused Bolivian journalists who command large audiences, our Spanish colleague was the evil one just for telling us that Rozsa was a chemically pure mercenary and well-deserving of a place in hell.

The most well-perfected model of this mercenary and separatist journalism that is taking shape in Bolivia is the dealings in Santa Cruz of former socialist Cayetano Llobet, an employee of Croatian businessman Branco Marinkovic, who a few days ago bought all the stocks of the newspaper El Día, whose frivolity-filled pages are now covered with the packaged powder of the Pentagon’s PsyOps Command.

And La Razón is not far behind. Nor are the large television stations whose owners are those eastern landowners who believe that draining the land and distributing it to the country’s dispossessed is a “terrorist act.”

The basic strategy of the genuine terrorist consists of accusing his victims of being terrorists. It was a basic scheme during the dark days of Plan Cóndor. And when journalism lends itself to this ignoble game, it means that something is faltering in the consciences of those colleagues who should be expecting, anxiously, the next BGG invitation to travel to the U.S.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:36 PM
Journalists' recent work examined before embeds
By Charlie Reed, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Monday, August 24, 2009

As more journalists seek permission to accompany U.S. forces engaged in escalating military operations in Afghanistan, many of them could be screened by a controversial Washington-based public relations firm contracted by the Pentagon to determine whether their past coverage has portrayed the U.S. military in a positive light.

U.S. public affairs officials in Afghanistan acknowledged to Stars and Stripes that any reporter seeking to embed with U.S. forces is subject to a background profile by The Rendon Group, which gained notoriety in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq for its work helping to create the Iraqi National Congress. That opposition group, reportedly funded by the CIA, furnished much of the false information about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion.

Rendon examines individual reporters’ recent work and determines whether the coverage was “positive,” “negative” or “neutral” compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005, according to the company.

“We have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography,” said Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a public affairs officer with U.S. Forces Afghanistan in Kabul. “It’s so we know with whom we’re working.”

U.S. Army officials in Iraq engaged in a similar vetting practice two months ago, when they barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division because the reporter “refused to highlight” good news that military commanders wanted to emphasize.

Professional groups representing journalists are decrying the Pentagon’s screening of reporters.

“That’s the government doing things to put out the message they want to hear and that’s not the way journalism is meant to work in this country,” said Amy Mitchell, deputy director for Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

“The whole concept of doing profiles on reporters who are going to embed with the military is alarming,” said Ron Martz, president of the Military Reporters and Editors association.

“It speaks to this whole issue of trying to shape the message and that’s not something the military should be involved with,” he said.

Mathias said the Rendon reports are generated only after a reporter has been assigned to cover a unit and are done on an ad hoc basis, typically for lesser-known journalists and those new to covering the war in Afghanistan.

The reports are useful for familiarizing commanders with topics the journalists could address and for facilitating coverage specific to a journalist’s interests, she said.

Mathias also contended that the Pentagon has begun shifting away from the positive-negative-neutral scale and is now evaluating news coverage more for its accuracy.

“If it’s accurate, that’s a successful news story, whether good or bad,” she said.

The recent merger of U.S. and NATO public affairs outfits in Kabul has resulted in a one-stop shop for media information and embed requests. It also gives more public affairs officers access to the background reports and other services provided by The Rendon Group.

The backgrounders are part of a wide scope of work Rendon does for the Defense Department under its current $1.5 million “news analysis and media assessment” contract, according to military and company officials.

The work includes statistical analysis of reporting trends inside and outside of the country and coverage of specific topics such as counternarcotics operations. It also analyzes how effectively the military is communicating its message.

“This allows them to measure the strategic effect of U.S. and allied activities as reflected in the local and international media,” according to an e-mailed statement from Rendon.

As of Friday, there were 60 media outlets — excluding Afghan media — on the ground with U.S. and NATO forces, a significant increase compared to just a few months ago, said Mathias.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:37 PM
Big Brass Bull: Pentagon Deceit on Media Manipulation Confirmed

Written by Chris Floyd
Friday, 28 August 2009 16:27

From S&S:
Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”

Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/conte...-confirmed.html (http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1826-big-brass-bull-pentagon-deceit-on-media-manipulation-confirmed.html)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:39 PM
Pentagon Propaganda Gets a Pass

Submitted by Diane Farsetta on July 23, 2009 - 8:25am.

propaganda (http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/101)
pundits (http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/121)
third party technique (http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/122)
U.S. government (http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/89)
war/peace (http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/81)

Is there a difference between covert propaganda and secretive campaigns to shape public opinion on controversial issues? The U.S. Government Accountability Office (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Government_Accountability_Off ice) (GAO) apparently thinks that there is.
The GAO recently ruled that (http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/316443.htm) the Pentagon pundit program (http://www.prwatch.org/pentagonpundits) did not break the law against taxpayer-funded domestic propaganda. The program involved some 75 retired military officers who serve as frequent media commentators. From 2002 to 2008, the Pentagon set up meetings between the pundits and high-level Department of Defense (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Department_of_Defense) (DOD) officials. The Pentagon's PR staff not only gave the pundits talking points, but helped them draft opinion columns and gave them feedback on their media appearances. The Pentagon also paid for the pundits to travel overseas, following carefully-scripted itineraries designed to highlight successes in Iraq (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq) and humane measures at the Guantanamo Bay (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Guantanamo_Bay) detention center.
"There is no doubt," the GAO ruling states, "that DOD attempted to favorably influence public opinion with respect to the Administration's war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Afghanistan) through the [pundits] with conference calls, meetings, travel, and access to senior DOD officials." However, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress concluded that the Pentagon pundit program (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pentagon_military_analyst_program) wasn't covert propaganda, for two reasons: the Pentagon didn't pay the pundits for their favorable commentary, or conceal the program from the public.
However, the New York Times' Pulitzer Prize (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html)-winning reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/washington/30general.html) on the program, along with the available internal Pentagon documents (http://www.scribd.com/group/15196-pentagon-pundit-documents), reveal major holes in the GAO's reasoning.
All that glitters is not gold

In finding that the pundits "clearly were not paid by DOD," the GAO ignores well-documented evidence -- including statements from some of the pundits themselves -- that the Pentagon access and information they received was as good as gold.
Many of the pundits are lobbyists, executives or consultants for military contractors (http://www.prwatch.org/node/7282). In these roles, their ability to attract clients and the rates they're able to charge are directly related to the number of influential Pentagon contacts they have and their ability to learn privileged information. The Pentagon pundit program provided both in spades. "Some Pentagon officials said they were well aware that some analysts viewed their special access as a business advantage," reported the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html)' David Barstow. Brent Krueger, a former Pentagon aide involved in the pundit program, told Barstow, "Of course we realized that. ... We weren't naive."
The Pentagon program even provided financial benefits to pundits without military industry ties. "Many analysts were being paid by the 'hit,' the number of times they appeared on TV," explained the Times. "The more an analyst could boast of fresh inside information from high-level Pentagon 'sources,' the more hits he could expect."
Further proof of the program's worth to the pundits can be found in their willingness to repeat talking points they questioned or disagreed with, simply to remain on the Pentagon's good side. Pundit and Blackbird Technologies (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Blackbird_Technologies) vice president Timur J. Eads (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timur_J._Eads) admitted that "he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that 'some four-star could call up and say, "Kill that contract."'" Fellow pundit Robert S. Bevelacqua (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_S._Bevelacqua), who works for the military contractor WVC3 Group, Inc. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=WVC3_Group,_Inc.), questioned the case for war with Iraq presented at the Pentagon meetings, but kept his concerns to himself. "There's no way I was going to go down that road and get completely torn apart," he told the Times.
To back up its assertion that the Pentagon didn't conceal the existence of its pundit program, the GAO cites a New York Times article from April 2006. At the time, pressure was mounting on then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Donald_Rumsfeld) to resign. To push back, Rumsfeld called an emergency meeting of the Pentagon pundits. Word of Rumsfeld's efforts leaked, and the Times obtained a memo sent to the pundits. Its 2006 article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/washington/16rumsfeld.html) reported that the memo had been sent to "retired generals who appear regularly on television" and who Pentagon officials "consider to be influential in shaping public opinion."
That oblique reference to a massive -- and, at the time, growing -- Pentagon attempt to shape public opinion on many controversial issues falls far short of any realistic standard of meaningful disclosure. Moreover, the GAO fails to acknowledge that the 2006 Times report and others like it were prompted by a leak, which the Pentagon scrambled to cover. "This is very, very sensitive now," a Pentagon official warned others about the pundit program at the time, according to the Times' April 2008 report. That article also reported that program "participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon."
Lastly, if the Pentagon was so forthcoming, why did the New York Times and its lawyers have to engage in a two-year-long legal battle, to have the Pentagon respond to its Freedom of Information Act (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Information_Act) request for documents about the pundit program?
What happened to the GAO?

The weaknesses in the GAO's Pentagon pundit findings is surprising, given the agency's strong track record of interpreting the "publicity or propaganda" restrictions. In 2004 and 2005, the agency repeatedly ruled (http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/304272.htm) that government-funded fake TV news segments, or video news releases (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=video_news_releases) (VNRs), were illegal covert propaganda.
"While agencies generally have the right to disseminate information about their policies and activities," the GAO explained, "agencies may not use appropriated funds to produce or distribute [VNRs] intended to be viewed by television audiences that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials." It is not sufficient, the GAO added, "for an agency to identify itself to the broadcasting organization as the source."
In 2005, the GAO ruled that work done for the U.S. Department of Education (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Department_of_Education) by the PR firm Ketchum (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ketchum) also constituted illegal covert propaganda. The problematic activities included VNRs and commentaries by Ketchum subcontractor Armstrong Williams (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Armstrong_Williams), a PR executive and conservative pundit, that promoted the No Child Left Behind Act (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=No_Child_Left_Behind_Act) (NCLB). "The Department violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition when it issued task orders to Ketchum directing it to arrange for Mr. Williams to regularly comment on the NCLB Act without requiring Ketchum to ensure that Mr. Williams disclosed to his audiences his relationship with the Department," the GAO concluded (http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/305368.htm).
There are obvious parallels between undisclosed VNRs, Williams' payola punditry (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pundit_payola) and the Pentagon pundit program. All three employ a standard PR tactic -- the third party technique (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=third_party_technique) -- to promote a government agenda via seemingly-independent news or commentary.
In setting up the Pentagon pundit program, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Torie Clarke (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Torie_Clarke) (a former PR executive) argued that "opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent," according to the New York Times. Internal Pentagon documents that refer to the pundits as "surrogates" and "message force multipliers" further suggest that Defense Department officials were quite deliberately obscuring their role in shaping media commentaries by "key influentials."
It's unclear why the GAO would fail to take the most damning information into consideration, when ruling on the legality of the Pentagon pundit program. I fear that by giving a pass to a nefarious PR tactic that undermines transparency and democratic values, the GAO has helped pave the way for similar deceptive campaigns in the future.
Diane Farsetta is the Center for Media and Democracy's senior researcher.
An earlier version of this article identified Timur Eads as a "Blackbird Technologies (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Blackbird_Technologies) lobbyist," based on his title of "vice president of government relations," as described in the April 2008 New York Times article and other reports at the time. Blackbird's website (http://www.blackbirdtech.com/team.html) does not list any of the military contractor's personnel.

Diane Farsetta's blog (http://www.prwatch.org/blog/6)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:40 PM
The Siege

Submitted by Michael Young (http://911blogger.com/users/michael-young) on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 5:02pm

Lawrence Wright (http://911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/12376)
The Siege (http://911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/863)

3 september 2009
Recently I saw the motion picture The Siege (1998), starring Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis. For those who haven’t seen it. The movie is about a wave of terror attacks in New York by Islamic fundamentalist, and is lead by a Sheik called Ahmed Bin Talal. As the terror attacks continue, the US government responds by declaring martial law, sending US troops, into the streets of New York City.
Terror attacks, Islamic fundamentalist, New York and a Sheik with ‘Bin’ in the name. One can’t help start thinking about the tragic events of 9/11. So during the movie I began to wonder… who wrote the script of the movie? So I visited the Internet Movie Database website to find out.
Lawrence Wright it states on IMDB. Is this the same guy from The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11? Popped into my mind.
Well, I got that quickly confirmed with a big YES, after the visit of the website: www.lawrencewright.com (http://www.lawrencewright.com/)
When I was looking at the Filmography of Lawrence Wright Internet Movie Database I noticed two things. One that he isn’t really into screenplay writing. Secondly his credits appear for the writing of “Noriega: God’s Favorite”. A movie that has a serious political undertone. One can’t deny that there’s some serious interest from the political realm that the public is pushed into a certain view when it comes to Latin and South America. See what’s happening these days over there with Honduras and Venezuela and all.
An interesting fact is that there were plans by Oliver Stone to make a motion picture of the novel, starring Al Pacino. Stone eventually cancelled it, cause after doing his own inquiries he found out that the novel was a complete false presentation, of the real events around the life of Noriega.
So far so good.
Time to do a search for Lawrence Wright on youtube:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRppZ_rco-s
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjo2PC5OPc4
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfQtqdS-ll4
4. part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuTQ6ystWrw
part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmFExhvIqRM
Well, what can I say. I almost fell of my chair by what I found out by watching the footage. For example. It appears that Lawrence Wright is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). He also knew the head of security of the Twin Towers.
In the video “Conversations with History: Lawrence Wright” on youtube Lawrence tells that Lynda Obst approached him for writing the script of “The Siege”. On the website of Lynda Obst you can read that during the production of The Siege she was based at FOX. And as we all know FOX is one big propaganda machine.
All coincidence? Personally, I don’t think so.
To me the movie “The Siege” is a clear example of psychological warfare. Planting a seed in the (subconscious) minds of public/audience.
What do you think?


Michael Young's blog (http://911blogger.com/blog/5468)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:43 PM
US Spec Ops operates psywar websites targeted at UK

Posted 16th September 2009 12:09 GMT

Free whitepaper –
Fundamental Principles of Generators for Information Technology
http://whitepapers.theregister.co.uk/paper...w/999/wp-93.pdf (http://whitepapers.theregister.co.uk/paper/view/999/wp-93.pdf)

The secretive US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has awarded arms globocorp General Dynamics a $10m contract to set up a network of psychological-warfare "influence websites" supporting the Global War On Terror. France and Britain are specifically included as "targeted regions".

SOCOM is principally famous for its large contingents of elite, secret operatives from all four US armed services (Navy SEALs, Green Berets, Delta Force, Team-6/DevGru, "the Activity" etc etc). What's less well-known about the organisation is that it also includes the US forces' active psychological-warfare apparatus. According ( http://news.soc.mil/factsheets/4thPSYOPFACTSHEET.pdf ) to the 4th Airborne Psychological Operations Group - the only full-time psywar unit in the US Army, and part of SOCOM:

PSYOP is the dissemination of truthful information to foreign audiences in support of US policy... these activities are not forms of force, but are force multipliers that use nonviolent means in often violent environments... they rely on logic, fear, desire or other mental factors... The ultimate objective of US military psychological operations is to convince enemy, neutral, and friendly nations and forces to take action favorable to the United States...

Their purpose can range from gaining support for US operations to preparing the battlefield for combat.

Now SOCOM's Joint Military Information Support Command, which "orchestrates a 24/7 multi-media campaign formatted to the cultures and languages of relevant audiences" in "what has become a tough, entrenched war of ideas" has deployed what it calls the Trans-Regional Web Initiative (TRWI). Specs on the programme were issued last year (pdf) and earlier this month General Dynamics was awarded $10,116,177 to run the Initiative for the first year.

The Initiative contract goes into detail:

Special Operations Command requires the capability to posture for rapid, on-order global dissemination of web-based influence products and tools in support of strategic and long-term U.S. Government goals...

[Contractors will] develop, design, construct, operate, and maintain a series of synchronized influence websites supporting [Global War On Terror] requirements ... Government estimates a minimum of two and no more than twelve websites.

The SOCOM psywar sites will be run much in the same fashion as any normal web-media portal. There will be "indigenous content stringers and editors" within "targeted regions" providing 24-hour "original features, news, sports, entertainment, economics, politics, cultural reports, business, and similar items of interest to targeted readers".

Looking for operatives fluent in "English (British dialect)"

All the standard bread-and-butter methods will be employed:

Government will require the use of XHTML, PHP, Java scripting, and flash development... Free email service for users of TRWI websites, as determined feasible by SOCOM, in order to integrate them as active participants of the site... Contractor is required to incorporate into TRWI websites the use of web logs (blogs), streaming Video/Audio, moderated chat rooms, downloads of wall papers (inclusive of calendars) when directed by SOCOM... contractor will, at a minimum, develop Internet-based marketing procedures such as use of Google AdWords and Search Engine Optimization to prioritize search result listing of the applicable websites.

The difference will be that rather than a normal media boss, the Initiative websites will be controlled by managers reporting to SOCOM based in US regional command HQs around the world - managers holding US Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information clearances, with "extensive public diplomacy, journalism, and mediarelations skills". Rather than ads or venture capital, the cash will come from SOCOM's psyops war chest.

Then there are hints of unconventional web tactics, different from your normal media:

The Government will require the contractor to provide “ghosted” websites that are protected by username and password and ready to go active upon approval by SOCOM.

So who are the "targeted readers" who are to be steered into supporting US policy, in particular the War On Terror?

A hint is given by the list of required foreign target languages, which includes obvious ones like Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Russian, Malay etc - but also French, and "English (British dialect and spelling)".

There's also a suggestion that operations similar to the Initiative may already be running, supporting the "24/7 multi-media campaign" spoken of last year (pdf) by SOCOM's commander.

The Government will provide the contractor with Government Furnished Information (GFI) from any existing, USSOCOM-operated influence website strategies.

It would appear that any UK media site or channel which appears to be functioning without any visible means of support appropriate to its expenses may in fact be a tentacle of US Special Ops psywar command. (Or the Iranian equivalent, perhaps.)

We've obviously checked with our upper management regarding the identity of our backers, but it seems we don't have any need to know who they are.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/16/so...ops_against_uk/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/16/socom_psyops_against_uk/)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:45 PM
The Israel lobby’s global propaganda manual

Paul J. Balles

September 16, 2009

Paul J. Balles views a major public relations manual for Israel lobbyists. Written by Dr Frank Luntz, a US Republican political consultant and pollster, on behalf of The Israel Project, a US media advocacy group, it teaches pro-Israel propagandists how to hoodwink people about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how to silence critics and how to avoid making statements that produce negative reactions.

More than 50 years ago, Vance Packard shook the commercial world with the publication of his book The Hidden Persuaders. It was, as the book jacket claims, "A revealing, often shocking explanation of new techniques of research and methods of persuasion."

Packard revealed, "If people couldn't discriminate reasonably, marketers reasoned, they should be assisted in discriminating unreasonably, in some easy, warm, emotional way."

Much merchandizing success, according to Packard, "...hinged, to a large extent, upon successfully manipulating or coping with our guilt feelings, fears, anxieties, hostilities, loneliness feelings, inner tensions".

Packard raised serious questions of morality related to the "people-manipulating activities of persuaders … and their ability to contact millions of us simultaneously", giving them "the power to do good or evil on a scale never before possible in a very short time".

Among the most evil of the hidden persuaders are the political propagandists. Their "evil" stems from the fact that they have a political agenda, which discriminates unreasonably and is designed to manipulate emotions.

The manipulative approach to politics is, of course, not a discovery of the 1950s, or even the 20th century. Napoleon Bonaparte set up a press bureau that he called his Bureau of Public Opinion. Its function was "to manufacture political trends to order".

Just as Napoleon Bonaparte believed that "public opinion is a mysterious and invisible power, to which everything must yield", Niccolò Machiavelli, Italian author of The Prince, described the arts with which a ruling prince can maintain control of his realm.

In a document published by The Israel Project entitled "The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary", Dr Frank Luntz unmasks a modern-day propaganda campaign that would have made Napoleon and Machiavelli proud. He writes:

There is NEVER, EVER, any justification for the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children. NEVER. The primary Palestinian public relations goal is to demonstrate that the so-called "hopelessness of the oppressed Palestinians" is what causes them to go out and kill children. This must be challenged immediately, aggressively, and directly.
The emotional appeal to saving children works, but the appeal is based on two lies:

(1) that Palestinians generally (not only suicide bomber extremists) are the ones who kill children, while Israelis (not individual extremists, but Israel's armed forces) never slaughter Palestinian children.

(2) The second falsehood is that the Palestinians have a public relations goal that must be challenged when, in fact, the Palestinians have proven to be hopeless and goalless when it comes to public relations. Unlike Frank Luntz, the Palestinians have no effective PR voices. They can't even get their ambassador in the UK to speak out to the British public about Israel’s lies and propaganda.
Next, Luntz attempts to sound reasonable by speaking of acceptable disagreements about economics or politics against fundamental principles of civilized people. The evil allusion here is that the Palestinians are the uncivilized people who target Israeli children.

"We may disagree about politics and we may disagree about economics. But there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death," writes Luntz.

The entire passage, again appealing unreasonably to emotions, makes the pretence that Israel did not target innocent women and children for death with their murderous indiscriminate bombing and missile attacks on Gaza against a huge civilian population of women and children.

However, distorted propaganda about children isn't enough for Luntz. This is but one part of a page out of 114 pages devoted to this manual for distribution to thousands of propagandists for Israel.

Advancing only as far as page nine, the guided Israel promoters will find "Words that work" (sections that are actually throughout the book). Here's what Luntz has to say about Gaza:

Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process.
How generous he makes the Israelis appear, when in fact the removal of Jewish settlers from Gaza had nothing to do with giving peace a chance. As the Israeli Yossi Alpher points out, removal of the settlers gave a demographic advantage to Israel. He says, "no longer are Jewish and Arab populations mixed there in a manner that points to a single binational state as the solution".

In other words, Ariel Sharon could close the borders, imprison Gazans, hoping they will simply be forced to leave by starvation, murder fishermen and initiate military operations whenever they're not involved in attacking Lebanon to the north, to slaughter more Hamas women and children.

Then Luntz adds more "Words that work" for the indoctrination of his readers – Israeli propagandists:

Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders.
As mentioned earlier, withdrawal from Gaza had nothing to do with an "overture for peace". The rocket attacks have been a response to being locked into an open-air prison; and they're aimed at land stolen by Israel. The "drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis" are figments of Luntz's imagination.

The "free from terrorism and live with defensible borders" line is the overworked motto that twists the truth in the continuing belief that if repeated often enough it will be believed.

No matter how often the propagandists repeat this mantra, the truth is that a few resistance fighters from Hamas have lobbed ineffective rockets against a well-supplied army of Israel's state terrorists; and the borders they want to defend are on land stolen from the Palestinians.

One might wish that the training in how to spread Israeli propaganda would stop there. If the Palestinians were up to the task, they might counter the lies with what they know of the history and suffering of Palestinians under occupation. Unfortunately, those with the linguistic ability to cope with the Israeli propaganda machine worry about endangering themselves and their families by speaking the truth.

Those who can only speak Arabic fluently are often busy fighting tribal wars within (Gazans vs. the Palestinian Authority), and they can't compete with Israel's skilled English speakers or against the organized promotional efforts Israel makes with Americans and Europeans.

Making the task of exposing the lies and deceit exceptionally difficult, Luntz’s propaganda tract, which unravels advice about the "how-to" of Israeli propaganda for 114 pages, seems Herculean to say the least.

Luntz offers advice about things like "Americans want a team to cheer for. Let the public know GOOD things about Israel." He follows that with "Draw direct parallels between Israel and America – including the need to defend against terrorism."

He tells his readers to make salient comparisons between Israel and America: "The language of Israel is the language of America: 'democracy', 'freedom', 'security', and 'peace'".

Even while Israel is throwing Arabs out of their homes in East Jerusalem to make room for Jews, Luntz repeats the boast about how "Israel, America’s ally, is a democracy in the Middle East". If he reported the truth about the so-called democracy in Israel, he would reveal how it's really a bigoted apartheid state.

The book is full of charts showing just how effective Israel's propaganda campaign has been. Not only do Americans believe that Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle East, but that they both share the same values.

Another chart shows that 58 per cent of Americans believe that the US should support Israel, while only 9 per cent believe that they should support Palestinians. Even when coaching others in how to propagandize, Luntz couldn't resist the revealing boast about how effective their PR work has been.

The entire screed utilizes all the tricks available to a clever wordsmith: how to use rhetorical questions to silence others, how to pretend that you're sympathetic with the people but not their evil leaders, how to avoid making statements that produce negative reactions.

All of that came from the first of 18 chapters. Several other chapters, especially on "words that work", talk about settlements, Israel's so-called right to self-defence, Hamas, and tackling a nuclear Iran will be taken up in coming exposures.
Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com (http://www.pballes.com/).

:: Article nr. 57993 sent on 16-sep-2009 04:32 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=57993 (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=57993)

Link: www.redress.cc/palestine/pjballes20090916 (http://www.redress.cc/palestine/pjballes20090916)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:47 PM
How low will Israel stoop to win the propaganda war?
Stuart Littlewood

September 16, 2009

"The Israel Project", a US media advocacy group, has produced a revised training manual to help the worldwide Zionist movement win the propaganda war, keep their ill-gotten territorial gains and persuade international audiences to accept that their crimes are necessary and conform to "shared values" between Israel and the civilized West.

It’s a clever document.

The manual teaches how to justify the slaughter, the ethnic cleansing, the land-grabbing, the cruelty and the blatant disregard for international law and UN resolutions, and make it all smell sweeter with a liberal squirt of the aerosol of persuasive language. It is designed to hoodwink us ignorant and gullible Americans and Europeans into believing that we actually share values with the racist regime in Israel and that its abominable behaviour is therefore deserving of our support.

Israel is hoping for a public relations massacre. The other side – the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization – don’t take communications seriously and have neglected to correct Israeli distortion. They are happy, it seems, for Israel’s one-sided definitions to prevail, which of course makes the task for Israel so much easier. This latest propaganda offensive is potentially the "coup de grace" to finish off the tormented Palestinians. See it here.

And the manual will no doubt serve as a communications primer for the army of cyber-scribblers that Israel’s Ministry of Dirty Tricks is recruiting to spread Zionism’s poison across the internet.

This quote at the beginning sets the tone: "Remember, it’s not what you say that counts. It’s what people hear."
Top priority: demonise Hamas

The manual’s numerous messages are aimed at the mass of "persuadables", primarily in America but also in the UK. The strategy from the start is to isolate the democratically-elected Hamas and to rob the resistance movement and the Palestinian population of their human rights.

* "Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas. There is an immediate and clear distinction between the empathy Americans feel for the Palestinians and the scorn they direct at Palestinian leadership. Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support. Right now, many Americans sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, and that sympathy will increase if you fail to differentiate the people from their leaders."

The plight of the Palestinians under Israel’s heel was an international concern long before Hamas appeared on the scene.

But this is familiar ground. We scorned George Bush and Tony Blair and had to differentiate between them and their respective peoples. We now have to do the same with Barack Obama and Gordon Brown. We are tired of having to make that same differentiation between the Israeli people and the dreadful leaders they produce.

* "ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO DEFENSIBLE BORDERS: With more than three years of violent history since Israel’s agreement to withdraw from Gaza and portions of the West Bank [sic], Americans have had time to take stock of the situation and form opinions. The big picture: they believe that Hamas’s leadership of Gaza has made Israel and the region less safe, while some are more receptive to what they perceive as a moderate approach in the West Bank by Mahmoud Abbas. Based on these experiences, they are willing to grant Israel more leeway in resisting calls to give more land for more peace."

Here we clearly see the motive for demonizing Hamas – Israel wants more leeway to continue its land-grabs and other criminal activities.

* "If... If... If... Then": Put the burden on Hamas to make the first move for peace by using If’s (and don’t forget to finish with a hard then to show Israel is a willing peace partner). "If Hamas reforms... If Hamas recognize our right to exist... If Hamas renounces terrorism... If Hamas supports international peace agreements... then we are willing to make peace today."

How one-sided and daft can you get? Substitute Israel for Hamas.
Words that work

The manual sets out numerous examples of "words that work" – supposedly.

* "We know that the Palestinians deserve leaders who will care about the well being of their people, and who do not simply take hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance from America and Europe, put them in Swiss bank accounts, and use them to support terror instead of peace."

No mention here of the billions of tax dollars Israel takes from the US and spends on munitions to obliterate and vaporize its neighbours.

* "Peace can only be made with adversaries who want to make peace with you. Terrorist organizations like Iran-backed Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are, by definition, opposed to peaceful co-existence, and determined to prevent reconciliation. I ask you, how do you negotiate with those who want you dead?"

Hamas and Hezbollah are only regarded as terrorists by the White House and Tel Aviv and by US-Israeli stooges and flag-wavers in Westminster and elsewhere.

In Executive Order 13224 – "BLOCKING PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM" – Bush used this definition: "The term "terrorism" means an activity that –

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended —
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
© to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking."

It describes the antics of the US and Israel perfectly.

* "There is NEVER, EVER, any justification for the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children. NEVER... there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death."

Quite so. Where does that leave Israel, which recently killed 320 children in Gaza and 773 civilians, including 109 women? From 2000 (the start of the second Intifada – the Palestinian urising against the Israeli occupation) up to the end of last year Israel had slaughtered 4,936 Palestinians in their homeland, including 952 children, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. In the same period Palestinians killed 490 Israelis in Israel including only 84 children. So, Israel’s kill-rate is at least 10 to 1, and rising since the blitzkrieg on Gaza.
Iran-backed or US-backed – take your pick

* "Use humility. 'I know that in trying to defend its children and citizens from terrorists that Israel has accidentally hurt innocent people. I know it, and I’m sorry for it. But what can Israel do to defend itself? If America had given up land for peace – and that land had been used for launching rockets at America, what would America do? Israel was attacked with thousands of rockets from Iran-backed Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. What should Israel have done to protect her children?’"

Palestinians too have a right to defend themselves. Hamas was the popular choice of Palestinians at the last election and is entitled under international law to take up arms against an illegal occupier and invader. If it is supported by Iran, so what? Israel is extravagantly funded and supplied by the US. Here’s part of their begging-bowl "Military Aid Speech":

* "Israel makes the request for military assistance out of self-defense. As a democracy, they have the right and the responsibility to protect our borders. As a democracy, they have the right and the responsibility to protect their citizens.

* "Israel does not ask for US troops to protect itself. It does not ask for a single American soldier to protect its borders. It only asks for the funds for them to protect themselves. They need the equipment so that their own troops can ensure the safety of their civilian population through this gathering conflict with the enemies of democracy.

* "They didn’t ask to have our nation built in range of Iranian missiles. They didn’t ask that their nation be a focal point for religious extremists who have declared war on the West and on democracy.

* "But they are, and they need your help."

And here’s the rationale behind it:

* "Americans fundamentally believe that a democracy has a right to protect its people and its borders. And while Americans don’t want to increase foreign aid in a time of significant budgetary deficits and painful spending cuts, there is one and only one argument that will work for Israel (in four easy steps):

(1) As a democracy, Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders and protect its people.

(2) Terrorist groups, including Iran-backed Hezbollah and Hamas, continue to pose a direct threat to Israeli security and have repeatedly taken innocent Israeli lives.

(3) Israel is America’s one and only true ally in the region. In these particularly unstable and dangerous times, Israel should not be forced to go it alone.

(4) With America’s financial assistance, Israel can defend its borders, protect its people, and provide invaluable assistance to the American effort against the war against terrorism."

It’s evident that Americans don’t believe in democracy enough to allow Palestinian democracy to flourish.

* "When the terror ends, Israel will no longer need to have challenging checkpoints to inspect goods and people. When the terror ends we will no longer need a security fence."

There are no rockets coming out of the West Bank, so why is the security fence still there – and still being built? Why are the occupation troops still there? Why are hundreds of checkpoints still there? Why is Israel still stealing land, demolishing Palestinian homes and building settlements there?

* "Remind people – again and again – that Israel wants peace.

Reason One: If Americans see no hope for peace – if they only see a continuation of a 2,000-year-long episode of "Family Feud" – Americans will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their president’s clout on helping Israel.

Reason Two: The speaker that is perceived as being most for PEACE will win the debate. Every time someone makes the plea for peace, the reaction is positive. If you want to regain the public relations advantage, peace should be at the core of whatever message you wish to convey."

Israel has never met its peace agreement obligations. It doesn't want peace – every action is directed at keeping the conflict going until the Israelis have stolen enough land and established enough 'facts on the ground' – Jews-only settlements, highways, disconnected Palestinian bantustans – to enable them to redraw the map to suit their expansionist agenda and make the occupation PERMANENT.
Gaza in a vice

* "Israel made painful sacrifices and took a risk to give peace a chance. They voluntarily removed over 9,000 settlers from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, abandoning homes, schools, businesses and places of worship in the hopes of renewing the peace process. Despite making an overture for peace by withdrawing from Gaza, Israel continues to face terrorist attacks, including rocket attacks and drive-by shootings of innocent Israelis. Israel knows that for a lasting peace, they must be free from terrorism and live with defensible borders."

Israel never left. It still occupies Gazan airspace, coastal waters and airwaves, and controls all borders except Rafah where it nevertheless exerts a veto. Israel has Gaza in a vice, which is crushing the tiny enclave’s economy, starving its 1.5 million citizens and creating a huge humanitarian crisis in an attempt to bring the elected government to its knees.

* "Draw direct parallels between Israel and America – including the need to defend against terrorism... The more you focus on the similarities between Israel and America, the more likely you are to win the support of those who are neutral. Indeed, Israel is an important American ally in the war against terrorism, and faces many of the same challenges as America in protecting their citizens."

Note how Israel’s strategy is almost totally dependent on the false idea that they are victims of terror and Western nations need to huddle together with Israel for mutual protection. Fortunately, level-headed people are beginning to realize who the terrorists really are.

It must be blindingly obvious by now that allowing parallels to be drawn between Israel and America only serves to increase the world’s hatred of America. US citizens need to wake up to this, and British citizens should avoid falling into the same trap.
Inject with "core values" and repeat over and over again...

* "The language of Israel is the language of America: 'democracy', 'freedom', 'security', and 'peace'. These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American."

If so fluent in this language, why doesn’t Israel acknowledge its neighbours’ rights to democracy, freedom, security and peace and end their military oppression?

* "A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick – that is just about the time the public will wake up and say 'Hey – this person just might be saying something interesting to me!' But don’t confuse messages with facts..."

Never let facts get in the way of a good message!

* "How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace when previous leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state just a few short years ago and now refuse to live up to their responsibilities as outlined in the Road Map?"

This must be a reference to Ehud Barak's so-called "generous offer", another of the myths Israelis love to peddle. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, seized by Israel in 1967 and occupied ever since, comprise just 22 per cent of pre-partition Palestine. When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993 they agreed to accept the 22 per cent and to recognize Israel within "Green Line" borders (i.e. the 1949 armistice line established after the Arab-Israeli war). Conceding 78 per cent of the land that was originally theirs was an astonishing compromise on the part of the Palestinians.

But it wasn't enough for greedy Barak. His "generous offer" required the inclusion of 69 Israeli settlements within the 22 per cent remnant. It was plain to see on the map that these settlement blocs created impossible borders and already severely disrupted Palestinian life in the West Bank. Barak also demanded the Palestinian territories be placed under "temporary Israeli control", meaning Israeli military and administrative control indefinitely. The "generous offer" also gave Israel control over all the border crossings of the new Palestinian state. What nation in the world would accept that? The unacceptable reality of Barak’s offer, contained in the map, was hidden by propaganda spin.

Later, at Taba, Barak produced a revised map but withdrew it after his election defeat. Don’t take my word for it – the facts are well documented and explained by organizations such as Israel’s Gush Shalom.

* "Why is the world so silent about the written, vocal, stated aims of Hamas?"

And why is the world so silent about the written, stated aims of the racist regime and its political parties? Read their manifestoes.

* "Successful communications is not about being able to recite every fact from the long history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about pointing out a few core principles of shared values – such as democracy and freedom – and repeating them over and over again... You need to start with empathy for both sides, remind your audience that Israel wants peace and then repeat the messages of democracy, freedom, and peace over and over again... we need to repeat the message, on average, 10 times to be effective."

Is democracy a shared value? Israel is an ethnocracy not a democracy. Is freedom a shared value? The world is still waiting for Israel to allow the Palestinians their freedom.

* "The situation in the Middle East may be complicated, but all parties should adopt a simple approach: peace first, political boundaries second."

Renounce resistance while still under Israel’s jackboot? The correct approach is for the international community to insist first that Israel complies with international law and the many UN resolutions it has contemptuously ignored. The boundaries are already defined. Whatever issues remain to be decided, Palestinians should not have to negotiate under occupation or duress.
Rockets, bombs and atrocities: the language of peace

* "Bottom line: What will happen if we fail to get the world to care about the fact that Israeli parents in southern Israel need to literally dodge rockets when they drive their children to kindergarten in the morning? What will happen if the world allows Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, to get nuclear weapons? What will Israel do if bad press causes American citizens to ask [their] government to turn its back on Israel? Why do I care so much about the success of your communications efforts? I care because I never want our children to live through what my family and yours lived through in the Holocaust."

Only one in 500 makeshift Qassam rockets causes a fatality, small beer compared to the devastation and carnage resulting from Israel’s state-of-the-art rocketry targeted on Gaza. How does it look when Palestinians are forced to pay the price for the Holocaust? And how much does Israel care about the Palestinian holocaust it has caused?

The manual then gives a long glossary of terms. Here’s a sample:

* "Deliberately firing rockets into civilian communities": Combine terrorist motive with civilian visuals and you have the perfect illustration of what Israel faced in Gaza and Lebanon. Especially with regard to rocket attacks but useful for any kind of terrorist attack, deliberate is the right word to use to call out the intent behind the attacks. This is far more powerful than describing the attacks as "random".

Israelis know all about bombarding civilian targets. And they are careful not to mention that Sderot, until recently the only Israeli township within range of Gazan rockets, is built on the ruins of an ethnically cleansed Palestinian village whose inhabitants were forced from their homes by Jewish terrorists.

* "Economic Diplomacy": This is a much more embracing and popular term than the current lexicon of "sanctions". It has appeal across the political spectrum: the tough economic approach appeals to Republicans, and the diplomacy component satisfies Democrats.

We can all play this game. Israel is now beginning to suffer "economic diplomacy" in the form of worldwide boycotts.

* "Economic Prosperity": Whenever Israel talks about the "economic prosperity" of the Palestinians, it puts Israel in the most positive light possible. After all, who can disagree?

What sort of prosperity is it when nothing can be imported or exported without Israel's approval and fisherman can't even put to sea in their own waters without having their boats shot up by the Israeli navy?

* "Human to Human": "We know that the average Palestinian and the average Israeli want to come together and make peace. They want to live in peace. Israeli leaders have come together with Arab leaders to make peace in the past. But how do you make peace with Hamas and Hezbollah?"

Simple. You get off their land and stay off. There can be no peace under occupation. You have to be very stupid not to understand that.

* "Humanize Rockets": Paint a vivid picture of what life is like in Israeli communities that are vulnerable to attack. Yes, cite the number of rocket attacks that have occurred. But immediately follow that up with what it is like to make the nightly trek to the bomb shelter.

Would Israel care to tell the world how many bombs, rockets and shells (including the illegal and prohibited variety) its US-supplied F-16s, tanks, armed drones and navy gunboats have poured into the densely-packed humanity that is Gaza?
Still more advice...

* "Living together, side by side". This is the best way to describe the ultimate vision of a two-state solution without using the phrase.

Sounds cute but is worn out. Who would want to live alongside bigots and extremists who have made your life a misery for 61 years?

* "When talking about a Palestinian partner, it is essential to distinguish between Hamas and everyone else. Only the most anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian American expects Israel to negotiate with Hamas, so you have to be clear that you are seeking a 'moderate Palestinian partner'."

Where are the moderate Israeli partners?

* "The fight is over IDEOLOGY – not land; terror, not territory. Thus, you must avoid using Israel’s religious claims to land as a reason why Israel should not give up land. Such claims only make Israel look extremist to people who are not religious Christians or Jews."

If the fight isn’t about land, why did Israel steal it at gunpoint? And why won’t they give it back when told to by the UN?

* "Think PRO-PALESTINIAN. While I have spoken about Israeli casualties, I want to recognize those Palestinians that have been killed or wounded, because they are suffering as well. I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child."

Israel won’t even allow cement into Gaza to build the graves.

* "And so I say to my Palestinian colleagues ... you can stop the bloodshed. You can stop the suicide bombings and rocket attacks. If you really want to, you can put an end to this cycle of violence. If you won’t do it for our children, do it for your children."

Effective Israeli sound bite. Speechless.

* "I want to see a future where the Palestinians govern themselves. Israel does not want to govern a single Palestinian. Not one. We want them to govern themselves. We want them to have complete self-determination."

Is that why Israel tried to snuff out Palestine's democracy – and the people’s right to self-determination – immediately after the 2006 elections?

* "The big picture approach is this: You must isolate Hamas as:

– A critical cause of the delay in achieving a two-state solution

– The biggest source of harm to the Palestinian people, and

– The reason why Israel must defend its people from living in terror.

Read from the Hamas Charter. Now, here’s how to attack Hamas: indict them with their own indoctrination materials. Yes, people know Hamas is a terrorist organization – but they don’t know just how terrifying Hamas can be. The absolute best way to heighten their awareness is to read from the Hamas Charter itself. Don’t just "quote" from it. Read it. Out loud. Again and again. Hand it out to everyone."

At last Israel makes a good point. After three years of "government" Hamas must be mad to persist with its ill-advised charter. They have been severely tested. They have matured. They have earned credibility in many eyes. Israel’s behaviour makes Hamas look good. But all that will count for nothing if they don't rewrite their charter as a matter of urgency.
Regev’s pearls of wisdom. But how safe is the region under the threat of Israel’s nukes?

* "It’s not just Israel who refuses to speak to Hamas. It’s the whole international community... Most of the democratic world refuses to have a relationship with Hamas because Hamas has refused to meet the most minimal benchmarks of international behaviour." – Mark Regev

Isn’t that a little cheeky, Mr Regev, coming from a regime widely condemned for war crimes, piracy and mega-lawlessness?

* "It was the former UN secretary-general, Kofi Anan, that put four benchmarks on the table. And he said, speaking for the international community...

That if Hamas reforms itself …

If Hamas recognizes my country’s right to live in freedom...

If Hamas renounces terrorism against innocent civilians...

If Hamas supports international agreements that are being signed and agreed to concerning the peace process... then the door is open. But unfortunately – tragically – Hamas has failed to meet even one of those four benchmarks. And that’s why today Hamas is isolated internationally. Even the United Nations refuses to speak to Hamas. – Mark Regev

Which of those benchmarks has Israel met, Mr Regev?

* "Israel is very concerned about the Iranian nuclear programme. And for good reason. Iran’s president openly talks about wiping Israel off the map. We see them racing ahead on nuclear enrichment so they can have enough fissile material to build a bomb. We see them working on their ballistic missiles. We only saw, last week, shooting a rocket to launch a so-called satellite into outer space and so forth. The Iranian nuclear programme is a threat, not just to my country, but to the entire region. And it’s incumbent upon us all to do what needs to be done to keep from proliferating." – Mark Regev

Why is Israel the only state in the region not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Mr Regev? Are we all supposed to believe that Israel's 200 (or is it 400?) nuclear warheads pose no threat? Would you also like to comment on why Israel hasn’t signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and why it has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, similarly the Chemical Weapons Convention? What proof do you have of Iran's nuclear weapons plans?

And why do you persist in misquoting Mr Ahmadinejad?
The Holy City is not up for grabs

* "The toughest issue to communicate will be the final resolution of Jerusalem. Americans overwhelmingly want Israel to be in charge of the religious holy sites and are frankly afraid of the consequences should Israel turn over control to the Palestinians. Consider:

– 71 per cent of Americans trust Israel most to protect the holy sites in Jerusalem, compared to 6.1 per cent who trust the Palestinian authority most. 8.5 per cent per cent trust neither.

– 54 per cent of Americans believe that 'Jerusalem must remain united under Israeli sovereignty’ while just 23.9 per cent believe that 'Jerusalem should be divided into Israeli controlled and Palestinian controlled areas’.

Given the choice between the two, Americans of all political and demographic stripes trust Israel to protect and have sovereignty over Jerusalem."

Israel is in control right now and prevents Muslims and Christians from outside the city visiting the holy places. No way can Israel be trusted. The UN's partition plan decreed that Jerusalem should become a "corpus separatum" under international management. It is unlikely that the UN would wish to see its resolutions torn up or international law rewritten for Israel’s sole benefit, regardless of America’s misinformed opinion.
Get the name-calling right

I’ll close with the following extract:

* "Many on the left see an 'Israel vs. Palestinian’ crisis where Israel is Goliath and the Palestinians are David. It is critical that they understand that this is an Arab-Israeli crisis and that the force undermining peace is Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You must not call Hamas just Hamas. Call them what they are: Iran-backed Hamas. Indeed, when they know that Iran is behind Hamas and Hezbollah, they are much more supportive of Israel."

By the same token we must call the racist regime what it is – US-backed Israel.

Iran’s support for Hamas is difficult to quantify and probably less than we think. More funding has probably come from Sunni Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In any case, it is peanuts compared to America’s support for Israel.

Hamas is an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhhod and was founded in 1987 during the first Intifada. Hezbollah came into being in 1982 in response to US-backed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. So, the territorial ambitions of US-backed Israel provoked the rise of both. Israel’s problem is entirely self-inflicted and shouldn’t concern the rest of us.

Hamas’s election manifesto in 2006 called for maintaining the armed struggle against US-backed Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, which seems a perfectly valid aim.
Our obligation to respect and promote human rights

The Israel Project’s training manual is an unpleasant piece of work. It runs to 116 pages and I have only scratched the surface. It recycles many of the discredited techniques used by the advertising industry before standards of honesty, decency and truthfulness were brought in to protect the public.

And it serves to undermine with clever words the inalienable rights pledged by the UN and the world’s civilized nations to all peoples, including the Palestinians.

When you have to stoop this low you simply don’t have a case.

The Palestinian side urgently needs to strip away the deception and re-frame the Holy Land situation in truthful language. And it needs to debunk this Zionist handbook. If the PA and the PLO won’t do it, who will?

Everyone should bear in mind the following, written nearly 61 years ago:

"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

It would seem that Israel has not read or understood the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which all nations signed up to. Attempts to wipe out the rights of people who happen to be in the way of the Zionist vision of a "Greater Israel" deserve no support whatever.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:48 PM
July 13, 2001: Neoconservative Group Lays Out ‘Propagandistic’ Plan for Keeping Conservatives in Power

“The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement” is written by Eric Heubeck.

The document is a matter-of-fact overview of the exact tactics that Rove, Weyrich, and the conservative movement will use to keep moderates and liberals out of office and off the media radar….

Heubeck says that television and video are the most “conducive to propagandistic purposes” of any media, “and our movement must learn to make use of this medium.”

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...004_timeline_56 (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_election_2004_timeline_56#us_e lection_2004_timeline_56)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:51 PM
The Pentagon’s launched a handful of new projects to help the record number of vets who are coming home with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Right now, they’re sponsoring studies on earlier diagnosis, at-home monitoring systems and even using pharmacology to short-circuit the brain’s stress response.

But until pill-popping becomes a viable means of PTSD prevention, the Internet might be one of the best ways for vets to cope. At least that’s the idea behind Vision 21, an interactive web project started by MetroStar Systems, a government software maker. With a grant from the Kansas National Guard, they’re launching a social-networking megolith that’ll include Facebook, Twitter and video diaries. And now that the military is close to okaying Web 2.0 in war zones, Vision 21 hopes to help troops on the ground as well.

Over at True/Slant, I run down the program and talk to Ali Reza Manoucheri, MetroStar’s CEO, as well as an Iraq vet, Ross Beurmann. They’re convinced that online anonymity will curb PTSD stigma. Whether it helps more troops get treatment remains to be seen.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/on...a-more-twitter/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/online-ptsd-program-less-stigma-more-twitter/)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:52 PM
Software for Taking Advantage of Human Nature
22 10 2009

ISV enlists in Defence program

Department of Defence’s collaborative program with IT industry snaps up Adelaide-based artificial intelligence software developer.

Spandas Lui

Independent software vendor (ISV), Intelligent Software Development, has joined the Department of Defence’s innovation program as an Associate.

The Rapid Prototyping, Development and Evaluation (RPDE) program was established in 2006 as an initiative to facilitate effective collaboration between the Department and a broad range of industries to aid in network-centric warfare. Participants range from engineering firms, IT organisations and universities.

While the company is only two years old, Intelligence Software managing director, Dr Don Perugini, said he was familiar with Government and Defence projects and is confident the ISV’s Behavioural Simulation technology, an environment and population modelling software, will find be useful in this program.

“We think there are many uses for this type of technology in Defence,” Dr Perugini said. “It’s a sophisticated modelling software that can model human centric environments and can provide a lot of insight to how to influence human behaviours across a whole population.

“It could be used for intelligence or what Defence calls psychological operations [PsyOps] to deduce how to influence a population to get the best outcome for a particular operation.”

The technology has mainly been used to guide government environmental policies and defence applications. Having spent more than 10 years in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), Dr Perugini said he would remain focused in the two verticals but saw potential to branch out to other areas.

“There is a lot of scope in the business market research sector and other industries,” he said. “I guess we will get there over time but right now we are being fairly specific.”

RPDE operates on a project-by-project basis. Intelligence Software will contribute to the program when needed.

« Juniper Cobra, Making the World Safe for Israeli Aggression Obama Quashing Goldstone Report to Cover American Complicity in Israeli War Crimes »

* Date : October 22, 2009

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/...f-human-nature/ (http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/software-for-taking-advantage-of-human-nature/)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:54 PM
Mind Your Tweets: CIA and European Union Building Social Networking Surveillance System

by Tom Burghardt / October 26th, 2009

That social networking sites and applications such as Facebook, Twitter and their competitors can facilitate communication and information sharing amongst diverse groups and individuals is by now a cliché.

It should come as no surprise then, that the secret state and the capitalist grifters whom they serve, have zeroed-in on the explosive growth of these technologies. One can be certain however, securocrats aren’t tweeting their restaurant preferences or finalizing plans for after work drinks.

No, researchers on both sides of the Atlantic are busy as proverbial bees building a “total information” surveillance system, one that will, so they hope, provide police and security agencies with what they euphemistically call “actionable intelligence.”

Build the Perfect Panopticon, Win Fabulous Prizes!

In this context, the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks published a remarkable document October 4 by the INDECT Consortium, the Intelligence Information System Supporting Observation, Searching and Detection for Security of Citizens in Urban Environment.

Hardly a catchy acronym, but simply put INDECT is working to put a human face on the billions of emails, text messages, tweets and blog posts that transit cyberspace every day; perhaps your face.

According to Wikileaks, INDECT’s “Work package 4? is designed “to comb web blogs, chat sites, news reports, and social-networking sites in order to build up automatic dossiers on individuals, organizations and their relationships.” Ponder that phrase again: “automatic dossiers.”

This isn’t the first time that European academics have applied their “knowledge skill sets” to keep the public “safe”–from a meaningful exercise of free speech and the right to assemble, that is.

Last year The Guardian reported that Bath University researchers’ Cityware project covertly tracked “tens of thousands of Britons” through the installation of Bluetooth scanners that capture “radio signals transmitted from devices such as mobile phones, laptops and digital cameras, and using the data to follow unwitting targets without their permission.”

One privacy advocate, Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, told The Guardian: “This technology could well become the CCTV of the mobile industry. It would not take much adjustment to make this system a ubiquitous surveillance infrastructure over which we have no control.”

Which of course, is precisely the point.

As researchers scramble for a windfall of cash from governments eager to fund these dubious projects, European police and security agencies aren’t far behind their FBI and NSA colleagues in the spy game.

The online privacy advocates, Quintessenz, published a series of leaked documents in 2008 that described the network monitoring and data mining suites designed by Nokia Siemens, Ericsson and Verint.

The Nokia Siemens Intelligence Platform dubbed “intelligence in a box,” integrate tasks generally done by separate security teams and pools the data from sources such as telephone or mobile calls, email and internet activity, bank transactions, insurance records and the like. Call it data mining on steroids.

Ironically enough however, Siemens, the giant German electronics firm was caught up in a global bribery scandal that cost the company some $1.6 billion in fines. Last year, The New York Times described “a web of secret bank accounts and shadowy consultants,” and a culture of “entrenched corruption … at a sprawling, sophisticated corporation that externally embraced the nostrums of a transparent global marketplace built on legitimate transactions.”

According to the Times, “at Siemens, bribery was just a line item.” Which just goes to show, powering the secret state means never having to say you’re sorry!

Social Network Spying, a Growth Industry Fueled by Capitalist Grifters

The trend by security agencies and their corporate partners to spy on their citizens has accelerated greatly in the West since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

This multi-billion industry in general, has been a boon for the largest American and European defense corporations. Among the top ten companies listed by Washington Technology in their annual ranking of the “Top 100? prime government contractors, all ten–from Lockheed Martin to Booz Allen Hamilton–earned a combined total of $68 billion in 2008 from defense and related homeland security work for the secret state.

And like Siemens, all ten corporations figure prominently on the Project on Government Oversight’s Federal Contractor Misconduct Database (FCMD), which tracks “contract fraud, environmental, ethics, and labor violations.” Talk about a rigged game!

Designing everything from nuclear missile components to eavesdropping equipment for various government agencies in the United States and abroad, including some of the most repressive regimes on the planet, these firms have moved into manufacturing the hardware and related computer software for social networking surveillance in a big way.

Wired revealed in April that the FBI is routinely monitoring cell phone calls and internet activity during criminal and counterterrorism investigations. The publication posted a series of internal documents that described the Wi-Fi and computer hacking capabilities of the Bureau’s Cryptographic and Electronic Analysis Unit (CEAU).

New Scientist reported back in 2006 that the National Security Agency “is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks.”

And just this week in an exclusive report published by the British high-tech publication, The Register, it was revealed that “the government has outsourced parts of its biggest ever mass surveillance project to the disaster-prone IT services giant formerly known as EDS.”

That work is being conducted under the auspices of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British state’s equivalent of America’s National Security Agency.

Investigative journalist Chris Williams disclosed that the American computer giant HP, which purchased EDS for some $13.9 billion last year, is “designing and installing the massive computing resources that will be needed to analyse details of who contacts whom, when where and how.”

Work at GCHQ in Cheltenham is being carried out under “a secret project called Mastering the Internet.” In May, a Home Office document surfaced that “ostensibly sought views on whether ISPs should be forced to gather terabytes of data from their networks on the government’s behalf.”

The Register reported earlier this year that telecommunications behemoth Detica and U.S. defense giant Lockheed Martin were providing GCHQ with data mining software “which searches bulk data, such as communications records, for patterns … to identify suspects.” (For further details see: Antifascist Calling, “Spying in the UK: GCHQ Awards Lockheed Martin £200m Contract, Promises to ‘Master the Internet’,” May 7, 2009)

It seems however, that INDECT researchers like their GCHQ/NSA kissin’ cousins in Britain and the United States, are burrowing ever-deeper into the nuts-and-bolts of electronic social networking and may be on the verge of an Orwellian surveillance “breakthrough.”

As New Scientist sagely predicted, the secret state most certainly plans to “harness advances in internet technology–specifically the forthcoming ’semantic web’ championed by the web standards organisation W3C–to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals.”

Profiling Internet Dissent

Pretty alarming, but the devil as they say is in the details and INDECT’s release of their “Work package 4? file makes for a very interesting read. And with a title, “XML Data Corpus: Report on methodology for collection, cleaning and unified representation of large textual data from various sources: news reports, weblogs, chat,” rest assured one must plow through much in the way of geeky gibberish and tech-speak to get to the heartless heart of the matter.

INDECT itself is a rather interesting amalgamation of spooks, cops and academics.

According to their web site, INDECT partners include: the University of Science and Technology, AGH, Poland; Gdansk University of Technology; InnoTech DATA GmbH & Co., Germany; IP Grenoble (Ensimag), France; MSWiA, the General Headquarters of Police, attached to the Ministry of the Interior, Poland; Moviquity, Spain; Products and Systems of Information Technology, PSI, Germany; the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, United Kingdom (hardly slouches when it comes to stitching-up Republicans and other leftist agitators!); Poznan University of Technology; Universidad Carlos III de Madrid; Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria; University of Wuppertal, Germany; University of York, Great Britain; Technical University of Ostrava, Czech Republic; Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia; X-Art Pro Division G.m.b.H, Austria; and finally, the Fachhochschule Technikum, also in Austria.

I don’t know about you, but I find it rather ironic that the European Union, ostensible guardians of democracy and human rights, have turned for assistance in their surveillance projects to police and spy outfits from the former Soviet bloc, who after all know a thing or two when it comes to monitoring their citizens.

Right up front, York University’s Suresh Manadhar, Ionnis Klapaftis and Shailesh Pandey, the principle authors of the INDECT report, make their intentions clear.

Since “security” as the authors argue, “is becoming a weak point of energy and communications infrastructures, commercial stores, conference centers, airports and sites with high person traffic in general,” they aver that “access control and rapid response to potential dangers are properties that every security system for such environments should have.”

Does INDECT propose building a just and prosperous global society, thus lessening the potential that terrorist killers or other miscreants will exploit a “target rich environment” that may prove deadly for innocent workers who, after all, were the principle victims of the 2004 and 2007 terrorist outrages in Madrid and London? Hardly.

As with their colleagues across the pond, INDECT is hunting for the ever-elusive technological quick-fix, a high-tech magic bullet. One, I might add, that will deliver neither safety nor security but rather, will constrict the democratic space where social justice movements flourish while furthering the reach of unaccountable security agencies.

The document “describes the first deliverable of the work package which gives an overview about the main methodology and description of the XML data corpus schema and describes the methodology for collection, cleaning and unified representation of large textual data from various sources: news reports, weblogs, chat, etc.”

The first order of business “is the study and critical review of the annotation schemes employed so far for the development and evaluation of methods for entity resolution, co-reference resolution and entity attributes identification.”

In other words, how do present technologic capabilities provide police, security agencies and capitalist grifters with the ability to identify who might be speaking to whom and for what purpose. INDECT proposes to introduce “a new annotation scheme that builds upon the strengths of the current-state-of-the-art,” one that “should be extensible and modifiable to the requirements of the project.”

Asserting that “an XML data corpus [can be] extracted from forums and social networks related to specific threats (e.g. hooliganism, terrorism, vandalism, etc.),” the authors claim they will provide “different entity types according to the requirements of the project. The grouping of all references to an entity together. The relationships between different entities” and finally, “the events in which entities participate.”

Why stop there? Why not list the ubiquitous “other” areas of concern to INDECT’s secret state partners? While “hooliganism, terrorism, vandalism, etc.,” may be the ostensible purpose of their “entity attributes identification” project, surely INDECT is well aware that such schemes are just as easily applicable to local citizen groups, socialist and anarchist organizations, or to the innumerable environmental, human rights or consumer campaigners who challenge the dominant free market paradigm of their corporate sponsors.

The authors however, couldn’t be bothered by the sinister applications that may be spawned by their research; indeed, they seem quite proud of it.

“The main achievements of this work” they aver, “allows the identification of several types of entities, groups the same references into one class, while at the same time allows the identification of relationships and events.”

Indeed, the “inclusion of a multi-layered ontology ensures the consistency of the annotation” and will facilitate in the (near) future, “the use of inference mechanisms such as transitivity to allow the development of search engines that go beyond simple keyword search.”

Quite an accomplishment! An enterprising security service or capitalist marketing specialist need only sift through veritable mountains of data available from commercial databases, or mobile calls, tweets, blog posts and internet searches to instantaneously identity “key agitators,” to borrow the FBI’s very 20th century description of political dissidents; individuals who could be detained or “neutralized” should sterner methods be required.

Indeed, a surveillance scheme such as the one INDECT is building could greatly facilitate–and simplify–the already formidable U.S. “Main Core” database that “reportedly collects and stores–without warrants or court orders–the names and detailed data of Americans considered to be threats to national security,” as investigative journalists Tim Shorrock and Christopher Ketchum revealed in two disturbing reports last year.

The scale of “datasets/annotation schemes” exploited by INDECT is truly breathtaking and include: “Automatic Content Extraction” gleaned from “a variety of sources, such as news, broadcast conversations” that identify “relations between entities, and the events in which these participate.”

We next discover what is euphemistically called the “Knowledge Base Population (KBP),” an annotation scheme that “focuses on the identification of entity types of Person (PER), Organization (ORG), and Geo-Political Entity (GPE), Location (LOC), Facility (FAC), Geographical/Social/Political (GPE), Vehicle (VEH) and Weapon (WEA).”

How is this accomplished? Why through an exploitation of open source materials of course!

INDECT researchers readily aver that “a snapshot of Wikipedia infoboxes is used as the original knowledge source. The document collection consists of newswire articles on the order of 1 million. The reference knowledge base includes hundreds of thousands of entities based on articles from an October 2008 dump of English Wikipedia. The annotation scheme in KBP focuses on the identification of entity types of Person (PER), Organization (ORG), and Geo-Political Entity (GPE).”

For what purpose? Mum’s the word as far as INDECT is concerned.

Nothing escapes this panoptic eye. Even popular culture and leisure activities fall under the glare of security agencies and their academic partners in the latest iteration of this truly monstrous privacy-killing scheme. Using the movie rental firm Netflix as a model, INDECT cites the firm’s “100 million ratings from 480 thousand randomly-chosen, anonymous Netflix customers” as “well-suited” to the INDECT surveillance model.

In conclusion, EU surveillance architects propose a “new annotation & knowledge representation scheme” that “is extensible,” one that “allows the addition of new entities, relations, and events, while at the same time avoids duplication and ensures integrity.”

Deploying an ontological methodology that exploits currently available data from open source, driftnet surveillance of news, broadcasts, blog entries and search results, and linkages obtained through a perusal of mobile phone records, credit card purchases, medical records, travel itineraries, etc., INDECT claims that in the near future their research will allow “a search engine to go beyond simple keyword queries by exploiting the semantic information and relations within the ontology.”

And once the scheme is perfected, “the use of expressive logics … becomes an enabler for detecting entity relations on the web.” Or transform it into an “always-on” spy you carry in your pocket or whenever you switch on your computer.

This is how our minders propose to keep us “safe.”

CIA Gets In on the Fun

Not to be outdone, the CIA has entered the lucrative market of social networking surveillance in a big way.

In an exclusive published by Wired, we learn that the CIA’s investment arm, In-Q-Tel, “want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates–even check out your book reviews on Amazon.”

Investigative journalist Noah Shachtman reveals that In-Q-Tel “is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It’s part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using “open source intelligence”–information that’s publicly available, but often hidden in the flood of TV shows, newspaper articles, blog posts, online videos and radio reports generated every day.” Wired reported:

Visible crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. (It doesn’t touch closed social networks, like Facebook, at the moment.) Customers get customized, real-time feeds of what’s being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords. (Noah Shachtman, Exclusive: U.S. Spies Buy Stake in Firm that Monitors Blogs, Tweets,” Wired, October 19, 2009)

Although In-Q-Tel spokesperson Donald Tighe told Wired that it wants Visible to monitor foreign social media and give American spooks an “early-warning detection on how issues are playing internationally,” Shachtman points out that “such a tool can also be pointed inward, at domestic bloggers or tweeters.”

According to Wired, the firm already keeps tabs on 2.0 web sites “for Dell, AT&T and Verizon.” And as an added attraction, “Visible is tracking animal-right activists’ online campaigns” against meat processing giant Hormel.

Shachtman reports that “Visible has been trying for nearly a year to break into the government field.” And why wouldn’t they, considering that the heimat security and even spookier black world of the U.S. “intelligence community,” is a veritable cash-cow for enterprising corporations eager to do the state’s bidding.

In 2008 Wired reports, Visible “teamed-up” with the Washington, DC-based consulting firm “Concepts & Strategies, which has handled media monitoring and translation services for U.S. Strategic Command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others.”

According to a blurb on the firm’s web site they are in hot-pursuit of “social media engagement specialists” with Defense Department experience and “a high proficiency in Arabic, Farsi, French, Urdu or Russian.” Wired reports that Concepts & Strategies “is also looking for an ‘information system security engineer’ who already has a ‘Top Secret SCI [Sensitive Compartmentalized Information] with NSA Full Scope Polygraph’ security clearance.”

In such an environment, nothing escapes the secret state’s lens. Shachtman reveals that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) “maintains an Open Source Center, which combs publicly available information, including web 2.0 sites.”

In 2007, the Center’s director, Doug Naquin, “told an audience of intelligence professionals” that “‘we’re looking now at YouTube, which carries some unique and honest-to-goodness intelligence…. We have groups looking at what they call ‘citizens media’: people taking pictures with their cell phones and posting them on the internet. Then there’s social media, phenomena like MySpace and blogs’.”

But as Steven Aftergood, who maintains the Secrecy News web site for the Federation of American Scientists told Wired, “even if information is openly gathered by intelligence agencies it would still be problematic if it were used for unauthorized domestic investigations or operations. Intelligence agencies or employees might be tempted to use the tools at their disposal to compile information on political figures, critics, journalists or others, and to exploit such information for political advantage. That is not permissible even if all of the information in question is technically ‘open source’.”

But as we have seen across the decades, from COINTELPRO to Operation CHAOS, and from Pentagon media manipulation during the run-up to the Iraq war through driftnet warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ electronic communications, the secret state is a law unto itself, a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that thrives on duplicity, fear and cold, hard cash.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily and Pacific Free Press. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press. Read other articles by Tom, or visit Tom's website.

This article was posted on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 9:00am and is filed under Civil Liberties, Espionage, Europe, Human Rights, Privacy, Science/Tech.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:55 PM
Pentagon Pursuing New Investigation Into Bush Propaganda Program
Submitted by Chip on Fri, 2009-11-06 05:46.

Pentagon pursuing new investigation into Bush propaganda program
By Brad Jacobson | Raw Story

The Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General is conducting a new investigation into a covert Bush administration Defense Department program that used retired military analysts to produce positive wartime news coverage.

Also, Read Part I, Part II and Part III of this series.

Links and the full article here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/47522 (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/47522)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:56 PM
Justice Department Asked For News Site’s Visitor Lists
November 12th, 2009

Via: CBS News:

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site “not to disclose the existence of this request” unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department’s subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward “promoting social and economic justice” and “social change.”)

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

“I didn’t think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention,” Clair said in a telephone interview with CBSNews.com on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that “no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media” without “the express authorization of the attorney general” – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be “directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter.”

Still unclear is what criminal investigation U.S. Attorney Morrison was pursuing. Last Friday, a spokeswoman initially promised a response, but Morrison sent e-mail on Monday evening saying: “We have no comment.” The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. also declined to respond.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09/ta...l?tag=mncol;txt (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09/taking_liberties/entry5595506.shtml?tag=mncol;txt)


http://cryptogon.com/?p=12084 (http://cryptogon.com/?p=12084)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:58 PM
Thursday, November 12, 2009

Secret State Demands News Organization's Web Logs, Gets Slapped Down

When the Independent Media Center (IMC) received a formal notice on January 30 from the Department of Justice, demanding they provide an Indianapolis grand jury with "details of all reader visits on a certain day," the feisty left-wing news aggregators fought back, CBS News reported.

Investigative journalist Declan McCullagh revealed that the "change" administration's legal eagles issued an order that required the "Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site 'not to disclose the existence of this request' unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization."

Kristina Clair, IndyMedia's Linux administrator, told CBS she was shocked to have received the subpoena with its flawed demand not to disclose its contents.

The subpoena from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on. (Declan McCullagh, "Justice Dept. Asked for News Site's Visitor Lists," CBS News, November 10, 2009)

Talk about intrusive! While grand jury subpoenas of news organizations and journalists are not unprecedented, under long-standing guidelines these subpoenas are supposed to receive special handling given their sensitive nature, thus ensuring that even the appearance of prior restraint of a journalist's ability to report the news is avoided.

In IndyMedia's case however, DOJ's ham-handed stipulation amounted to government meddling clearly prohibited by the First Amendment. Not that any of this seems to matter to an administration hell-bent on defending--and expanding--every illegal program of the previous regime.

McCullagh writes that one section of the guidelines state that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general," in this case, the secret state's newest "best friend forever" Eric Holder.

Indeed, these draconian writs must be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter." The government's demand however, for virtually every piece of information held by IndyMedia on their contributors and readers hardly qualifies as "limited" even in today's bizarro world of "national security" driftnet surveillance and data mining.

When queried by CBS as to what criminal investigation prompted their draconian demand for IP addresses "and any other identifying information" on IndyMedia users, U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison emailed CBS with a curt reply: "We Have no comment."

But before proceeding further, let's be clear on one thing: since the 1970s, the federal grand jury system where the prosecutor reigns supreme, has been an instrument wielded by the secret state to target dissent and to ensnare left-wing government critics in open-ended "investigations" whose sole purpose is to harass if not prosecute alleged "troublemakers."

As the late, great defender of civil liberties, Frank Donner, described in his landmark work on America's political intelligence system, during the lawless rampage against the left launched by the Nixon administration:

A new attack [on dissent] would have to be secret, clothed with a more plausible justification than the [red-hunting congressional] committees' claimed legislative purpose, and aimed inwardly at the group and its members.

The White House entrusted the grand jury offensive to the Internal Security Division (ISD) of the Department of Justice. This unit, which had languished during the post-McCarthy years, was now enlarged from a complement of six to sixty as part of a master plan to deploy all available resources against the new dissenters. ...

The secrecy of the grand jury proceeding cloaks abuses. Although secrecy historically served to protect the independence of the grand jury by insulating it from the pressures of the Crown, there can be little doubt that in the Nixon years grand jury secrecy became an instrument of the very evil it was intended to prevent. (Frank Donner, The Age of Surveillance, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980, pp. 355, 357)

Today, with antiwar groups, anarchists, socialists, animal rights and environmental activists clearly focused in the secret state's cross hairs, one can speculate that the DOJ's reticence to reveal what "crime" they were allegedly investigating in all probability related to information surreptitiously obtained by a paid informant or provocateur.

This hypothesis is all the more compelling when one considers that DOJ attorney's threatened Clair with obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the subpoena, claiming it "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."

But shortly after receiving the onerous warrant Clair's shock turned to anger, and the sysadmin contacted the San Francisco-based civil liberties group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who agreed to take on the government.

On November 9, EFF published a whitepaper outlining the shadowy nature of the secret state's latest moves to subvert our constitutional rights. According to EFF's senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston,

Secrecy surrounds law enforcement's communications surveillance practices like a dense fog. Particularly shrouded in secrecy are government demands issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act or "SCA" that seek subscriber information or other user records from communications service providers. When the government wants such data from a phone company or online service provider, it can obtain a court order under the SCA demanding the information from the provider, along with a gag order preventing the provider from disclosing the existence of the government's demand. More often, companies are simply served with subpoenas issued directly by prosecutors without any court involvement; these demands, too, are rarely made public. ("From EFF's Secret Files: Anatomy of a Bogus Subpoena," Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 9, 2009)

Undeterred by the quickly broken promises of the Obama regime to "restore the rule of law," like their Bushist predecessors, Obama's Justice Department is the golden shield that hides from public view the high crimes and misdemeanors of America's corporatist police state.

Readers of Antifascist Calling are urged to read EFF's well-written analysis. It meticulously dissects the lawless behavior of administration attorneys who, without skipping a beat, attempted to brow-beat a news organization into submission, thus preventing them from doing what they do best: informing the public, not as court stenographers but, as the heroic Israeli journalist Amira Hass has averred by "monitoring the centers of power."

Readers are also urged to read the government's subpoena in its entirety, an exercise in overreaching and a clear violation of the state's own guidelines governing the issuance of these onerous warrants.

Grand jury subpoenas are very easy for the government to get--they are issued directly by prosecutors without any direct court oversight. Therefore, the SCA limits what those subpoenas can obtain, in contrast to a search warrant or other court order. Under the SCA's 18 U.S.C. § 2703©(2), grand jury subpoenas can only be used to get basic subscriber-identifying information about a target--e.g., a particular user's name, IP address, physical address or payment details--and certain types of telephone logs; any other records require a court order or a search warrant. ...

However, with the Indymedia subpoena, the government departed from the text of the law and the Justice Department's own sample subpoena by inserting this demand: "Please provide the following information pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2703©(2)]: All IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" for a particular date, including "IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information."

In other words, the government was asking for the IP address of every one of indymedia.us's thousands of visitors on that date--the IP address of every person who read any news story on the entire site. Not only did this request threaten every indymedia.us visitor's First Amendment right to read the news anonymously (particularly considering that the government could easily obtain the name and address associated with each IP address via subpoenas to the ISPs that control those IP blocks), it plainly violated the SCA's restrictions on what types of data the government could obtain using a subpoena. The subpoena was also patently overbroad, a clear fishing expedition: there's no way that the identity of every Indymedia reader of every Indymedia story was relevant to the crime being investigated by the grand jury in Indiana, whatever that crime may be. (EFF, op. cit., emphasis in original)

CBS reported that EFF wrote a series of letters to the DOJ. The first detailed the flaws in the original subpoena while the second pointedly said that if the government needed to muzzle IndyMedia, it should apply for a formal gag order under the relevant section of federal law.

Hardly the sharpest knives in the drawer, DOJ higher-ups quickly caught on and realized that the group was about to challenge the law on First Amendment grounds. At that point, the state backed down and withdrew the subpoena. EFF wrote, "Obviously, that was a fight--and more importantly, a precedent--that the government wanted to avoid."

The lesson here? When the state comes knocking, the first and best line of defense is to seek competent legal advice from the relevant civil liberties' organization.

Handing over information that the government is not legally entitled to, or indeed, answering questions posed by federal investigators trained in subtle interview techniques without an attorney present can--and has--resulted in "obstruction of justice" or a "lying to federal government agents" indictment, a crime under Title 18, United States Code, § 1001. Silence is always an option.

A good place to start learning how to fight back against electronic spying practices is a working familiarity with EFF's excellent handbook "Surveillance Self-Defense": https://ssd.eff.org/3rdparties/protect

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/20...anizations.html (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2009/11/secret-state-demands-news-organizations.html)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 08:59 PM
Think-Tanks and the Reporters Who Heart Them

By Nathan Hodge (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/nathanhodge/) http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif (nohodge@gmail.com)
December 18, 2009 |
11:54 am |
Categories: Paper Pushers, Beltway Bandits, Politicians (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/category/paper-pushers-beltway-bandits-politicians/)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/11/reporter-pentagon.jpg (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/11/reporter-pentagon.jpg)The relationship between reporters and think tanks used to be, well, pretty simple. You called up defense expert X for a quote on, say, cost overruns on a stealth fighter jet, and if you were lucky, you’d get something lively. (Free tip to aspiring defense wonks: Try more pop-culture references.) You could attend one of their conferences, listen to one of their panels and perhaps pick up half a sandwich.
Now it’s nearly 2010: Print is dying, newsrooms are shrinking and the media industry is generally in the toilet (http://gawker.com/5118352/the-media-depression-arrives). The relationship between reporters and think-tanks, at least in the national-security arena, is starting to shift. Think tanks are starting to become full-time patrons of the news business, and they are bankrolling book projects, blogs and even war reporting.
The Center for a New American Security, for instance, has funded a string of first-rate defense reporters through its Writers in Residence Program (http://www.cnas.org/writers). The latest launch: The Fourth Star (http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Star-Generals-Struggle-Future/dp/0307409066), by Washington Post reporter Greg Jaffe and former New York Times reporter David Cloud. CNAS also signed up (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/15/cnas_signs_up_schmitt_and_shanker) New York Times reporters Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt to work on a joint book project, titled Counterstrike. Longtime Post reporter Tom Ricks, who published The Gamble (http://www.amazon.com/Gamble-Petraeus-American-Adventure-2006-2008/dp/1594201978) this year, is a senior fellow at CNAS. (Ricks worked on Fiasco (http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/159420103X), his previous bestseller, while in residence at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.)
CNAS isn’t the only refuge for national-security reporters these days. New York Times military correspondent Michael Gordon, co-author of Cobra II (http://www.amazon.com/Cobra-II-Inside-Invasion-Occupation/dp/0375422625), is listed as a senior fellow (http://www.understandingwar.org/user/mgordon) at the Institute for the Study of War. James Mann, author of The Rise of the Vulcans (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Vulcans-History-Bushs-Cabinet/dp/0670032999) and a bunch of other noteworthy books, was senior writer-in-residence (http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/directory/bios/m/mann.htm) the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Think tanks have hired some excellent in-house military affairs bloggers (http://washingtonindependent.com/49992/abu-aardvark-joins-cnas). And for-profit publications are pairing up with the non-profits on projects like Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel (http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/), billed as a partnership with the New America Foundation.
It makes economic sense. Tightfisted newspaper publishers aren’t too generous with book leave these days; management keeps cutting bureaus and scaling back travel budgets; and who wouldn’t jump at a writer-in-residence gig, especially when the bean-counters are pressuring reporters to take buyouts (http://gawker.com/5420766/the-new-york-times-buyout-list-updated)?

But what does this mean for journalism? When think tanks are often a revolving door for government service, what happens when reporters who become office-mates of past or future political appointees? How do you keep national security reporting from becoming an echo chamber of the Beltway policy elite? It’s hard enough giving objective analysis of some policy maven’s ideas, after you two have shared a few cocktails together. Now imagine how much tougher that becomes, when the policy maven is in the next cubicle over. Awkwaaaard!
In my earlier posts on the defense-intellectual complex (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/why-does-lockheed-spend-money-on-think-tanks/), some bloggers seized on the topic to suggest (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/the-think-tank-arm-of-the-military-industrial-complex.php) that think tanks were somehow in the pocket of the defense industry. I disagreed: I think the industry’s support to think tanks is usually a hedge, like advertising and lobbying, not some insidious cash-for-opinions scheme. But I do worry about the susceptibility to groupthink. Defense trends come and go — anyone remember network-centric warfare (http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/15-12/ff_futurewar)? — and these policy shops are in the business of selling them. I’d hate to see skeptical, public-spirited reporters be accused of fronting for some policy agenda (http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/too_close_for_comfort.php). (Disclosure: Back in the mid-’90s, long before my current incarnation as a journalist/blogger, I worked at the Hudson Institute as a book researcher (http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Soviet-Military-Gen-William/dp/0300082711) for retired Lt. Gen. William Odom. I didn’t do any policy work.)
But I would also hate to see a situation where national-security reporting starts to mimic the tone or the style of think-tank policy papers. Dull and worthy may work for white papers, but it ain’t gonna save print. But then again, maybe what those papers needs is an injection of real writers’ mojo.
At the end of the day, someone has to pay for good, in-depth reporting, and think tanks are starting to look like a more reliable place to get funding. In an excellent New Yorker essay (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2009/01/nonprofit-newsp.html), Steve Coll, a former Washington Post reporter, lamented the death of the traditional model of investigative journalism that was sustained for so many decades by for-profit newspapers.
“There is just no substitute for the professional, civil-service-style, relentless independent thinking, reporting, and observation that developed in big newsrooms between the Second World War and whenever it was that the end began—about 2005 or so,” he wrote.
Coll, incidentally, is also president of the New America Foundation (http://www.newamerica.net/people/steve_coll).
[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/12/think-tanks-and-the-reporters-who-heart-them/#ixzz12eUDwETK

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:00 PM
Special Ops robots now do psychological warfare

Attention rebel meatsacks: Resistance is futile!

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Physics, 18th December 2009 16:05 GMT

US arms globocorp Boeing has announced yet another military robot demonstration - but this time, one with a difference. Rather than spying on meatsacks or mowing them down with the traditional array of automated weaponry, the war-bots in this trial sought to win over their fleshy opponents using psychological warfare.

The demo was carried out for the US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), the organisation which runs the noted Green Berets, Rangers etc.

"Working with USASOC, we were able to pull together a team to demonstrate this integrated, multimodal operation in just 45 days," says Boeing bigwig Vic Sweberg. "We brought together hardware and software from five different contractors into a single system that allowed the control of different unmanned systems capabilities to accomplish a particular mission."

Apart from its legions of hardy throatcutters, USASOC is also in charge of the US Army's active psychological-warfare troops.

It seems that a small robot helicopter and an unmanned R-Gator jeep/buggy affair from John Deere were selected to deliver a blistering onslaught of pro-US propaganda. Boeing says the two machine warriors carried out an "electro-optical/infrared, audio, and leaflet drop mission".

Translated, that means that infrared nightsight video of the target area was taken, propaganda announcements were played through speakers (probably on the R-Gator) and leaflets were dropped (probably from the copter).

Actually, robots of a sort have already carried out leaflet drops in Afghanistan - SnowGoose robo-paramotor rigs, to be specific. So there's nothing terribly new going on here.

Even so, it does seem odd that robots - having learned how to slaughter human beings using deadly force - have now moved on to the more tricky task of persuading people to comply with orders or give up simply by spreading information.

Come the machine uprising, this sort of capability will no doubt be very useful in recruiting and managing fleshy slaves. ®

Related stories

* US Spec Ops operates psywar websites targeted at UK (16 September 2009)
* Revealed: Full specs on secret US covert-ops home cinema (29 May 2009)
* US spec-ops get robot whispercopter kill fleet this month (11 November 2008)
* US runs warzone man-tracking 'Manhattan Project' (15 September 2008)
* US.mil launches Operation Desert Spam (13 January 2003)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/18/mi...y_robot_psyops/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/18/military_robot_psyops/) via
Wired/Danger Room

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:01 PM
Pentagon calls for ‘Office of Strategic Deception’

By Sahil Kapur
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 -- 9:47 am

WASHINGTON -- Remember the Pentagon Office of Special Plans that helped collect dubious intelligence that led to the war in Iraq? Or the program where the Pentagon secretly briefed military analysts to promote the Iraq war?

Meet the would-be Office of Strategic Deception.

In a little-noticed report earlier this month, the Defense Department's powerful Defense Science Board recommended creation of an entity designed solely for "strategic deception" against US adversaries.

"Specifically," the report reads (pdf), "we recommend that the Secretary [of Defense] task both the Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy and Intelligence, and the Joint Staff, working with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to create a tiger team to lay out courses of action and a way ahead for establishing a standing strategic surprise/deception entity. Once the initial work has been completed, all parts of the interagency should be brought into this effort."

"Strategic deception has in the past provided the United States with significant advantages that translated into operational and tactical success," it continues. "Successful deception also minimizes U.S. vulnerabilities, while simultaneously setting conditions to surprise adversaries."
Story continues below...

Deception is a common war-time tactic nations use to gain a leg up on their enemies, but as Wired notes, the Pentagon apparently believes the United States must begin engaging in strategic tricks even before it wages war against another country.

"Deception cannot succeed in wartime without developing theory and doctrine in peacetime," the DSB report reads. "In order to mitigate or impart surprise, the United States should [initiate] deception planning and action prior to the need for military operations."

And such attempts at strategic trickery must occur at virtually every stage in the United States' dealings with other nations, the Pentagon's science board says.

"Denial and deception efforts will be included from the onset, factors into both intelligence and response research and development activities at every stage, including war gaming."

The DSB report was first flagged by InsideDefense.com.

In 2003, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh highlighted the Office of Special Plans, a closely guarded cabal that did an end-run around the Pentagon to collect purported intelligence suggesting that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction.

"They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans," Hersh wrote. "In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi.

"According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States," Hersh added.

Late last year, Raw Story's Brad Jacobson revealed evidence that directly tied the activities undertaken in the military analyst program under President George W. Bush -- where analysts were briefed to promote the Iraq war -- to an official US military document’s definition of psychological operations. Such propaganda that is only supposed to be directed toward foreign audiences.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, who remains a spokesman for the Pentagon today, told Raw Story the program was intended only to "inform."

Whitman said he stood by an earlier statement in which he averred “the intent and purpose of the [program] is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American public.”

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/pentagon-repor...ception-entity/ (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/pentagon-report-calls-creation-strategic-deception-entity/)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:03 PM
Pentagon Report Calls for Office of ‘Strategic Deception’

By Noah Shachtman (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/noah_shachtman/) http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif (noah.shachtman@gmail.com)
January 26, 2010 |
12:54 pm |
Categories: Spies, Secrecy and Surveillance (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/category/spies-secrecy-and-surveillance/)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/01/3890925149_3a20206b83_b1.jpg (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/01/3890925149_3a20206b83_b1.jpg)
The Defense Department needs to get better at lying and fooling people about its intentions. That’s the conclusion from an influential Pentagon panel, the Defense Science Board (DSB), which recommends that the military and intelligence communities join in a new agency devoted to “strategic surprise/deception.”
Tricking battlefield opponents has been a part of war since guys started beating each other with bones and sticks. But these days, such moves are harder to pull off, the DSB notes in a January report (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2010-10-Capability_Suprise_Vol_2.pdf) (.pdf) first unearthed byInsideDefense.com (http://insidedefense.com/). “In an era of ubiquitous information access, anonymous leaks and public demands for transparency, deception operations are extraordinarily difficult. Nevertheless, successful strategic deception has in the past provided the United States with significant advantages that translated into operational and tactical success. Successful deception also minimizes U.S. vulnerabilities, while simultaneously setting conditions to surprise adversaries.”
The U.S. can’t wait until it’s at war with a particular country or group before engaging in this strategic trickery, however. “Deception cannot succeed in wartime without developing theory and doctrine in peacetime,” according to the DSB. “In order to mitigate or impart surprise, the United States should [begin] deception planning and action prior to the need for military operations.”
Doing that will not only requires an “understanding the enemy culture, standing beliefs, and intelligence-gathering process and decision cycle, as well as the soundness of its operational and tactical doctrine,” the DSB adds. Deception is also “reliant … on the close control of information, running agents (and double-agents) and creating stories that adversaries will readily believe.”
Such wholesale obfuscation can’t be done on an ad-hoc basis, or by a loose coalition of existing agencies. The DSB writes that ”to be effective, a permanent standing office with strong professional intelligence and operational expertise needs to be established.” I wonder: what would you call that organization? The Military Deception Agency? Or something a bit more … deceptive?
Photo: Matthileo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthileo/)/Flickr

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/pentagon-report-calls-for-office-of-strategic-deception/#ixzz12eVKIhVZ

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:05 PM
Revealed: Retired CIA agent ‘made up’ waterboarding details

By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 -- 10:14 pm

As it turns out, retired CIA agent John Kiriakou has an active imagination, basically.

According to a piece by veteran intelligence reporter Jeff Stein, Kiriakou "basically made up" details about the waterboarding of al Qaeda agent Abu Zubaydah.

Arguing that waterboarding — or simulated drowning — is actually effective in forcing prisoners to share secret information, Kiriakou told ABC News’ Nightline in April, “The next day [after his first time being waterboarded], he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.”

“From that day on, he answered every question,” he said, according to ABC. “The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

"Now comes John Kiriakou, again, with a wholly different story," Stein noted in Foreign Policy. "On the next-to-last page of a new memoir, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror (written with Michael Ruby), Kiriakou now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up."

"I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time," Kiriakou reportedly said.

"But after his one-paragraph confession, Kiriakou adds that he didn't have any first hand knowledge of anything relating to CIA torture routines, and still doesn't," Stein continued. "And he claims that the disinformation he helped spread was a CIA dirty trick: "In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own."

Kiriakou had insisted repeatedly to ABC News that waterboarding, while "torture," supposedly "saved lives," even though he had no way of knowing that.

The CIA has since destroyed all videotapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogations. He was allegedly subjected to waterboarding at least 83 times.

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/revealed-excia...arding-details/ (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/revealed-excia-agent-basically-up-waterboarding-details/)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:07 PM
PR Exec Tells How Industry Manipulates Public Opinion

* corporations
* global warming
* public relations

Source: Allianz, January 22, 2010

James Hoggan, the director of the James Hoggan & Associates public relations firm, has authored a book titled Climate Cover Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, in which he describes PR techniques that industry groups use to create the impression of a scientific controversy about climate change. Industries set up front groups, Hoggan says, like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which tried to convince Americans in electoral swing states that coal is clean. Front groups like Americans for Prosperity, which organized the disruptive August, 2009 town hall meeting protests, started out by paying for protesters. Hoggan reports seeing documents that show PR firms charged $1800 per protester. "Companies can buy protesters, and if you are clever with your framing of the issue, these paid protesters attract real protesters," Hoggan explains. His book also reveals the strategy of framing global warming as a United Nations scheme, or a scam by international scientists, to appeal to people who "don't like being told what to do by the UN or some foreigners." The most powerful tools used to manipulate public opinion, Hoggan says, are focus groups, which help PR companies understand how people think on certain issues. Another is the creation of "echo chambers," that involve generating favorable news reports that are repeated over and over by media outlets until the public finally starts repeating it back. "Get Dick Cheney and George Bush and Fox News and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to talk and then just keep repeating what they say -- 'the science is not settled, the science is not settled, the science is not settled' -- until the public starts repeating it back. It’s a frightening phenomenon," Hogan says.



Johann Hari on Propaganda and James Hansen's New Book--Both Worth Reading!

* global warming

Source: Salon, January 25, 2010

by Lisa Graves

Check out Johann Hari's review of James Hansen's terrific new book, "Storms of My Grandchildren." Both describe the Bush Administration's efforts to distort public opinion about global warming and climate change through hiring flacks and hacks from coal to suppress science and truth. You've read the dry versions of the story in news clips, but the book itself is so thoughtfully and powerfully written, it's definitely worth picking it up at your local bookstore.

Hari's take is insightful and crisp: "[N]otoriously, the second Bush administration started to appoint former employees of Big Coal to run NASA's communications. They blocked press releases warning about global warming and tried to stop Hansen from giving interviews. One of the appointees explained his job was to "make the President look good." When Hansen argued back, they cut his research budget by 20 percent. Hansen said he had a duty to speak out because the first line of NASA's mission statement is a pledge "to understand and protect our home planet"—so the Bush appointees deleted the commitment. Yes: They erased the commitment to protect planet Earth. (An independent investigation by the Inspector General later confirmed all this.) Most scientists would have backed down or given up. Hansen didn't—and from his prickly prose, you can tell why."


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:10 PM
Government Propagandists in Corporate Media

When independent journalists challenge US wars, government propagandists attack in the comments

By Carl Herman

February 04, 2010

"LA County Nonpartisan Examiner" Feb. 03, 2010 --

The US Senate Church Committee disclosed in 1975 that more than over 400 government propagandists had infiltrated American corporate media to manipulate public opinion on key policies, including war. CIA Director William Colby testified that Operation Mockingbird had been operational since the late 1940s to control what was reported through American television, newspapers, and magazines. President Ford fired Colby after his testimony and replaced him with George H. W. Bush. Bush Sr. ended the CIA’s testimony, stating that there were no other programs of concern to disclose and promised that the CIA would no longer influence the media (for Bush Sr.’s lies to initiate the first war with Iraq, click here).

We know in the present that government propagandists appeared over 4,500 times as “experts” in the PR run-up to the current war in Iraq, corporate media refuses to clearly communicate the essential news that ALL the claims for war were known to be false at the time they were told and US wars are “emperor has no clothes” obviously unlawful. The American public is recognizing the propaganda in corporate media by deserting them to embrace alternative sources.

Therefore, since we know that government-sponsored Operation Mockingbird propaganda is active today, and we know that people are abandoning corporate propaganda sources in favor of articles such as this one, put yourself in the shoes of Operation Mockingbird management and imagine your strategic responses to this type of article.


I imagine the first responses include paying propagandists to raid and pollute the comments sections with a full variety of their rhetorical fallacies. While I have no easy way to prove this is happening, I’d like to share with you a thread with one of the more sophisticated detractors from the factual topics of the article.

This is from my article: All 27 UK Foreign Affairs lawyers: Iraq war unlawful. Obama, politicians, US media: no response. Let's consider professional propagandist strategy. The article discloses stunning testimony that all the international law lawyers in the UK understood the Iraq war as unlawful.

To shill for continued war, propagandists would have to deflect this news by distraction or undermine the news' significance. One tactic is to obfuscate the meaning of the UN Charter law to prevent law; to essentially communicate that a law against war cannot actually stop a war because it's so vague to shift easily under interpretation. Another tactic is to argue that law has no meaning; that laws are not laws. Both Orwellian tactics are evident below. I invite you to see them for what they are: criminal complicity for unlawful war that has killed over a million, caused horrible suffering for multiples more, and done under our flag with trillions of our long-term tax dollars.

The comments are in order from first to last, and follow my “Comment policy” that is reprinted below that explicitly addresses the possibility of propaganda infiltration in the comments to discourage intelligent discussion of the facts.

I hope the following dialogue is helpful to improve your sophistication to recognize and crush propaganda.


wow says:
"The owners of the major news stations are defense contractors who have a conflict of interest when it comes to war."

Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC), Rupert Murdoch (Fox), TimeWarner (CNN) are all big defense contractors? That would be news to their stockholders.

Only place that accusation has any merit is GE/NBC - and GE is about to sell off NBC.
February 1, 11:51 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Attacking comments because you have nothing to say about the article’s topic (as usual)? Welcome back to my policy: either make your comments pertinent to the article topic or I’ll delete your comments.

You lie by omission by ignoring Operation Mockingbird whereby the Church Senate Committee disclosed the Department of Defense was in collusion with corporate media to propagandize for war. So yes, corporate media and War Department (removing the disinformation title of Defense) are conflicted in their interests. They will not report this story and hammer it to make clear that the war in Iraq is obviously unlawful.

If you want your voice heard, defend 1441 as a justification for war as legitimate criticism to the article’s topic, or justify why corporate media shouldn’t report to the American public the information in this article, or justify our duopolistic political silence. Why don’t the corporations you list demand Obama and Republican leadership’s response to this news?
February 1, 12:04 PM

wow says:
Get out of the '60s, Herman - the media world is a significantly different environment than what Church dug into.

Did the major media organizations stump for war in Iraq? Pretty much, yes, with notable exceptions like Knight Ridder's national bureau.

But was it because they were owned by defense contractors? No.

First, as I pointed out, most are not owned by defense contractors. Second, they jumped on a national bandwagon and ratings chase, especially the TV folks who were seduced by the prospect of embedded live TV crews.

They also were neatly suckered by the Rumsfeld's retired expert analysts, one of the more effective Pentagon PR (propaganda) campaigns in decades.

But dismissing it all as 'defense contractor ownership" completely misses the real problem.
February 1, 12:36 PM

wow says:
As for the meat of YOUR article, allow be to address an area in which I have some expertise: Your claime that "Concentrated US corporate media will not report the Chilcot inquiry “emperor has no clothes” facts and conclusion that the current US wars are unlawful."

Even a quick search of US news sources finds extensive coverage of Blair's testimony and British reactions by ABC, CNN, NPR, PBS, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and even the Voice of America.

So your claim is not supported by facts.
February 1, 12:39 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
I’m in 2010 pointing out concentrated corporate domination of “news.” Readers should read the link in "Comments policy" to confirm the Pentagon propagandists you point to as “effective” rather than shills for unlawful wars who should have chosen their oath of enlistment to defend the US Constitution rather than Wars of Aggression. Ratings chase? You throw away history confirmed in 1975 with ongoing evidence of continuance of a designed propaganda program through corporate media.

You fail, as usual, to address the topic: all 27 UK Foreign Office lawyers agree for the simple reasons I show in the article that the war in Iraq is an unlawful War of Aggression. In this case, you intentionally try to confuse corporate propaganda of vaguely reporting “an inquiry” with real reporting of US/UK criminal wars. Conflicted-in-interest corporate media obfuscate rather than explain what the UN Charter demands for lawful war and the obviously false claim that 1441 is legal justification.
February 1, 1:01 PM

wow says:

Try "clueless and confused."

What you see as conspiracy (and ignore 35 years of history), those who have any knowledge of the American media recognize as a really bad combination of ineptness, ignorance, and tunnel vision compounded by pressures to 'feed the beast' and 'get the scoop.'

Broadcast media have problems seeing beyond the next 'top of the hour;' print media is focused on slowing the red ink.

And most media pros know that they are doing a crappy job these days - but can't figure out how to fix it.

But when you begin your criticisms by accusing them of blatant evil intent, without a clue as to what their real problems are, don't expect them to beat a path to your door with false 'mea culpas.'

On the other hand, if they were half as controlled as you claim, they already would have destroyed you publicly.

On the other point, don't confuse characterization of "effective" as an expression of approval.
February 1, 1:27 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
What you lie about as “clueless” is Operation Mockingbird and the other disclosures from the link in the Comment policy section above. Why don’t you acknowledge this history, wow? You lie that professional journalists who wanted a “scoop” wouldn’t just headline: “Iraq War unlawful; new Nuremberg Trials?”

The laws of the UN Charter are so easy to understand, the “excuse” of 1441 so tragic-comic, this is propaganda for everyone to see, and you, wow, are in the serious position of determining what your life’s expression is going to advocate: paper-thin propaganda for mass-murder or a better-late-than-never “Scrooge conversion.”

“Approval”??? nobody cares about your opinion, wow. The topic of this article is the war is unlawful. Show us you’re not a propagandist, wow: either state the obvious that the Iraq war is unlawful, orders pertaining to it must be refused, and government must arrest then prosecute (or Truth and Reconciliation), OR explain how it's lawful.

February 1, 4:10 PM

wow says:
Herman, you slander me - I did acknowledge the history, but unlike you I also recognize things change over time: "...the media world is a significantly different environment than what Church dug into."

I also pointed out Rumsfeld's program of getting retired generals on air to promote his views. Of course, you ignore that it was that same "corporate media" that exposed the propaganda program.

As for the "laws" of the UN Charter, they have been repeatedly demonstrated as unenforceable - by your definition of "war of aggression," every one of the Permanent Members of the Security Council (the nations with veto power) have been in violation at one time or another. There's no one to Watch the Watchers.

Deal with reality: The US Government through self-deception got itself into a stupid, unnecessary war in Iraq and now has to find the best way out of the situation. It seems, finally, to be moving in that direction.
February 2, 6:36 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
You confirm Operation Mockingbird and the Pentagon’s allowed disinformation for the Iraq war lies. You then can’t explain why corporate media don’t headline, “Iraq War unlawful” while trying to make today’s corporate media sound different from propaganda control. Because Americans used to believe in a free press, effective propaganda must include minor revelation of truth to give the appearance of freedom. Corporate media ratings’ are plummeting and they don’t expose the huge story of unlawful war that would propel them to media leadership. Hmm, is that because they’re the propaganda arm for this unlawful war? Nah, wow must be right that this time they’re not lying, just ineffective!

You lie that laws are unenforceable. They can be, and are not. More…
February 2, 8:55 AM
Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: And you admit this current war is in violation of law! So it follows that all US government and military must immediately refuse orders, arrest those who issue them, and prosecute, right? That would cause the Watchers unlawful war to stop right now. But no, wow, you in your fascist world view slide right back to supporting a War of Aggression. And when the facts are clear that this war is in complete violation of law, you call it “self-deception” and pat the murderers on the back for now “moving in the best way out of the situation.”

If you were in any position of authority with your propaganda, you would be in danger of arrest for conspiracy for Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against Peace, and treason.

We’ll see if people like me who advocate Truth and Reconciliation are the stronger voice than those who prefer full prosecution, If you were such an official propagandist, wow, I’d consider my “Scrooge conversion” invitation seriously.
February 2, 8:54 AM

wow says:
Where did I "admit this current war is in violation of law"? I said it was stupid and unnecessary.

As for the media not trumpeting your "unlawful war" claims, how about because in general they don't believe your legal logic?

The Iraq operation was authorized by Congress; for most Americans, including most journalists, that AT MOST means the US Government has rejected the positions of other members of the UN. For many, it simply means the USA remains a sovereign nation.

Since then, there has been a lot of reporting about the inaccurate claims of WMDs, links to al Qaeda, and assorted other justifications for invading Iraq - in general, questioning why. You refuse to acknowledge that.

We all realize that you believe anyone who disagrees with you in any way must therefore be a fascist propagandist - but in the real world, it is possible to disagree about legal interpretations. (See numerous 5-4 Supreme Court decisions for example.)
February 2, 9:48 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were admitting the UN Security Council permanent members in violation; I misread you.

Congress authorized discretionary use of force, but limited by the UN Charter, you liar. All reasons for going to war with Iraq are now known as lies AS THEY WERE TOLD, you liar. You try to confuse obfuscating corporate reporting with this clear fact. Interested readers can read the documentation at “Are US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well-intended mistakes? What we now know from the evidence”. More…
February 2, 10:15 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: Ok wow: explain how UNSC Resolution 1441 justifies war. Do so now, or yes, I’ll stand with my propagandist assumption of your identity. The war in Iraq is as legal as if during the Super Bowl, a defensive lineman grabbed the ball while the offense was in their huddle, passed it to the free safety at the sidelines who then ran into the endzone. Because Americans know football rules and not the UN Charter, Americans could never be fooled by a propagandist announcer and “referees” that what occurred was a touchdown. We would know the game was rigged and what happened on the field was not even close to legal.

But regarding the mostly-unknown rules for lawful and unlawful war of the UN Charter, Americans’ faith in good government and honest media has been insidiously turned against them to manipulate their payment of taxes and enlistment to fight in wars that are as close to legal as our football example. More…
February 2, 10:15 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: The UN Charter has been a public document for 65 years, is written in simple language, and was designed in letter and spirit to be crystal-clear in its provisions to forever end war as a foreign policy option. This fact, like a rule in football, is open to anyone’s verification. As in football when people have just a little experience in understanding the rule, egregious violations become impossible to commit without being caught. However, a well-designed law or rule is worthless if it’s not widely known, not honored, and not enforced.

Leges Sine Moribus Vanae
Laws without morals are in vane. – Horace, Book III, ode 24

Finally, wow: explain how UNSC Resolution 1441 justifies war. Do so now, or yes, I’ll stand with my propagandist assumption of your identity and delete your further comments as distracting from the main topic of this article: lawful or unlawful war in Iraq.
February 2, 10:15 AM

wow says:
I don't have to explain 1441; I haven't claimed it justified invading Iraq.

For that matter, you slanderous child of unmarried parents, I've never claimed invading Iraq was justified, period - something you repeatedly ignore in your lies and misrepresentations.

I'll state one final time: Any law that cannot be enforced is meaningless.

And nothing in the UN Charter is enforceable if any one of the Five Permanent Members exercises its veto. History has clearly demonstrated that the UN prohibition against war is toothless.

Now, demonstrate some intellectual honesty, integrity and courage and let this stand.

Or prove once again that you are a paranoid and delusional coward who cannot face anyone questioning your "expertise."
February 2, 10:45 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Then you have no legal justification for war, as war is unlawful unless authorized by the UNSC or a narrow definition of self-defense until the UNSC rules. You throw away the victory of WW2 that my father, uncle and father-in-law fought, the unfulfilled promise of WW1 as a “war to end all wars” that both my grandfathers fought, and stand with following the dictates of an American leader (Fuhrer) because you insultingly whine “law CANNOT be enforced.” This, after insinuating in your last comment its possible to interpret the war is legal and then withdraw from supporting that ridiculous propaganda that is the topic of this article. More…
February 2, 11:22 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: The UN Charter isn’t enforced because of people like you, wow, who refuse to demand its structure be honored. The US Constitution isn’t being enforced in many areas because of people like you, wow, who refuse to demand its structure be honored. Unalienable rights are the foundation of this country wow; they arose from the declaration of human beings for their recognition and are enforced or not at human beings’ will, not from their whines it cannot be done.

You refuse to acknowledge the Iraq war is as unlawful as my football analogy. Instead you argue that the world’s law to end the scourge of war is “meaningless.” You stand against the US Constitution and the US-initiated treaty of the UN Charter’s elimination of war as a foreign policy option. And then you call those of us standing for these American values against tyrants and propagandists as bastards, paranoid, delusional, and a coward unable to face these questions.

Good luck with that future of yours, wow.
February 2, 11:22 AM

wow says:
Of course "its (sic) possible to interpret the war is legal..." - that's exactly what the Bush and Blair administrations DID.

As a "professional educator," surely you can grasp the difference between advocating a position and describing one held by others.

I see political leaders who were already committed to a policy interpreting evidence in such a way as to support their positions, rather than basing positions on the evidence. So do most who study the run-up to war.

But you not only refuse to even consider whether that has merit, you immediately launch the very ad hominum attacks you claim to condemn.

The "legality" of the war in Iraq is a nice armchair debate - but those of us who are really interested in the welfare of this nation are more concerned with cleaning up the mess instead of pontificating. As would be your veteran ancestors, I suspect.

As for the insults, they were clearly directed solely at you; because, again, you lie about me.
February 2, 1:29 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Bush and Blair SAID they had a legal interpretation, which is very different from actually having one in the Orwellian extreme of the war in Iraq and our football analogy. You SAY you see interpretations favorable to policy preferences, rather than Orwellian lies and refuse to state the legal argument as its placement in writing reveals that it’s as close to legal as our football example.

I trust the readers to discern between a mass-murderous War of Aggression and your BS to obfuscate the simple legal question. I trust readers to choose when the choice is clear between the US Constitution and illegality of war versus your fascist bandwagon of what you allege “most who study” do in emulation of your complete failure to even speak for the rule of US law in its most important life-and-death application of war. more…
February 2, 1:57 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: No, wow: you really are un-American to reject rule under American law. This isn’t ad hominem; rejecting American law is what “un-American” means, as being American is a political distinction of law. And then you reject what it means to be American by upholding unalienable rights in law by calling mass-murderous Wars of Aggression that by American law must be refused and prosecuted as “armchair debate.” And then you dare to speak for my father after calling me a bastard, and my wife’s father who took seven bullets from Nazis to end Wars of Aggression like in Iraq. You put you final Orwellian touch by adding to your assessment of my character, scholarship and reporting of my being a bastard, paranoid, delusional, and a coward unable to face these questions, as also being a liar.

Thank you for your revealing comments, wow.
February 2, 1:57 PM

wow says:
"...your assessment of my character, scholarship and reporting of my being a bastard, paranoid, delusional, and a coward unable to face these questions, as also being a liar."

That pretty much sums it up. Glad we found something we can agree on.

One last try: I'd rather focus on fixing problems like marching off to war based on erroneous assumptions than rail on about legal issues that will never (and most likely can never) be ajudicated.

And while you rant your legal theories, good people are still dying and being maimed in Iraq.

So first, let's wrap up that mistake, get our people out of there and take care of the wounded. (There is, finally, a plan that appears rational.)

Then we go for systemic change that still recognizes the world as it exists.
February 2, 2:24 PM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
You can march off to fix problems while rejecting the American rule of law for our government and military to honor their Oath and immediately refuse orders for unlawful war, arrest, and prosecute. You are a traitor to the laws of your country.

You can focus on “fixing” the most vicious paper-thin propaganda to unlawfully invade weak nations sitting on oil as “erroneous assumptions” and saying our most important laws can never be enforced. You enable Wars of Aggression and propagandize for others to be confused rather than clear about the most important law to understand before a soldier engages in combat.

You can pretend about the dead and wounded and back the “plan” of the criminals who engage in unlawful war to kill and maim more Americans and more of our Brothers and Sisters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and perhaps soon Iran.

Yes, this is your last try. I'll delete any comment other than addressing the topic of the article: the legal status of the Iraq war.
February 2, 3:36 PM

wow says:
It's legal, under any applicable US law - the only laws that count, like it or not. No court case has found otherwise, and several have upheld the legality.

And you, Mr. Herman, are guilty of advocating that US military personnel violate their oath of office and effectively mutiny against their lawful orders.

If this government was one-tenth the fascist enterprise you claim, it already would have thrown your posterior into a black hole.

Fortunately, most members of the military have more integrity, honor and honesty than you do.

You are so convinced you are right? Go down to a recruiter, enlist, then refuse to serve in an 'illegal war' and take it to court.

Surprise everyone and demonstrate a little courage of your convictions.
February 3, 6:26 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
You lie. The applicable law authorizing discretionary use of force is explicitly limited by the UN Charter. You further lie about “several” court cases; there is one I know of that didn’t rule on the legality of war under the UN Charter but on the issue whether Congress can authorize presidential discretion for use of force.

I trust the military, government, and readers to determine for themselves the obvious illegality of the war and your loveless propaganda for more death, destruction, and misery in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and I’m sure you’ll also shill for Iranian deaths. More…
February 3, 6:57 AM

Carl Herman (LA County Nonpartisan Examiner) says:
Cont: Explain HOW the war is legal, wow. Explain the topic of this article: how are all 27 UK lawyers in international law wrong, along with the unanimous finding of the Dutch government? Explain how UNSC Res. 1441 could be “interpreted” for war with Iraq.

If it’s so legal, as you claim, you should be able to explain it. You haven’t done so after repeated requests. So we have my detailed and self-evident explanation why the war is illegal in Orwellian degree that’s as easy to understand as our football example versus your naked statement that it must be legal because the Fuhrer said so. Explain the legality, wow, if you dare put the inane reasoning into print for all to see.
February 3, 6:57 AM

Note: I deleted wow’s further comment below as he refuses to address the main topic of what the UN Charter says about war, how 1441 authorizes it, or even to document his non-existent court cases and then lie about the UN Charter’s treaty status equal in force to US law as explicitly written in the Constitution. I think he continued to post under “Yail,” who repeats the Orwellian argument that law is not law and the law that exists is so unclear as to allow the exact act it prohibits.

wow says:
As expected, all talk, no action. Try to persuade honorable men and women to throw away their honor and ruin their lives - but no guts to actually take a stand yourself.

You need to do a little more research into those court cases - but you won't, because you suffer from the same disease that affected the Bush administration: you decide, then look for evidence to support your decisions.

As for rest - others have dissected your flawed analogies, although few have escaped the delete key. You rely on an interpretation of UN resolutions being superior to US law that has never been upheld in court; the only relevant court cases to date have found to the contrary, in fact.

You are, in the end, worse than a distraction - you give aid and comfort to the warmongers by presenting an opposition that can be dismissed as conspiracy kooks, Israel haters and nutjobs who consider terrorist murderers to be more credible than their own government.
February 3, 8:21 AM

Yail says:
Really, the UN has no real legal distinction in the world. International law only has meaning with an enforcement mechanism and there is no world government. Unfortunately, states will never give up their sovereignty to make decisions regarding their security. The only time this happens is when a state is so weak that it must bandwagon. The reason the P5 have veto power at the UNSC is just so no legal niceties will get involved when a Great Power wishes to do what it wishes. The UN Charter is also not "crystal clear?" regarding when war is legitimate. It mentions self-defense. How we define that is not an easy thing. It was left vague precisely so the Great Powers could create their own definitions of self-defense. Without these compromises the UN would not exist. Likely it will have major problems as new powers rise that do not have effective representation at the UN. Why would India allow the UN to decide its national interest? Answer: it won't.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:19 PM
Tuesday, February 09, 2010


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S2r2R3TIeTI/AAAAAAAAMyw/ndv4ZJxxw-I/s400/mahmood_ahmed.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S2r2R3TIeTI/AAAAAAAAMyw/ndv4ZJxxw-I/s1600-h/mahmood_ahmed.jpg) Pakistan's General Ahmed.
Sometimes the CIA and its friends get caught out.

1. Americans are informed by the more honest parts of the media that Pakistan's former spy boss General Ahmed arranged for $100,000 to be sent to Mohamad Atta. ('Our Friends the Pakistanis' - The Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298))

2. Americans discover that acts of terrorism in Europe, such as the Bologna Bombing of 1980, have been carried out by right wing forces, rather than by leftists.

3. The Turks discover that army generals have been planning acts of terrorism which they intend to blame on al Qaeda.

4. The people of India discover that alleged Mumbai Terrorism mastermind David Headley has been working for the US government.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S2r4ZkSoH-I/AAAAAAAAMzI/RBg4ncwYhls/s400/Gladio.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S2r4ZkSoH-I/AAAAAAAAMzI/RBg4ncwYhls/s1600-h/Gladio.jpg)

However, the CIA and its media friends always have a cunning plan, and it's called 'Limited Hangout'.

twelfthbough.blogspot.com/ (http://twelfthbough.blogspot.com/) tells us about Limited Hangout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout#cite_note-0) (take one for the team (http://twelfthbough.blogspot.com/2010/02/take-one-for-team.html))

A 'limited hangout' is when the CIA and its media friends admit to some of the truth.

1. Yes, some Pakistani bloke called Ahmed arranged for money to be sent to Atta.

2. Yes, the Bologna Bombing was done by fascists.

3. Yes, some Turkish generals have planned and carried out acts of terrorism.

4. Yes, David Headley worked for the US Drugs Enforcement Administration.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S2r39WjpgyI/AAAAAAAAMzA/iN2Pb21cd8E/s400/hsbc%2520bank%2520bldg%2520istanbul.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S2r39WjpgyI/AAAAAAAAMzA/iN2Pb21cd8E/s1600-h/hsbc%2520bank%2520bldg%2520istanbul.jpg)HSBC bank in Istanbul.
However, with a 'limited hangout', the CIA and its media friends then tell lies, or keep quiet, about the rest of the story.

1. The CIA and its friends will keep quiet about the fact that General Ahmed was in Washington at the time of 9 11 and had meetings with top CIA and Pentagon people. (Cached (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=clnk&cd=2&ved=undefined&url=http%3A%2F%2F209.85.229.132%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcac he%3AVFcK6LLvR_4J%3Awww.globalresearch.ca%2Farticl es%2FCHO206A.html%2BGeneral%2BAhmed%2Bwashington%2 B9%2B11%26cd%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Duk&ei=3NFqS5z7IdCRjAeQqOn6BQ&usg=AFQjCNGDhl60qVjKXAynkNLXqjK9rXLnAw&sig2=VrI9Iw4odx7ZV6WJNzKEKA))

2. The CIA and its friends will not tell the truth that the Bologna Bombing fascists were 'agents of the US government and NATO'. (aangirfan: The Bologna Bomb 1980, Gladio, terrorism in Europe (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Faangirfan.blogspot.com%2F2006%2F1 2%2Fbologna-bomb-1980-gladio-terrorism-in.html&ei=ssRqS6XnD8-TjAf_g9D-BQ&usg=AFQjCNGhHKxx9yy9e_wjUhuU1a6LU0Pexw&sig2=aDIA1_yPv9FXTI_jWfr0Zg) )

3. They will not tell the truth that certain Turkish generals, involved in terrorism, were part of the CIA's network of "Stay Behind" secret armies. (Operation Gladio: CIA Network of "Stay Behind" Secret Armies (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&ved=0CBoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Findex.php %3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D9556&ei=88VqS9SiGcyTjAftwODqBg&usg=AFQjCNFLDGueCl5wz-XNN1nQkUn8EvG5zQ&sig2=pb6F9kfgiQU3_ykszJaIKg))

4. They will not tell the truth that David Headley shows all the signs of being a loyal agent of the US government. (aangirfan: DAVID HEADLEY, PALACES AND WAR (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-headley-palaces-and-war.html&ei=OsdqS6DgJpDKjAfZnqyQBg&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAsQzgQoAA&usg=AFQjCNEjvUxPZ5mLqxd_JiN2hOzLQAUS0g))
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S2r3Gsn7bmI/AAAAAAAAMy4/Y3lt2y0U5GE/s400/Headley.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S2r3Gsn7bmI/AAAAAAAAMy4/Y3lt2y0U5GE/s1600-h/Headley.jpg)David Headley

Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals.

"When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case.

"The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further." - (take one for the team (http://twelfthbough.blogspot.com/2010/02/take-one-for-team.html))


posted by Anon at 12:35 AM (http://operation-mockingbird.blogspot.com/2010/02/media-and-limited-hangout.html)


Tuesday, March 02, 2010


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S41-TlWFhkI/AAAAAAAANEw/qnHc96eaNJk/s400/bullshit.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S41-TlWFhkI/AAAAAAAANEw/qnHc96eaNJk/s1600-h/bullshit.jpg)Image from: lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2006_06_01... (http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html)

Sometimes journalists get killed. (Poynter Online - Journalists Who Die (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poynter.org%2Fcontent%2Fconte nt_view.asp%3Fid%3D64562&rct=j&q=journalists+lies&ei=wmyNS9O4A82TjAfPnrCHDg&usg=AFQjCNHbStySYsLW86dNf4mS5ZKapj2CZA&sig2=jW9Bs45aY8zLFRaq3VDt2A))

Manik Saha, a journalist in Bangladesh who had reported on drug traffickers, died when a bomb was hurled at his rickshaw and decapitated him.

Ruel Endrinal was shot dead after he had spoken out against local politicians and criminal gangs in Legazpi City in the eastern Philippines.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S4yzHZTKgnI/AAAAAAAANDg/5Oye-IyLfnA/s400/popularmechanics-hearst-911-med.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S4yzHZTKgnI/AAAAAAAANDg/5Oye-IyLfnA/s1600-h/popularmechanics-hearst-911-med.jpg)
http://arthurzbygniew.blogspot.com/ (http://arthurzbygniew.blogspot.com/) alerted us to disinformation tactics and techniques (http://arthurzbygniew.blogspot.com/2010/03/disinformation-tactics-and-techniques.html), and this has inspired the following:
Sometimes, especially when it comes to the internet, the bad guys use disinformation tactics.
Internet "trolls" are the people paid by the bad guys to hit the blogs, or even to run blogs.

"Disinformation Tactics: The Methods Used To Keep You In The Dark (http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=251)" is an article by Giordano Bruno, at Neithercorp Press (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fneithercorp.us%2Fnpress%2F&rct=j&q=neithercorp+press&ei=F3yNS4WnB5O7jAe6xfm6DA&usg=AFQjCNGGVHeaSkIdPb4IsFOgD26BMHApNA&sig2=RlnxOJNxnolJ_cEXc7prHg) , which explains this.
In the following, I have borrowed his headings.
Trolls use the following tactics:
1) They make outrageous comments.
They may write that a certain politician is a c***.
This can discredit the blog.
2) They pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement.
They may write that 9 11 was an inside job.
And then later they launch into a mad racist rant, and call for revolution.
3) They dominate discussions
They leave huge numbers of crazy, illiterate comments.
4) They use false association
They try to link truth seekers with UFOs or aliens or communists or Nazis.
6) They pretend to be the voice of reason
For example they may claim that truth is relative and that governments sometimes have to do bad things...
7) Straw Man Arguments
The troll might unfairly accuse his opposition of supporting some lunatic viewpoint.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S41_e5MMcZI/AAAAAAAANE4/4t5H3ckFme8/s400/ajmal_kasab.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S41_e5MMcZI/AAAAAAAANE4/4t5H3ckFme8/s1600-h/ajmal_kasab.jpg) Much of what the media has written about Mumbai is probably disinformation.
Then there are these Government Disinformation Methods

1) Control The Experts
The BBC or CNN will bring out as its expert someone who secretly works for the CIA or MI6.
2) Control The Data
When there is an incident like the Lockerbie Bombing, the spooks will be in place to take control of the 'evidence' and the 'data'.
3) Skew The Statistics
Statistics on weather or unemployment can be fiddled with.
4) Guilt By False Association
The bad guys try to associate Ron Paul supporters with racist groups.
5) Manufacture Good News
The media tells us that all has gone well in Iraq.

6) Controlled Opposition
The security services set up and run the terror groups.
The security services infiltrate and try to dominate all the political and pressure groups.
7) False Paradigms or Models
The media told us that either we were a sensible person who supported the toppling of Saddam, or, we were a lover of Saddam and his regime.
The media told us these were the two sides of the debate.
But the media did not tell us that Saddam was trained and put into power by the CIA.
Nor did the media tell us that Saddam offered to leave Iraq to avoid a war.

posted by Anon at 11:52 AM (http://operation-mockingbird.blogspot.com/2010/03/disinformation-tactics.html)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:20 PM
Untold millions spent on intelligence deception ops

I’ve been reading a fascinating new book about British intelligence’s deception operations against the Axis powers and wondering whether anything so effective could be applied against al-Qaeda and other Muslim extremists.
Even putting aside the obvious joke that we’ve spent much of the past decade deceiving ourselves about the Middle East, it seems late in the game to contemplate fooling al-Qaeda or the Taliban about much of anything we’re doing.
Indeed, quite the opposite seems to be taking place in Afghanistan, where NATO announced its offensive in Marja and is telegraphing the same now about Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold. Is this some obscure new twist to psychological warfare, or just submission to the obvious -- telling the Taliban what they’ll soon enough know? The only surprise left in our quiver seems to be drone attacks.
Many of the most entertaining stories in Nicholas Rankin’s “A Genius for Deception: How Cunning Helped the British Win Two World Wars (http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Deception-Cunning-Helped-British/dp/019538704X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270418500&sr=1-1),” would seem to have little applicability today. It’s laughable, for example, to contemplate using one of the Brits’ most successful tricks, deploying wooden tanks and aircraft, to deceive al-Qaeda’s spies, as the Allies did with great success against the Germans and Italians in World War II, culminating in the phony army assembled under Gen. George S. Patton’s command to mislead the Germans about the invasion of Europe. Then there was the famous “Man Who Never Was (http://www.usni.org/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=600),” a corpse with phony orders meant to be discovered by the Nazis.
It would seem difficult to trick al-Qaeda or the Taliban about much today. But it turns out we are spending hundreds of millions on psychological warfare, if you read past last month’s lurid headlines (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/world/asia/15contractors.html) about a “rogue” Pentagon official using “information operations” as a cover for targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders for assassination.
So either something big is going on in psychological warfare that is far from obvious -- which, I suppose, is the way it should be or it wouldn’t work -- or we’re being bilked of ungodly millions by psycho-warriors whose target is less the Taliban than the American taxpayer.
Important clues on this could be found deep in a March 29 story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802743.html) by Walter Pincus, The Washington Post’s venerable reader of fine print.
According to Pincus, the Joint Information Operations Warfare Center at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas has a 435-person unit that "plans, integrates and synchronizes information operations in direct support of joint forces commanders . . . across the Defense Department," according its mission statement, which include "psychological operations . . . and military deception."
In just Iraq between 2006 and 2008, Pincus found, the U.S. Central Command alone had 172 contracts worth $270 million.
They included the “development of television commercials and documentaries, focus group and polling services, television air time, posters, banners, and billboards, " according to the Defense Department’s inspector general. Other items included "magazine publishing and printing services, newspaper dissemination, television and radio airtime, text messaging services, internet services and novelty items.”
Novelty items?
Let’s presume for the moment that all this money was secretly funneled to favored Iraqi publishers, broadcasters, political parties and activists between 2006 and 2008 -- back in 2005 it was revealed that the Pentagon had paid a Washington p.r. group tens of millions of dollars to manufacture upbeat propaganda on the Iraq war for Baghdad newspapers -- and that we’re doing the same in Afghanistan, for similar amounts of money. And in Pakistan, almost certainly, and any other cockpit of extremist Muslim ferment.
As Daniel Shulman and David Corn reported (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/robert-young-pelton-eason-jordan-isn-praedict) March 19 in Mother Jones, an outfit called International Safety Networks (http://internationalsafetynetworks.com/), piloted by the same execs caught up in last month’s “rogue” controversy, “has offered to perform information operations for clients, touting its ability to 'shape, produce, place and monitor media and messages' in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region."
The Pentagon’s total budget for “global strategic communications … to help advance military objectives … is nearly impossible to determine,” the Stimson Center reported (http://budgetinsight.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/a-muddled-us-public-diplomacy/) last month, “because these sums are buried within very general Operations and Maintenance budgets.“
Stimson’s best guess (http://budgetinsight.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/a-muddled-us-public-diplomacy/) for fiscal year 2010 was “at least $626 million – and there is no indication of how or to what end it was used.”
Which may be appropriate -- after all, how can it work if it’s public? Or as Winston Churchill famously said, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
But in a war where we’re already telling the enemy when and where we’re coming, and the man on the street in Kandahar knows the score, what’s the multi-million dollar point?

By Jeff Stein | April 5, 2010; 8:00 AM ET
Categories: Intelligence (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/intelligence/)


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:23 PM
April 14, 2010
Air Force Adds Cyberwar to Mandatory Training

By David Sims
TMCnet Contributing Editor

Flying into the 21st century, the United States Air Force has announced that it will “train all new recruits in the basics of cyberwarfare,” four-star Gen. Robert Kehler said Monday.

The Associated Press (News - Alert) notesthat “details are still being worked out on a cyberwarfare component for basic training, but it would be brief, perhaps an hour or two total, and would cover only the fundamentals.”

A more advanced, undergraduate-level training program will begin in June to train officers and enlisted personnel for a new Air Force career field in cyber operations, Kehler told the AP.

Kehler heads the Air Force Space Command, which oversees the Air Force’s cyberwar operations, at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs. He told the AP that the basic training component would cover such basic precautions as using firewalls and passwords:

"We teach them at basic training fundamentals of an M-16 (rifle), for example, and an M-9 (pistol), and so we want them to know the fundamentals of the computer network that they're going to be operating in.”

The first class will include about 16 officers, Kehler said, adding that “several sessions are planned each year because the Air Force will need to produce about 400 officers annually with skills in cyberwarfare.”

In related news, Washington Technology reportsthat Booz Allen and Hamilton (News - Alert) Inc. has won a pair of contracts totaling approximately $34.2 million to help the Air Force strengthen its cyber defense capabilities.

According to the journal, “under a $19.8 million contract, Booz Allen will help foster collaboration among telecommunications researchers, University of Maryland faculty members and other academic institutions to improve secure networking and telecommunications and boost information assurance,” citing Department of Defense statements:

“Under a $14.4 million contract, the company will provide assistance for the establishment of a new command center for the U.S. Cyber Command, the officials said.”

David Sims is a contributing editor for TMCnet. To read more of David’s articles, please visit his columnist page. He also blogs for TMCnet here.

Edited by Stefania Viscusi

http://data-voice-solutions.tmcnet.com/top...ry-training.htm (http://data-voice-solutions.tmcnet.com/topics/security/articles/81754-air-force-adds-cyberwar-mandatory-training.htm)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:24 PM
Why Facts No Longer Matter
Submitted by Anne Landman on April 28, 2010 - 1:04pm.

* cause-related marketing
* corporate campaigns
* politics

nothinkingA recent PRWatch blog discussed how corporations are increasingly turning to cause marketing to get around people's ability to tune out their daily deluge of advertising. Cause marketing, or "affinity marketing," is a sophisticated public relations strategy in which a corporation allies itself with a cause that evokes strong emotions in targeted consumers, like curing cancer, alleviating poverty, feeding the hungry, helping the environment or saving helpless animals. The relationship avails the company of a more effective way to grab the attention of their audience, by telling them compelling stories linked to the cause, for example tales of survival, loss, strength, good works, etc. Once the company gets your attention, it links its name and brands to the positive emotions generates by the cause. The company then leverages that emotion to get you to buy the stuff they've linked to the cause -- and improve its corporate image.

Cause marketing works, which is why its use is spreading like wildfire. The operative word that the whole idea turns on is "emotion," because the ability to manipulate people depends completely on generating an emotional connection that the company can exploit.
Emotional Exploitation and Public Policy

Entire industries exploit emotions not just to sell goods, but also to influence public policy. Tobacco industry documents provide an excellent example:

In 1998, California's Proposition 10, a measure to raise cigarette taxes, made it onto the ballot was headed for a statewide vote. Naturally, the tobacco industry opposed it.

To influence the election, Tobacco Institute consultants did careful studies using focus groups to find specific themes that resonated with specific blocks of voters. In an internal strategy memo, an Institute consultant discusses how to influence gay and lesbian voters in California to oppose Proposition 10. The consultants knew this would be difficult because leaders of gay and lesbian groups often opposed the tobacco industry. Nevertheless the memo indicates strategists planned to do an "end-run" around the gay/lesbian leadership:

...Since it is apparent that we are not going to have the endorsement of most Gay and Lesbian leadership, it is important to use these campaign tools to bypass that and go directly to the Gay and Lesbian voter with a message that will resonate...

marionette"Messages that resonate" means finding themes that have strong emotional pull among the targeted groups, in this case gays and lesbians. Weaving anti-tax messages in with these themes would enable the tobacco industry to push people's emotional buttons and persuade them vote against the tax. The memo singled out several themes of importance to the gay and lesbian community that were ripe for exploitation:

"There are several areas that would have special interest to this community. That would include lifestyle regulation, government intrusion into private lives, and removing choice as an option for one's life decisions. These themes need to be developed carefully by focus groups and polling." [Italicized emphasis in original.]

Accordingly, industry consultants crafted messages designed to manipulate the emotions of gay and lesbian voters to convince them to oppose the cigarette tax. One of the themes they developed was the following:

"Wrapped in a cloak labeled 'health,' this initiative tries to legislate a change in behavior by encroaching on an individual's freedom of choice. This argument will appeal to ... gay/lesbian groups concerned about politicians trying to achieve 'social engineering' through a tax."

America's Epidemic of Wacky Public Discourse

guvmintCorporations, PR people and political strategists have found that influencing emotions allows them to exert control over an audience. The stronger the emotions they can generate the bigger the clout they can wield.

The technique, now in widespread use, explains a lot of the crazy public discourse of late:

The financial industry front group "Stop Too Big to Fail" (STBTF) assumed a name designed to tap into tremendous popular anger against big banks, while its real purpose is getting people to oppose measures that would rein in big banks. STBTF seeks to do the opposite of what its name indicates, but that doesn't matter. Whoever created the group is counting on people to react only to the name, and in turn trust its message, and look no further than that.

The wacky claims spread by Betsy McCaughey, Sarah Palin, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and others that health care reform legislation would lead to government "death panels" is a good example of a highly emotional message dominating over sane and logical discourse, no matter how bizarre the claim.

Recently, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) claimed that financial reform legislation would "institutionalize" taxpayer-funded bailouts for Wall Street banks -- exactly the opposite of what the bill would really do. But the strong emotions McConnell could generate by using phrases like "perpetual bailouts" gives him manipulative power. People respond to such words from their gut, not from their heads, and again, the ability to manipulate people depends on them not using their heads or checking facts.

Messages that President Obama is a "socialist" and a "Marxist" influence people to believe the President is inherently evil. It doesn't matter that card-carrying socialists have completely dismissed the proposal that Obama is a socialist. It doesn't matter whether he is or not. The mere words "Obama" and "socialist" together stimulate strong negative feelings, and thus generate strong general opposition to the President -- a goal of those spreading the message.
Industrial-Strength Emotional Exploitation Rules the Day, Unless You Think

Emotional manipulation works. That is why so many entities are using it against us at every turn. Pinkwashing, greenwashing, cause-related marketing, industry-funded front groups with deceptive names that spew extreme political claims, politicians making weird, baseless statements about proposed legislation -- they all get the desired results. Some legislators still try to use facts, reason and truth in public discourse, but there are now so many paid corporate and political messaging efforts going on that encourge people to react from their gut and not think, that reason, truth and facts are now weak public voices by comparison.
How to Defeat Manipulation

Emotional manipulation cannot exist in a culture where people ask questions and delve beyond the superficial. We at PRWatch urge you to be wary and observant of attempts to emotionally manipulate audiences. Be skeptical of messages and marketing techniques that try to get you to feel and not think. Insist on investigating any entity delivering an emotionally-loaded message before you buy into it. Ask questions about cause marketing campaigns, too, since they are designed to manipulate as well.

Democracy depends on an inquisitive and informed public that resists being hoodwinked.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:25 PM
The Military Occupation of Our Minds

by Tom Hayden

Former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements

Posted: April 27, 2010 04:25 PM

As Congress weighs Afghanistan funding, the military is escalating what it calls the "war of perceptions" at home and abroad. The question is whether the American media and Congress will collaborate in the Pentagon's press strategy or retain a critical edge.

It is no accident that the Pentagon is shaping the "information battlespace" by welcoming friendly reporters and think tank hacks to beam back commentaries about the Kandahar offensive to the American people.

Nor is it accidental that the US is soft-pedaling any public criticism of its crooked crony in Kabul, Hamid Karzhai, as thousands of American soldiers are being dispatched to face bullets in his defense.

Nor is there any question that Afghan civilian casualties are being downplayed or covered-up. The agency in charge of counting the bodies, the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, published a footnote last year admitting "there is a significant possibility that UNAMA is under-reporting civilian casualties."

Paranoia? Do we live under Orwellian thought control? Of course not. But we the people, the media and the Congress, routinely accept taxpayer-funded Pentagon and White House public relations narratives. These often take disgusting forms, such as the false claims and cover-up that soldier Pat Tillman died under enemy fire, or the recent Special Forces' killing of three pregnant women which was followed by digging of bullets out of their bodies to cover up the crime.

The current cycle of military media manipulation began with the Iraq war, when the Pentagon enticed generals, intelligence officers, and defense contractors to become "message force multipliers" for the Bush administration's version of the war, "sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated." It took a New York Times' lawsuit to uncover 8,000 pages of documents showing that the chosen surrogates could be counted on to deliver propaganda messages "in the form of their own opinions."

The strategy goes far deeper than the sleaze of everyday public relations. This is about the Pentagon's turning of computer science into a weapon in the emerging field of information warfare, in which the deaths of men, women and children are less important than the perception of those deaths, or whether they are perceived by anyone at all. As Gen. McChrystal, whose entire career in Iraq remains a classified secret, said during a February briefing:

"This is not a physical war of how many people you kill or how much ground you capture, how many bridges you blow up. This is all in the minds of the participants."

McChrystal also has said, in a recent London speech, that Afghanistan is not like a football game but more "like a political debate after which both sides announce they have won."

McChrystal went on a public relations offensive to promote his request for a troop escalation earlier this year, giving interviews to the New York Times, Le Figaro, Newsweek, and to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

He was featured as a modern god delivering us from the impersonal forces of fate, in a worshipful piece by Robert Kaplan in The Atlantic in February. (In a 2003 Atlantic piece by Kaplan, titled "Supremacy by Stealth," he advised that America's wars best be fought "off camera, so to speak.")

Prior to the current media offensive someone leaked (or was it a pre-emptive launch?) McChrystal's August 30, 2009 confidential assessment of Afghanistan, which includes a length section on "Strategic Communication", where McChrystal declares that "the information domain is a battlespace" in the war over perceptions.

The irony is that the Taliban insurgents, with little if any information technology, "have undermined the credibility of the ISAF, the international community [IC], and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan [GIRoA]", according to McChrystal's own analysis. (It is noteworthy that the Afghan government is never referred to in the American media as an "Islamic Republic," because the frame is communicated to Afghans only.)

Shortening the term Strategic Communications to StratCom, McChrystal goes on for five single-spaced pages with directives for dominating the information battlespace. Of particular interest might be his plan for Offensive Information Operations [IO], which consists of "a robust and proactive capability to counter hostile information activities and propaganda", with every soldier "empowered to be a StratCom messenger for ISAF." A key strategic goal is to win over European and Canadian public opinion, or "the strategic center of gravity which is the maintenance of [NATO] Alliance cohesion." Afghanistan, in other words, is the glue which holds NATO together, as other official strategists have written.

The general does acknowledge, in one sentence, that the battle of perceptions does require a change of behavior on the ground. But the overwhelming emphasis on perception requires that the negatives always be minimized or covered-up, as in any aggressive public relations campaign.

Already, Special Operations forces account for half or more of the American military missions in Afghanistan, and all the operations in Pakistan. Clandestine raids against the Taliban -- not al Qaeda -- more than quadrupled recently, with 90 raids in November 2009. The Red Cross now reports that, as the Kandahar offensive begins, the number of civilian deaths attributed to NATO has doubled, despite McChrystal's orders to avoid such casualties.

From 2004-2009, the Pentagon's PR budget increased by 63 percent to at least $4.7 billion in 2009. The entire video budget for Brave New Foundation's "Rethink Afghanistan" campaign was approximately $350,000 in 2009.

This brings us to the US offensive in Kandahar, which might be called the mother of all media battles. The deadly hubris underlying the US information battleplan was recently exposed in a poll showing that Kandahar residents support negotiations with the Taliban instead of a military offensive by a 19:1 margin, and that five of six see the Taliban as "our Afghan brothers." [NYT, April 21, 2010]. As often happens, the poll was uncovered and released by the Wired magazine blog, not by the Congress or the mass media.

Given Afghan public opinion, the challenge for the Pentagon in shaping the information battlefield in Kandahar, therefore, is overwhelming, even impossible. That means the war of perceptions is going to be directed largely at American and congressional opinion as the heralded offensive gets underway.

A few American journalists, like Doyle McManus of the LA Times, have noted that the warm-up offensive in tiny Marja, back in February, has not met the military's expectations. That it was hardly an "offensive" at all is proven by the handful of US/NATO casualties, estimated in the range of thirteen by late February. The fatal premise of the Marja plan was that the Marines could bring in "a government in a box" after driving out the Taliban. That's a form of immaculate conception that will not happen.

In Kandahar, as in Marja before, the local insurgents probably will fight defensively, and probably launch spectacular bombing operations in other parts of Afghanistan, before gradually disappearing as the Americans advance, bringing their "government in a box". It's confusing, because that same "government" is actually there already, in the form of Karzhai's brother who is widely seen as a corrupt drug-dealing warlord with existing ties to the Taliban. So the US may gain a public relations victory which will mean deepening of the quagmire. Kandahar is not going to be Iwo Jima, forever frozen in a photograph as the turning point of World War 2.

Someday soon the White House and Pentagon will announce on camera that they have captured the Taliban's "spiritual homeland" of Kandahar. While the offensive goes on, few in Congress will be tough enough to take a hard look at the reality behind the war of perceptions. And when the "victory" is announced, Congress will pass another year's appropriation for the war.

This will go on, with American troops dying in vain, unless enough members of the American public, the mainstream media and the Congress finally wake up to the reality that we are no longer citizens but targets in a deliberate war for our minds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/t...o_b_553709.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/the-military-occupation-o_b_553709.html)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:28 PM
Brainwashing the Hero-Worshipping Society
Written by Peter Chamberlin
Tuesday, 14 August 2007 22:22

According to the US State Department, anyone who believes that “vast, powerful, evil forces are secretly manipulating events,” is a conspiracy theorist. [1] Belief that our government answers to a secret higher authority is an “extremist belief system,” according to the authors of the “Prevention of Homegrown Terrorism Act – H.R. 1955.” [2] Spreading these beliefs to “advance political, religious, or social change” is defined as “radicalization.” If you believe that the creators and dispensers of fiat money and their corporations control our democratic Republic and manipulate events to outcomes favorable to their control, then you are an extremist. If you are trying to educate your fellow countrymen, to democratically change this equation, then you may find yourself accused of “facilitating ideologically-based violence.”

If you seek to break the back of the debt-based financial system, you will find yourself up against seemingly insurmountable odds, trying to awaken a demoralized society, that has been broken over many generations by the psychological warfare tactic of “learned helplessness.” [3] Total economic control over people provides the controllers of the essential borrowed money with the means to indoctrinate with the psychology of hopelessness. Fear of further economic losses is a powerful motivating tool. After nearly one-hundred years of this domination and control, Americans have been robbed of hope. Today’s sleepwalking zombie population of “sheeple” is a product of the world’s longest running psychological warfare operation.

The brainwashing by the secret rulers of America extends into every conceivable area of possible indoctrination or control. Learned hopelessness is taught through every communications medium. In a world of mass-hypnosis and mass-seduction, entertainment has proven to be the most effective psychological weapon. Television serves that purpose twenty-four hours a day, by providing both negative reinforcement of the idea of the fragility of the human condition (through the “news”), coupled with positive subliminal suggestions of hope in the idea of intervening heroes.

Organized religion is probably the most entertaining and the most debilitating form of mass entertainment, because along with the show comes a false sense of hope, that can only be obtained by surrendering the free will to a “higher power.” This is the comforting element of the conflicting teachings (knowing that you will be saved by some superior force), providing a counterbalance to the rest of the teachings of personal inferiority, unworthiness and helplessness, which are designed to make you know that you are incapable of saving yourself.

“Christianity” was the official Roman state religion created by order of Caesar. It was an amalgam of all the popular “pagan” religions within the empire. [4] It was designed by “priests,” to make the subject peoples easier to control. The beauty of this religion’s craftsmanship is that people seduced by this man-made religion, want to be misled. They are enslaved by its teachings of their own inferiority and “unworthiness,” in relation to the only worthy “One” (who will save their wretched hides). The dual message of helplessness and hope makes believers susceptible to this form of spiritual/psychological dictatorship, masquerading as the One True Religion.

The best that the faithful can hope for is to accept the teachings about their innate helplessness, to get access to the accompanying “out” clause. By signing on to the contract, they give up their free will to a more evolved superior, in exchange for promises of eternal rewards. For Catholics, the pope is the most superior human being; they believe in his claims of infallibility. For American Protestants, faith in the magical one, who “will come with the clouds,” is a more intangible belief and a more illogical one. This belief, that blind faith in an invisible superior brings fantastic magical rewards, makes Protestants even easier to manipulate. A populace that is conditioned to look for salvation to come down from the sky (whether it comes in the form of a god or an alien), will believe in anything that is done in their hero’s name.

A nation of demoralized lost sheeple is easy to lead further astray by the introduction of false heroes through the twenty-four hour indoctrination box. Television brings the time-tested formula of learned helplessness and false hope into the lives of everyone, even the non-religious. It is here where the perfected art of mass brainwashing reaches the peak of perfection.

Escapist entertainment conveys the suggestive brain-numbing message of hope from hopelessness to the hollowed-out minds of the American people. Here our elitist masters entertain us with pretend heroes, while we “suspend disbelief” and become desensitized to the violence that is necessary to extend the empire beyond America’s shores. Using imaginary heroes, like Jack Bauer of “24,” illegal acts (ranging from illegal wiretapping, to torture and even cold-blooded murder) are made acceptable and justified as necessary for “national security.” [5]

To reach even bigger audiences, a larger indoctrination screen is required. The big screen brings us heroic figures of messianic proportions. Comic book super-heroes come to life and save everybody from certain utter doom. Even more heroic than these “super” types are the heart-wrenching exploits of seemingly ordinary people, who rise above their own hopeless circumstances, to lead other ordinary citizens in mass uprisings against tyranny. These are the most loaded of all the contrived plots, intended to mislead the real heroic types among the disillusioned masses to believe that violence against corrupted authority is humanity’s only hope. This is where movies like the “Matrix” series and “V is for Vendetta” become integral parts of the conspiracy to eliminate the last barrier to total permanent dictatorship.

In both of these heroic films, we find elements of the actual conspiracy on display for all to see, leading to a climactic finish where horrendous acts of violence are justified in the end. “Neo” rages against the system of enforced hopelessness, where society is docilely anesthetized by an unreal “Matrix” of an illusory world, and humans are reduced to a mere commodity (“copper top” batteries), to power the corrupt system. “Zionism” is equated with the superior humans, who are bold enough to take up arms and have faith to the bitter end, in the process humanizing the inhumane ideology of God’s “chosen people.” In the movie “V is for Vendetta” (by the same Jewish film-makers, the Wachowski brothers), “V” uses multiple acts of horrific terrorism, in a decimated post-Bush apocalyptic world (including blowing-up the British Parliament), to spark the non-violent revolution that allegedly will free mankind.

This theme, that violent acts of terrorism are justifiable in defense of freedom, is the final piece of the conspiracy puzzle. We have been bombarded with this message through the hypnotic mediums for many years, for a reason. Our corporate masters want us to provide the spark of antiwar violence that will justify the final crackdown on American democracy. Everything that has been done by the current administration to finish building the framework for an American police state has been done in preparation for the anticipated spark of violent resistance.

The American antiwar movement is deeply concerned about the conspiracy’s henchmen the Bush Administration and their next move, intended to complete the transition from democracy to dictatorship. Many of us are most worried about another “false flag” terror attack initiating the end of freedom, even though the end is more likely to come in response to homegrown terrorism from the disillusioned masses.

Everyday on the Internet we see proof of this growing tendency to answer violent repression with acts of counter-violence, committed in the name of “pacifism.” Accompanying the many excellent articles and blogs seeking to advance political, religious, or social change by educating the American people about our Constitutional power to change our government, we read commentary that promotes violent revolution. Whether these comments are made by provocateurs or those lost souls who are simply misled is irrelevant. What is important is that these ridiculous comments do not go unanswered. If we want to deter those who urge violence in this manner, we have to refute every comment urging violence and destruction. We cannot provide the secret government with the justification that they seek.

Effective opposition to the coming police state requires that we become self-policing in our efforts to “radicalize” by spreading the truth. To become the acceptable source of credible news we must dedicate ourselves to finding the hidden truth, wherever that search takes us. If we find the hidden truth about government complicity in the many cover-ups, then we must boldly proclaim it to the world as clearly as possible, in truths that are simple to understand. If that simple truth is that our government promotes a bi-partisan campaign of terrorism and planned genocide in the name of freedom, then we must clearly say just that – no matter the personal cost of that ugly expression of truth.

[1] http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../27-595713.html (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jul/27-595713.html)

[2] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

[3] http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?cat=143

[4] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/11/AR2007081101219.html?hpid=topnews)

Related Articles:

Runaway American Brainwashing (2925 Hits)
by Joel S. Hirschhorn

Americans have been successfully brainwashed to fear exactly what their revered Constitution gives them the right to...

The Disinformation Society (3139 Hits)
by James Howard Kunstler

One question that readers ask me often is why the mainstream media is doing such a poor job of reporting the nexus of...

New IMF Managing Director Appointment Sparks Civil Society Call for Change in First 100 Days (2884 Hits)

Letter Addresses IMF Policies that Undermine Development in Africa Thursday, October 4, 2007(Washington, DC) – This week 125 civil...

Bolivia: A Democratic Revolution Transforming Society (1953 Hits)
by Bolivia Rising (Adriana Paz)

Last March Evo Morales, first indigenous president of Bolivia, instituted in his country a loan to be granted to...

National Lawyers Guild And Society Of American Law Teachers Strongly Oppose Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (2889 Hits)
ATLANTIC FREE PRESS NETHERLANDS - On October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism...

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/21...ng-society.html (http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2178-brainwashing-the-hero-worshipping-society.html)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:29 PM
Canadian Government Pays Organization To Troll Political Chat Forums

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, May 24, 2010

The next time you struggle to comprehend how someone could spend their time trolling the Internet in order to defend and downplay whatever government cover-up or abuse is in the news this week, consider the fact that they may be on a government payroll.

The Canadian government has been caught paying a media group to monitor online political discussion and respond to “misinformation,” in order words to spread state-sanctioned propaganda, in the latest scandal to hit the Harper administration.

“Under the pilot program the Harper government paid a media company $75,000 to monitor and respond to online postings about the east coast seal hunt,” reports News1130.

“The government has a lot of power, that it feels the need to monitor public bulletin boards, or places where people express views and then to respond to that, seems to me going beyond a reasonable action the government should be taking,” said UBC Computer Science professor and President of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, Richard Rosenberg.

A poll carried on the News1130 website shows that the majority of respondents, 77 per cent, are not intimidated by the fact that the government is monitoring their online conversations, and would not regulate the information they post on the Internet.

Accusations that people who defend the seemingly indefensible in the aftermath of government atrocities, wars and scandals are in the pay of unscrupulous authorities, circulate on a regular basis. But the fact is that governments and transnational corporations have made a habit of using the Internet to spread propaganda by using individuals who pose as neutral observers.

The innovator of these “black propaganda” techniques was undoubtedly Monsanto, who as far back the late 90’s were creating “fake citizens” via their PR front company Bivings to post messages on Internet bulletin boards lauding the virtues and scoffing at the dangers of genetically modified food.

In the 21st century, governments try to harness the power of manufacturing fake consensus in order to dictate reality and justify their actions.

Last year, the Israeli government announced that it would be setting up a network of bloggers to combat websites deemed “problematic” by the Zionist state following a massive online backlash to Israel’s brutal bombing of Gaza.

Israel’s goal was to flood Internet message boards in English, French, Spanish and German with their own PR agents who would attempt to manufacture a contrived consensus that the IDF’s actions were justified.

Like Israel, the U.S. military industrial complex hires armies of trolls to spew propaganda in defense of the war on terror and in support of bombing whatever broken-backed third world country is being targeted next.

CENTCOM has programs underway to infiltrate blogs and message boards to ensure people, “have the opportunity to read positive stories,”presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans from Al-CIAda.

In May 2008, it was revealed that the Pentagon was expanding “Information Operations” on the Internet with purposefully set up foreign news websites, designed to look like independent media sources but in reality carrying direct military propaganda.

More recently the New York Times published an exposé on how privately hired operatives were appearing on major US news networks promoting the interests and operations of the Pentagon and generating favorable news coverage of the so-called war on terror while posing as independent military analysts.

This operation was formally announced In 2006 when the Pentagon set up a unit to “better promote its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet”.
Again, the Pentagon said the move would boost its ability to counter “inaccurate” news stories and exploit new media.

Last year, the US Air Force announced a “counter-blog” response plan aimed at fielding and reacting to material from bloggers who have “negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.”

The plan, created by the public affairs arm of the Air Force, includes a detailed twelve-point “counter blogging” flow-chart that dictates how officers should tackle what are described as “trolls,” “ragers,” and “misguided” online writers.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/canadian-gover...hat-forums.html (http://www.prisonplanet.com/canadian-government-pays-organization-to-troll-political-chat-forums.html)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:30 PM
It's a multi-media link...

First, we had product placement...

Now we have propaganda placement ....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cbs-propaganda...terrorists.html (http://www.prisonplanet.com/cbs-propaganda-placement-conspiracy-theorists-are-anti-american-domestic-terrorists.html)


Tip of the cap to Magda for this...

"the hasbara handbook"


"The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary"

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8303274/The-Is...uage-Dictionary (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8303274/The-Israel-Projects-2009-Global-Language-Dictionary)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:34 PM
Cointelpro, Provacateurs, Disinfo Agents

* 9/11 truth
* 911
* Bloggers
* Disinfo Agents
* Provocateurs

A brief history and some examples of how this has and is affecting the United States and people exercising their 1st amendment.(9/11 material towards end).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC_7YD2vmbA...layer_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC_7YD2vmbA&feature=player_embedded#)!

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-08/coin...sdisinfo-agents (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-08/cointelpro-provacateursdisinfo-agents)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:35 PM
"...The Washington Post reports on how the US Military's PSYOPS is awash with soft money that gets spent on contractors...."

Link to the WaPo article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0062804830.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062804830.html)

Link to this post: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2010/07/2010..._spike_act.html (http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2010/07/20100702_spike_act.html)

An extract from the WaPo article ( http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/images/smiliesb/Tip-Hat.gif to Jan Klimkoswki): http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...60&postcount=98 (http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23660&postcount=98)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:36 PM
Pyops Contractors Listed Via Washinton Post (sic)
Posted on July 20, 2010 by willyloman

Traditional psychological operations, including the creation and delivery of messages via leaflet, loudspeaker, radio or television; the newer “influence operations” associated with the creation of Web sites and the use of social media to extend U.S. influence, both overtly and covertly; and the separate clandestine and covert activities associated with influence, deception and perception management.

Psychological operations listing Via Washington Post article
Company Name HQ Location Year Est. Employees Revenue Locations Govt. Clients

General Dynamics Falls Church, Virginia 1952 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 100 32

L-3 Communications N.Y., New York 1997 10,000+ $10 billion to $50 billion 96 29

(many right here in my own backyard….)
Advanced C4 Solutions, Inc. Tampa, Florida 2002 101-500 Under $100 million 12 5

Archimedes Global Tampa, Florida 2005 Unknown Unknown 1 5
Calhoun International Tampa, Florida 2005 <25 Under $100 million 6 6

Celestar Corporation Tampa, Florida 2001 26-100 Under $100 million 4 4

Cybrix Group, Inc., The Tampa, Florida 2002 <25 Under $100 million 1 2

Espial Services, Inc. Pinellas Park, Florida 2003 26-100 Under $100 million 4 7

Vykin Corporation Tampa, Florida 2006 26-100 Under $100 million 7 8

[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. (Page 219.) Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein

Filed under: Uncategorized

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/07/20...washinton-post/ (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/pyops-contractors-listed-via-washinton-post/)

2 Responses

Johnny de Vulcan, on July 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm Said:

And that is by far not all:US.patent :5,159,703 by Dr.:Oliwer Lowrey is a: “Silent subliminal presentation system” or “Silent sound spread system” (they also like many SS-s) is transmitting,through all loudspeakers on or not, ) frequenies that can manipulate the audiences feelings and perceptions. Subliminal commands as well as “remote-controlling feelings” are possible .Any feeling ,like solemnity,hopefulness, ready to cange, and quasi-religious sentiments and “Fuhrer-adoration” . Charging bulls have been stopped in an instant. Was probably used at Obama Bin Lyins rallies in Berlin and pre-election-rallies, could explain the ir-rational “Obama (Bin Lyin) -fewer”. Is rumored to be installed , covertly , with the HD-system (are they really SO interested in giving us a better TV-picture? It is not so bad actualy as it is) or do they want to spy some MORE on us???

G Street, on July 20, 2010 at 5:17 pm Said:

James Crown of General Dynamics should be asked under oath if any of those 10K+ employees or $10-50 billion were used to help get Obama elected.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:38 PM
Blogs and Military Information Strategy

James Kinninburgh & Dorothy Denning

Joint Special Operations University
JSOU Report 06-5

http://cryptome.org/dodi/jsou-06-5.pdf (50 pages)


Joint Special Operations University: Blogs and Military Information Strategy
July 21st, 2010

Via: U.S. Special Operations Command / Hosted at Cryptome (PDF):

In this regard, information strategists can consider clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers or other persons of prominence already within the target nation, group, or community to pass the U.S. message. In this way, the U.S. can overleap the entrenched inequalities and make use of preexisting intellectual and social capital. Sometimes numbers can be effective; hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering. On the other hand, such operations can have a blowback effect, as witnessed by the public reaction following revelations that the U.S. military had paid journalists to publish stories in the Iraqi press under their own names. People do not like to be deceived, and the price of being exposed is lost credibility and trust.

An alternative strategy is to “make” a blog and blogger. The process of boosting the blog to a position of influence could take some time, however, and depending on the person running the blog, may impose a significant educational burden, in terms of cultural and linguistic training before the blog could be put online to any useful effect. Still, there are people in the military today who like to blog. In some cases, their talents might be redirected toward operating blogs as part of an information campaign. If a military blog offers valuable information that is not available from other sources, it could rise in rank fairly rapidly.

Any blogs and bloggers serving an IO mission must be coordinated and synchronized with the overall influence effort in time and message. However, they must be prepared to argue and debate with their audience successfully and independently on behalf of the U.S. policy stance. In this sense, bloggers must be able to “circumvent the hierarchy” as blogger George Dafermos put it. This means that they must be trusted implicitly to handle the arguments without forcing them to communicate “solely by means of marketing pitches and press releases.”

There are certain to be cases where some blog, outside the control of the U.S. government, promotes a message that is antithetical to U.S. interests, or actively supports the informational, recruiting and logistical activities of our enemies. The initial reaction may be to take down the site, but this is problematic in that doing so does not guarantee that the site will remain down. As has been the case with many such sites, the offending site will likely move to a different host server, often in a third country. Moreover, such action will likely produce even more interest in the site and its contents. Also, taking down a site that is known to pass enemy EEIs (essential elements of information) and that gives us their key messages denies us a valuable information source. This is not to say that once the information passed becomes redundant or is superseded by a better source that the site should be taken down. At that point the enemy blog might be used covertly as a vehicle for friendly information operations. Hacking the site and subtly changing the messages and data—merely a few words or phrases—may be sufficient to begin destroying the blogger’s credibility with the audience. Better yet, if the blogger happens to be passing enemy communications and logistics data, the information content could be corrupted. If the messages are subtly tweaked and the data corrupted in the right way, the enemy may reason that the blogger in question has betrayed them and either take down the site (and the blogger) themselves, or by threatening such action, give the U.S. an opportunity to offer the individual amnesty in exchange for information.

There will also be times when it is thought to be necessary, in the context of an integrated information campaign, to pass false or erroneous information through the media, on all three layers, in support of military deception activities. Given the watchdog functions that many in the blogging community have assumed—not just in the U.S., but also around the world—doing so jeopardizes the entire U.S. information effort. Credibility is the heart and soul of influence operations. In these cases, extra care must be taken to ensure plausible deniability and nonattribution, as well as employing a well-thought-out deception operation that minimizes the risks of exposure. Because of the potential blowback effect, information strategy should avoid planting false information as much as possible.

To function most effectively, units conducting blog-based operations must be staffed appropriately. Ideally, such units would be drawn from the special operations and intelligence communities, because of their historical experience in and ability to conduct (when tasked) sensitive operations. Linguists and intelligence analysts (preferably analysts who are also linguists), who are commanded or advised by qualified PSYOP or IO officer should form the core of such a unit. These capabilities must be augmented through liaison relationships with the other influence organizations, those responsible for planning and conducting PSYOP, PA, PD, CA/CMO and MILDEC. Because of the unique nature of blog-related intelligence, comprising both open and highly classified sources and producing an output intended for open distribution, a blog operations unit should have solid information, operations, and network security programs in place. It also needs oversight.

In order to act and react efficiently in managing bloggers and blogs, the intelligence specialists and planners who have the knowledge should be the ones running the actual blog. Or, in cases where indigenous bloggers and their blogs have been identified and recruited, the blog operations cell should also house the case officer managing the asset, having done the work to cultivate and recruit him or her. The same metrics used to select a blog can also serve as indirect measures of effectiveness; for example:

Once blog operations have begun, does the blog attract new inbound links?

Is there an increase over time in the blog’s ranking via various metrics?

Through polling and media analysis, can a change in public opinion be correlated with growth in the blog’s indicators?

What does content analysis of the interaction that occurs with the blogger on the site reveal (change in opinions posted by readers? positive or negative?)

Do the comments on the blog correlate with public opinion results obtained by polling and/or portrayed in the mainstream media?

Does the blog get referenced by the mainstream media in the target country, and with what degree of frequency?

Do other sources of intelligence confirm these indicators?

Like any other influence operation, blog operations must be given time to work. There are no magic bullets. We would suggest quarterly reviews of the blog’s effectiveness along these lines and then adjusting fire to reverse any negative trends and accelerate positive trends.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:39 PM
The programs to reshape the American mind, run by the left and right
2 August 2010
tags: propaganda, conservative ideology, right-wing, left-wing
by Fabius Maximus

Summary: Our leaders run bold programs to reform American society, building on work done by the Nazi’s and Soviet Union. All of this was described by George Orwell in his magnum opus 1984 (published in 1949). His forecast was a little early, but eerily accurate. This is a follow-up to Successful propaganda as a characteristic of 21st century America.

Both factions of our ruling elites exploit the increasing silly and ignorant American people through propaganda. It’s the peaceful way to lead serfs. Here’s a look at the methods preferred by each side.

Full evaluation of both these projects might improve our self-awareness. Perhaps even changing the course of our nation. But now we follow our leaders down the easy road …

the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.
— the demon Screwtape describing one road to Hell, from chapter VII of The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis


1. The left molds our values and thoughts
2. The right molds our history and knowledge
3. Make it simple, but not more simple than necessary
4. About the futility of lies about the past
5. Afterword and contact info

(1) The left molds our values and thoughts

The left sought to mold our young though education in new value, often based on a complex foundation of lies.

* Some were simple expansions of traditional values, such as environmentalism (expanding the traditional concept of stewardship of the land) and tolerance ( expanding the definition of the American community).
* Some were radical, such as the redefinition of gender roles called feminism.
* Some were profound, such as the emphasis on cooperation (aka followership).
* Some were deceptive, such as the doctrine of civic passivity (we are consumers, not citizens).
* Some were the misleading, such the absolutists doctrine called “multiculturalism”. Our values are not the best, our values are the only proper values. Differing values are treasured only when trivial (e.g., food, dress); values contradicting ours are illegitimate or even evil (e.g, about the role of women).

The result is akin to that which George Orwell ascribes to Newspeak: ”to narrow the range of thought so that thoughtcrime becomes impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it” (slightly paraphrased). It works like this:

The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, CRIMESTOP. CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.

… What was required in a Party member wa an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his worshipped “false gods”.

This does not mean that we live in a dystopian nightmare or have become believers in Ingsoc (English Socialism). Rather it shows that our thinking has been put on rails — becoming fast but channeled — and our critical thinking machinery has atrophied. For more on this, with comparisons to our past, see A report card for the Republic: are we still capable of self-government?

This project succeeded on a scale never before seen since Moses created the twelve tribes of Israel by forging a common history and religion. But its momentum appears spent.

(2) The right molds our history and knowledge

The right responded slowly, but eventually focused on efforts to propagate lies which support their values and policies.

* Something old: faux economics, aka Austerian or liquidationist economics. Fiscal stimulus programs don’t work; monetary stimulus is destructive; a strong stable currency is best no matter how conditions change; that recessions “purge the rottenness out of the system“; and “a depression is for capitalism like a good, cold douche“.
* Something new: revisionist history. Such as Reagan’s deficits resulted from too much spending by a Democratic Congress, not too small revenues from his tax cuts (more on this tomorrow). Or history down the memory hole, such as conservative opposition to Reagan’s arms control treaties and the faux history of foreign armies defeating insurgencies.
* Something borrowed, such as the Dolchstosslegende, the stab in the back legend that we could have won in Vietnam if only the left had not sabotaged the war (Jane Fonda, the news media, Congressional Democrats).
* Something blue: America’s values and even existence is threatened by Islamic fundamentalists, our freedoms by Obama’s socialism (examples here), and our prosperity by the rising power of China.

Plus a full measure of outright misrepresentation, as seen in the health care debate (an example here).

Orwell’s Ministry of Truth foreshadows this great program, the work to create a false reality in people’s minds. Facts about the present and past give way to this instant’s political needs, with the sheep passively accepting each revision (like sheep, Americans no long recall the past; for a fine example see this).

(3) Make it simple, but not more simple than necessary

These are oversimplifications. Nor is the division that clear, as I suspect each side uses the other’s methods. Although the obvious examples are the left using the same techniques as the right.

* For the left revising history see the eco-fable of Easter Island and the facts about the 1970?s Global Cooling scare.
* For the left misrepresenting facts see Lies told under the influence of the Green religion to save the world.

(4) About the futility of lies about the past

“You know you never defeated us on the battlefield”
”That may be so,” he replied, “but it is also irrelevant.”
— Conversation on 25 April 1975 in Hanoi between Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr. (Chief of the U.S. Delegation, Four Party Joint Military Team) and Colonel Nguyen Don Tu (Chief, North Vietnamese Delegation), from Introduction to On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War by Harry G. Summers Jr. (1982)


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:40 PM
The Newsweek Owner's Intelligence Connection

by Tim Shorrock

Sidney Harman, who just bought Newsweek magazine, has for years been influential in the area of national security—and not just through his marriage to Rep. Jane Harman.

It’s well-known that Sidney Harman, the electronics mogul who just bought Newsweek, is married to Rep. Jane Harman, one of Washington’s heavyweights on intelligence.

Rep. Harman, a Democrat, spent eight years on the House Intelligence Committee and is chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence & Terrorism. She has had an intimate, and sometimes controversial, relationship to America’s spy agencies during her eight terms in Congress.

But few in Washington are aware that the real intelligence insider of the Harman family may be Sidney himself, through his connections to an obscure but highly influential organization known as Business Executives for National Security.

Few in Washington are aware that the real intelligence insider of the Harman family may be Sidney himself, through his connections to an obscure but highly influential organization known as Business Executives for National Security.

In many ways, BENS can be considered the godfather of the contracting revolution that transformed the U.S. government into a vast, $600 billion market for corporate America and made national security—and spying in particular—a gross vehicle for private enterprise. Over the past 28 years, BENS has participated in dozens of high-level commissions that have altered the way the Pentagon and the intelligence community do business, and has become a favored perch for former high-ranking officials and generals, from Henry Kissinger to Gen. Peter Pace.

Its leaders have historically been quite conservative; barely two months after the 9/11 attacks, founding BENS Chairman Stanley Weiss called on the Bush administration to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in the pages of the International Herald Tribune.

But it can also be pragmatic and run against the grain, as it did last year when it sent a delegation of American executives, including Ross Perot, to North Korea to meet with the government of Kim Jong Il to use the incentive of U.S. investments to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.

Founded by Weiss, a mining and chemical executive who for years served as a director of Harman’s audio-equipment company, BENS today represents about 350 of the country’s largest manufacturing, transportation, information technology, communications, and national-security firms.

Harman himself chaired the organization’s executive committee from 1982 to 2009 and “contributed over $1 million over the years” to the organization, Weiss told The Daily Beast in an email from Indonesia. Although its CEO, retired Army General Montgomery C. Meigs, manages the organization, its corporate members, led by Harman, have set the pace. “Dr. Harman played an important role [in BENS] for a quarter century,” Weiss told me. “He was deeply involved in all aspects of BENS’ work.” Harman could not be reached for comment.

• Jacob Bernstein: Newsweek's New Owner: The 92-Year-Old WunderkindOriginally, it was a kind of liberal alternative to the hawkish business organizations that flourished during the Cold War, and its early efforts focused on arms treaties. But it has evolved into a full-time consultant to the Pentagon on business practices, functioning as a liaison between government and industry. (Weiss, speaking for the organization, said BENS' efforts in defense, intelligence and homeland security are aimed at "helping the country deal with the very bloated element of the miltary-industrial-congressional complex.")

In its advisory role, BENS has been a driving force in the privatization of U.S. defense capabilities, including the outsourcing of the precious intelligence assets that Rep. Harman had direct oversight over for eight years as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Since 2001, it has expanded its ties with the intelligence community; last year, it elected Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency (and now a contractor himself), to its advisory council.

One of BENS’ biggest advisory projects came during the “reinventing government” days of the Clinton administration. The Tail-to-Tooth Commission, which included Harman and numerous defense contractors and privatization advocates, proposed a sweeping array of policy changes, and its recommendations were enthusiastically embraced by both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Thus began a massive push toward outsourcing—and a new era defined by companies like Halliburton, and later, Blackwater.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the intensified support for privatization under George W. Bush, logistics, security, and intelligence contracting grew by leaps and bounds. Despite attempts by the Obama administration to rein in outsourcing and reduce the government’s reliance on contractors, they still play an enormous role at the Pentagon. That’s especially true in intelligence, where they eat up more than 70 percent of the budget.

BENS is still at it: Just last month it was asked by Obama’s Defense Department to review its recommendations for reducing the cost of military business operations. It came up with a dense, three-page list of suggested changes, among them: outsourcing more “non-core functions” and a recommendation that the Pentagon eliminate “the practice of treating ‘excessive profits’ as improper.”

The organization has also worked with the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Defense Intelligence Agency as a consultant on acquisition, procurement, and investment. And as the U.S. has stepped up drone warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it has become a close adviser to the most secretive of all military intelligence branches, the U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM.

Since 2007, BENS has participated in more than two dozen events with SOCOM. At a June 2010 luncheon in Houston, for example, SOCOM commander Adm. Eric Olson updated 40 BENS members on the role of Special Forces in U.S. wars and thanked them for their contributions to the war effort.

Ken McGraw, a public-affairs officer with SOCOM, told The Daily Beast that the organization provides “information about areas terrorist groups and networks can use and exploit to finance and facilitate their operations.” The military doesn’t have expertise in finance and emerging technologies, he added, but these are subjects where “some members of BENS do have a great deal of expertise.”

Some of SOCOM’s activities—including its reliance on contractors—would have had to come to the attention of Rep. Harman when she had authority over intelligence programs. Plus she has often been at her husband’s side when he held court at BENS’ glitzy Eisenhower Award dinners over the years. In 2004, for example, Rep. Harman delivered a speech to the organization’s gala in San Francisco for Carly Fiorina, then-CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Fiorina, now a Republican Senatorial candidate, also sits on BENS’ board.

So it’s fair to ask if Rep. Harman has had any conflict of interest with BENS’ involvement in intelligence activities. The congresswoman was traveling last week and unable to comment, but Pamela Hess, her spokeswoman, said the Harmans always “keep business and politics separate.” And it’s clear from the public record that the California lawmaker has said very little about the intelligence community’s employment of contractors. “I've never seen her weigh in on the issue,” says Marcy Wheeler, who blogs about intelligence at Emptywheel.

Tim Shorrock is a Washington-based investigative journalist and the author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing, published in 2008 by Simon & Schuster. His articles have appeared in The Atlantic, Salon, Mother Jones, The Nation and many other publications at home and abroad. He can be reached through his website at timshorrock.com.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:41 PM
How propagandists function: Exhibit A (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/how-propagandists-function-exhibit-a/)

Posted on August 14, 2010 by willyloman
by Glenn Greenwald, Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/12/goldberg/index.html)
Jeffrey Goldberg, in the new cover story in The Atlantic, on an Israeli attack on Iran (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/):

Israel has twice before successfully attacked and destroyed an enemy’s nuclear program. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting — forever, as it turned out — Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions; and in 2007, Israeli planes destroyed a North Korean-built reactor in Syria. An attack on Iran, then, would be unprecedented only in scope and complexity.
Good news! Israel can successfully end a country’s nuclear program by bombing them, as proven by its 1981 attack on Iraq, which, says Goldberg, halted “forever, as it turned out — Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.”
Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 2002, trying to convince Americans to fear Iraq (http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_the_great.php):

Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities. Those who have followed Saddam’s progress believe that no single strike today would eradicate his nuclear program.
When it suited him back then, Goldberg made the exact opposite claim, literally, of the one he makes today. Back then, Goldberg wouldn’t possibly claim what he claims now — that the 1981 strike permanently halted Saddam’s “nuclear ambitions” — because, back then, his goal was to scare Americans about The Threat of Saddam. So in 2002, Goldberg warned Americans that Saddam had “redoubled” his efforts to turn Iraq into a nuclear power after the Israeli attack, i.e., that Saddam had a scarier nuclear program than ever before after the 1981 bombing raid. But now, Goldberg has a different goal: to convince Americans of the efficacy of bombing Iran, and thus, without batting an eye, he simply asserts the exact opposite factual premise: that the Israelis successfully and permanently ended Saddam’s nuclear ambition back in 1981 by bombing it out of existence (and, therefore, we can do something similar now to Iran).
This is what a propagandist, by definition, does: asserts any claim as fact in service of a concealed agenda without the slightest concern for whether it’s true.

Will the existence of a vast and menacing Iraqi nuclear program help my cause (getting Americans to attack Iraq)? Fine, then I’ll trumpet that. Now, however, it will help my cause (mainstreaming an attack on Iran) to claim that the Israelis permanently ended Iraq’s nuclear efforts in 1981, thus showing how well these attacks can work. No problem: I’ll go with that. How can anyone take seriously — as a Middle East expert and especially as a journalist — someone with this blatant and thorough of an estrangement from any concern for truth? Can anyone reconcile these factual claims?
Jonathan Schwarz, who flagged this contradiction, documents how Goldberg’s dishonest propaganda begins (http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003356.html) in the very first sentence of his new Atlantic article, which reads: ”It is possible that at some point in the next 12 months, the imposition of devastating economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran will persuade its leaders to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Schwarz explains the obvious:

The official position of the U.S. intelligence community about this remains the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html). And it said Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003. Maybe it was wrong, or maybe something’s changed since then. But it is the essence of Goldberg-itude to simply ignore this and assert the opposite as unquestionable fact.

In other words, the core premise of Goldberg’s article — that Iran is currently pursuing nuclear weapons — is asserted, in the very first sentence, as indisputable fact without so much as acknowledging, let alone resolving, the substantial evidence casting serious doubt on that scary claim. Sound familiar (http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/sb-goldbergs-war-1151687978)? Moreover, as Schwarz compellingly documents, Goldberg’s latest historical assertion — that the 1981 Israeli attack ended Saddam’s nuclear efforts — is the precise opposite of reality: Iraq had no genuine nuclear weapons program prior to 1981, but it was the Israeli attack which caused Saddam to conclude that he needed one. That is what spawned the very substantial Iraqi efforts from 1981 to 1991 to develop nuclear weapons: efforts which were actually ended by Operation Desert Storm and the subsequent U.N. inspection regime (which is what Scott Ritter relentlessly — and, thanks to the likes of Goldberg, with futility — attempted to point out in the run-up to the American attack on Iraq (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/today.html)).
Goldberg wants to obfuscate those facts lest one conclude: just as happened with Iraq, nothing would spur an Iranian desire for nuclear weapons more than a bombing campaign against their country. If you were an Iranian, is there anything that would convince you of the need for nuclear weapons more than watching Israel bomb your country? I always thought it was difficult to imagine anything that could be more effective in convincing rational Iranians to proliferate than watching the U.S. invade and bomb at will nations that lack nuclear weapons while treating with the utmost respect those which have them (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/11/us.north.korea/index.html). What could possibly incentivize countries in general — and Iran in particular — to want to acquire nuclear weapons more than that behavior? If anything could, it would be an Israeli (or American) attack on Iran.
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/atlantic.png?w=205 (http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/atlantic.png)More important than these specific factual contradictions, Schwarz very astutely describes Goldberg’s role in the propaganda effort concerning Iran. Goldberg is not Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer, at least in terms of function. He’s not going to run around overtly beating his chest demanding that the U.S. attack Iran (or that the U.S. support Israel’s attack): at least not yet. Although Goldberg did precisely that in the run-up to the attack on Iraq (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/27/goldberg), his function now is more subtle, and more insidious. He’s nothing if not shrewd, and certainly shrewd enough to know that if he spouts nakedly bellicose demands for a war with Iran, he’ll be quickly dismissed as a neocon fanatic, especially in light of his discredited and falsehood-filled campaign to persuade Americans to attack Iraq. Indeed, Goldberg himself notes that even George Bush derided Kristol and Krauthammer as “the bomber boys.” He’s much too smart to let himself be consigned to the lowly and limited (though important) role of fanning the flames of right-wing fanaticism; he’s intent on re-branding himself after what he did in 2002 and 2003 and preserving his mainstream influence.
Thus, his pose is objective journalist. He’ll feign “ambivalence” (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/11/jeffrey_goldberg_probes_israels_iran_strike_option/?ref=fpblg) about whether Iran should be bombed — thus showing how thoughtful and non-ideological he is — while infecting the discourse with the kinds of factual falsehoods documented here, all in service of skewing the debate towards ensuring an attack happens. At its core, it’s only a slightly modified version of what he did with Iraq (I’m merely “reporting” on Saddam’s extensive relationship with Al Qaeda and his nuclear program/I’m merely “reporting” on the view of Israeli leaders that ”a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people”).

It’s really one of the strangest and most revealing facts that the “objective journalist” to whom America’s political elites most faithfully turn for “reporting” on the Middle East is someone whose loyalty to Israel is so overarching that he actually went and joined the IDF (just try to imagine an American journalist reporting on this conflict for a large media outlet who previously joined the Iranian military or the military of any predominantly Muslim country). There’s nothing wrong per se with his doing so or with maintaining loyalty to other countries; many Americans do so with all sorts of countries and for all sorts of reasons. It’s also true that Goldberg’s intense, Israel-devoted agenda doesn’t preclude some good reporting; there are interesting and even revealing aspects in his article about how Israeli leaders think about Iran, or at least how they want Americans to believe they think about Iran.
But Jeffrey Goldberg is no more of an objective reporter on such matters than Benjamin Netanyahu is, and the fact that so many are willing to treat him as though he is provides a valuable testament to the ongoing vitality of the Supreme Law of Beltway Life: Seriousness credentials, once vested, can never be revoked, no matter how grave one’s past sins of falsehood and error are. The purpose of this Atlantic article is as obvious as it is odious: to mainstream the debate over an Israeli or American attack on Iran by defending its rationale, all masquerading as objective reporting (I’m merely describing the substantial possibility that it could happen and, if it does, why it would be justifiable). I’m tempted to say that anyone who falls for Jeffrey Goldberg’s act again deserves what they get, except that — as always — they’re not the ones who will pay the price for the fallout.
* * * * *
Goldberg’s article is, needless to say, suffused with comparisons of Iran to Nazi Germany — one after the next like this:

“The only reason Bibi [Netanyahu] would place Israel’s relationship with America in total jeopardy is if he thinks that Iran represents a threat like the Shoah,” an Israeli official who spends considerable time with the prime minister told me. “In World War II, the Jews had no power to stop Hitler from annihilating us. Six million were slaughtered. Today, 6 million Jews live in Israel, and someone is threatening them with annihilation. But now we have the power to stop them. Bibi knows that this is the choice.”

No discussion of any of this is complete without noting that it was endlessly claimed that it was Saddam who was the New Hitler (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/fighting-all-hitlers_17.html) in order ratchet up fear levels and justify an attack that country, too. How many times can we be persuaded to attack the New Hitler?

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:43 PM
Psyoperator job listing: Counterpropagandist wanted
https://jobs.chenega.com/?adata=q4xlFCf ... ADDvbTTL5h

10160058JA: Counter-Propaganda Analyst
Work Location Florida
Position Schedule Regular, Full Time
Clearance TS / SCI
Recruiter's eMail cfsrecruiting@chenegafederal.com

Job Responsibilities

Company Job Title: Counter-Propaganda Analyst (Contingent)
Chenega Job Title: Intelligence Analyst IV
Clearance: TS/SCI
Location: Tampa, FL
Reports To: Program Manager
FLSA Status: Exempt
Prepared Date: 06/11/2010
Approved Date: 06/11/2010

The Counter-Propaganda Analyst will provide support to the JMISC mission. This position is contingent on contract award.

Essential Duties and Responsibilities:
Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions of this position.

• Evaluate enemy media campaign influence operations and their effectiveness on key target audiences throughout the world with emphasis on internet, video, TV/Radio broadcasting and other new influence tool technologies.
• Focus is primarily on the AQ Network, messaging from AQ leadership and those having strategic impact, and counter-messaging for strategic trans-regional effect.
• Conduct counter propaganda and Source Content Audience Media Effects (SCAME) analysis, review and analyze video/internet and conduct campaign interpretation and analysis.
• Examine enemy propaganda (techniques, dissemination, themes and messaging) and identify key target audiences to counter enemy messaging and propaganda.
• Analyze terrorist and anti-US regional and strategic messaging and effectiveness throughout the world.
• Other duties may be assigned to meet business needs.

This position does not have formal supervisory responsibilities.

Minimum Qualifications:
To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required.

Education and/or Experience:
Position requires a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. This SME should have extensive experience in intelligence analysis; regional/cultural knowledge of at least one GCC Area of Responsibility (AOR). In country experience (CENTCOM AOR); military PSYOP experience and knowledge of Al Qaeda and associated terrorists movements and ideology are preferred but not required.

Computer Skills:
Must have advanced working knowledge of a variety of Microsoft applications (MSWord, Excel, Access, PowerPoint, and Outlook).

Certificates, Licenses, Registrations: N/A


Competencies - To perform the job successfully, an individual should demonstrate the following competencies:

Problem Solving - Identify and resolve problems in a timely manner; gather and analyze information skillfully; develop alternative solutions; work well in group problem solving situations; use reason even when dealing with emotional topics.

Written Communication - Write clearly and informatively; edit work for spelling and grammar errors; vary writing styles to meet needs; present numerical data effectively; read and interpret written information.

Diversity - Demonstrate knowledge of EEO policy; show respect and sensitivity for cultural differences; educate others on the value of diversity; promote a harassment-free environment; build a diverse workforce.

Ethics - Treat people with respect; keep commitments; inspire the trust of others; work with integrity and ethically; uphold organizational values.

Strategic Thinking - Develop strategies to achieve organizational goals; understand organization's strengths & weaknesses; analyze market and competition; identify external threats and opportunities; adapt strategy to changing conditions.

Planning/Organizing - Prioritize and plan work activities; use time efficiently; plan for additional resources; set goals and objectives; organize or schedule other people and their tasks; develop realistic action plans.

Professionalism - Approach others in a tactful manner; react well under pressure; treat others with respect and consideration regardless of their status or position; accept responsibility for own actions; follow through on commitments.

Innovation - Display original thinking and creativity; meet challenges with resourcefulness; generate suggestions for improving work; develop innovative approaches and ideas; present ideas and information in a manner that gets others' attention.

Qualifications - To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

Language Skills - Ability to read, analyze, and interpret general business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures, or governmental regulations. Write reports, proposals, business correspondence, and procedure manuals. Effectively present information and respond to questions from groups of managers, clients, customers, and the general public.

Mathematical Skills - Apply concepts such as fractions, percentages, ratios, and proportions to practical situations.

Reasoning Ability - Define problems, collect data, establish facts, and draw valid conclusions. Question activities and issues in all functional areas and make sound business decisions based on that data.

Physical Demands - The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to sit and talk or hear. The employee is frequently required to walk; use hands to finger, handle, or feel and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to stand; climb or balance and stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision.

Work Environment - The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

The employee will normally work in a temperature-controlled office environment, with frequent exposure to electronic office equipment. The noise level in the work environment is usually moderate.

Chenega Corporation is an EOE. AA/M/F/D/V. Native preference under PL 93-638. We participate in the E-Verify Employment Verification Program.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:44 PM
GIYUS Targets Christian Science Monitor Message Board
Eli Clifton, June 20, 2010
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum

Last week I wrote about GIYUS — the “online public diplomacy platform of Israel” as the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Word document) describes it—and the powerful role it can play in shaping the results of online polls and changing the direction of message board discussions.

Yesterday GIYUS sent out an alert about a forum on The Christian Science Monitor’s website. GIYUS appears to have driven a lot of traffic to the discussion–which is titled “Israeli blockade of Gaza: What would you change?“–and has inundated the forum with pro-blockade comments.

Comments in favor of the blockade are consistently receiving “thumbs up” votes and those in opposition to the blockade, and the IDF’s lethal attack on the flotilla, are getting voted down.

As an example, here is the comment which is currently the most highly ranked.

“Johnny Gee” wrote:

I would stress the strongest support as possible for the beleaguered Israelis, who are threatened from every direction and by every mode, including missles [sic], suicide murderers, and of course arms from the sea. Remember, the Israelis are the canary in the coalmine – the real target of the Islamic fundamentalist murderers is the US, Europe, and the world.

“Sam from Oregon” didn’t have the same appeal to GIYUS users and has found his comment voted to the bottom of the thread.

Sam wrote:

I would eliminate all US financial and military support to Israel. Israel is not “too big to fail”, and if they can’t figure out a way to make nice with their neighbors, then they deserve to fail. The US habit of unconditional support for everything Israeli is the primary cause of middle east unrest. It’s time for US military adventures to come to an end. Bring home the troops, and use all the money for improving US infrastructure, education, and health care.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:45 PM
Computers that Read Minds Are Being Developed by Intel
August 26th, 2010

This is from, Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart, published in 1978 (look around online and you can find it for substantially less than the used copies are going for on Amazon *wink*):

In 1975 a primitive “mind-reading machine” was tested at the Stanford Research Institute. The machine is a computer which can recognize a limited amount of words by monitoring a person’s silent thoughts. This technique relies upon the discovery that brain wave tracings taken with an electroencephalograph (EEG) show distinctive patterns that correlate with individual words—whether the words are spoken aloud or merely subvocalized (thought of).

The computer initially used audio equipment to listen to the words the subject spoke. (At first the vocabulary was limited to “up,” “down,” “left,” and “right.”) At the same time the computer heard the words, it monitored the EEG impulses coming from electrodes pasted to the subject’s head and responded by turning a camera in the direction indicated. After a few repetitions of the procedure, the computer’s hearing was turned off and it responded solely to the EEG “thoughts.” It moved a television camera in the directions ordered by the subject’s thoughts alone!

This “mind-reading machine” was the creation of psychologist Lawrence Pinneo and computer experts Daniel Wolf and David Hall. Their stated goal was eventually to put a highly skilled computer programmer into direct communication with the computer. Their research indicated that a nonsymbolic language—brain-wave patterns—did exist. By teaching computers this language, the timeconsuming practice of speaking or writing computer instructions could be abandoned. Faster programming would result in an information explosion whose effects could cause a transformation of our civilization unlike anything that has happened since the Industrial Revolution.

Many beneficial effects of the Stanford “mind-reading machine” may eventually accrue. Physically handicapped people may be able to use mini-computers to interpret signals from their environment and compensate for the loss of some bodily functions. The deaf may be able to hear; the blind to see; the paralyzed to walk.

Military applications of a “mind-reading machine” will someday allow faster computer input and output of information, remote control of war machines, and even the creation of animal or human robots to do the bidding of the military.

And now…

Via: Telegraph:

New technology could allow people to dictate letters and search the internet simply by thinking, according to researchers at Intel who are behind the project.

Unlike current brain-controlled computers, which require users to imagine making physical movements to control a cursor on a screen, the new technology will be capable of directly interpreting words as they are thought.

Intel’s scientists are creating detailed maps of the activity in the brain for individual words which can then be matched against the brain activity of someone using the computer, allowing the machine to determine the word they are thinking.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:46 PM
Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind
by grtv

This film explores the evolution of propaganda and public relations in the United States, with an emphasis on the “elitist theory of democracy” and the relationship between war, propaganda and class.

Includes original interviews with a number of dissident scholars including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Peter Phillips (“Project Censored”), John Stauber (“PR Watch”), Christopher Simpson (“The Science of Coercion”) and others.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:47 PM
Flying the flag, faking the news

September 2, 2010 By John Pilger

John Pilger's ZSpace Page / ZSpace

Edward Bernays, the American nephew of Sigmund Freud, is said to have invented modern propaganda. During the first world war, he was one of a group of influential liberals who mounted a secret government campaign to persuade reluctant Americans to send an army to the bloodbath in Europe. In his book, Propaganda, published in 1928, Bernays wrote that the “intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses was an important element in democratic society” and that the manipulators “constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power in our country”. Instead of propaganda, he coined the euphemism “public relations”.

The American tobacco industry hired Bernays to convince women they should smoke in public. By associating smoking with women’s liberation, he made cigarettes “torches of freedom”. In 1954, he conjured a communist menace in Guatemala as an excuse for overthrowing the democratically-elected government, whose social reforms were threatening the United Fruit company’s monopoly of the banana trade. He called it a “liberation”.

Bernays was no rabid right-winger. He was an elitist liberal who believed that “engineering public consent” was for the greater good. This was achieved by the creation of “false realities” which then became “news events”. Here are examples of how it is done these days:

False reality The last US combat troops have left Iraq “as promised, on schedule”, according to President Barack Obama. TV screens have filled with cinematic images of the “last US soldiers” silhouetted against the dawn light, crossing the border into Kuwait.

Fact They are still there. At least 50,000 troops will continue to operate from 94 bases. American air assaults are unchanged, as are special forces’ assassinations. The number of “military contractors” is currently 100,000 and rising. Most Iraqi oil is now under direct foreign control.

False reality BBC presenters and reporters have described the departing US troops as a “sort of victorious army” that has achieved “a remarkable change in [Iraq’s] fortunes”. Their commander, General David Petraeus, is a “celebrity”, “charming”, “savvy” and “remarkable”.

Fact There is no victory of any sort. There is a catastrophic disaster; and attempts to present it as otherwise are a model of Bernays’ campaign to “re-brand” the slaughter of the first world war as “necessary” and “noble”. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, running for president, re-branded the invasion of Vietnam, in which up to three million people died, as a “noble cause”, a theme taken up enthusiastically by Hollywood. Today’s Iraq war movies have a similar purging theme: the invader as both idealist and victim.

False reality It is not known how many Iraqis have died. They are “countless” or maybe “in the tens of thousands”.

Fact As a direct consequence of the Anglo-American led invasion, a million Iraqis have died. This figure from Opinion Research Business is based on peer-reviewed research led by Johns Hopkins University in Washington DC, whose methods were secretly affirmed as “best practice” and “robust” by the Blair government’s chief scientific adviser, as revealed in a Freedom of Information search. This figure is rarely reported or presented to “charming” and “savvy” American generals. Neither is the dispossession of four million Iraqis, the malnourishment of most Iraqi children, the epidemic of mental illness and the poisoning of the environment.

False reality The British economy has a deficit of billions which must be reduced with cuts in public services and regressive taxation, in a spirit of “we’re all in this together”.

Fact We are not in this together. What is remarkable about this public relations triumph is that only 18 months ago the diametric opposite filled TV screens and front pages. Then, in a state of shock, truth was unavoidable, if briefly. The Wall Street and City of London financiers’ trough was on full view for the first time, along with the venality of once celebrated snouts. Billions in public money went to inept and crooked organisations known as banks, which were spared debt liability by their Labour government sponsors.

Within a year, record profits and personal bonuses were posted, and state and media propaganda had recovered its equilibrium. Suddenly, the “black hole” was no longer the responsibility of the banks, whose debt is to be paid by those not in any way responsible: the public. The received media wisdom of this “necessity” is now a chorus, from the BBC to the Sun. A masterstroke, Bernays would surely say.

False reality The former government minister Ed Miliband offers a “genuine alternative” as leader of the British Labour Party.

Fact Miliband, like his brother David, the former foreign secretary, and almost all those standing for the Labour leadership, is immersed in the effluent of New Labour. As a New Labour MP and minister, he did not refuse to serve under Blair or speak out against Labour’s persistent warmongering. He now calls the invasion of Iraq a “profound mistake”. Calling it a mistake insults the memory and the dead. It was a crime, of which the evidence is voluminous. He has nothing new to say about the other colonial wars, none of them mistakes. Neither has he demanded basic social justice: that those who caused the recession clear up the mess and that Britain’s fabulously rich corporate minority be seriously taxed, starting with Rupert Murdoch.

Of course, the good news is that false realities often fail when the public trusts its own critical intelligence, not the media. Two classified documents recently released by Wikileaks express the CIA’s concern that the populations of European countries, which oppose their governments’ war policies, are not succumbing to the usual propaganda spun through the media. For the rulers of the world, this is a conundrum, because their unaccountable power rests on the false reality that no popular resistance works. And it does.

tip of the cap to Magda Hassan

See also:

The black art of news management
3 June 2010

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes the "master illusions" which have formed the basis of black propaganda and provided "false flags" for political chicanery and for wars and atrocities, such as Iraq and the Israeli assault on the Gaza peace flotilla.

How do wars begin? With a “master illusion”, according to Ralph McGehee, one of the CIA’s pioneers in “black propaganda”, known today as “news management”. In 1983, he described to me how the CIA had faked an “incident” that became the “conclusive proof of North Vietnam’s aggression”. This followed a claim, also fake, that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had attacked an American warship in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964.

“The CIA,” he said, “loaded up a junk, a North Vietnamese junk, with communist weapons - the Agency maintains communist arsenals in the United States and around the world. They floated this junk off the coast of central Vietnam. Then they shot it up and made it look like a fire fight had taken place, and they brought in the American press. Based on this evidence, two Marine landing teams went into Danang and a week after that the American air force began regular bombing of North Vietnam.” An invasion that took three million lives was under way.

The Israelis have played this murderous game since 1948. The massacre of peace activists in international waters on 31 May was “spun” to the Israeli public for most of last week, preparing them for yet more murder by their government, with the unarmed flotilla of humanitarians described as terrorists or dupes of terrorists. The BBC was so intimidated that it reported the atrocity primarily as a “potential public relations disaster for Israel”, the perspective of the killers, and a disgrace for journalism.

A similar master illusion currently preoccupies Asian governments. On 20 May, South Korea announced that it had “overwhelming evidence” that one of its warships, the Cheonan, had been sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine in March with the loss of 46 sailors. The United States maintains 28,000 troops in South Korea, where popular sentiment has long backed a détente with Pyongyang.

On 26 May, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew to Seoul and demanded that the “international community must respond” to “North Korea’s outrage”. She flew on to Japan, where the new “threat” from North Korea conveniently eclipsed the briefly independent foreign policy of Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, elected last year with popular opposition to America’s permanent military occupation of Japan. The “overwhelming evidence” is a torpedo propeller that “had been corroding at least for several months,” reported the Korea Times. In April, the director of South Korea’s national intelligence, Won See-hoon, told a parliamentary committee that there was no evidence linking the sinking of the Cheonan to North Korea. The defence minister agreed. The head of South Korea’s military marine operations said, “No North Korean warships have been detected [in] the waters where the accident took place.” The reference to “accident” suggests the warship struck a reef and broke in two.

To the American media, North Korea’s guilt is beyond doubt, just as North Vietnam’s guilt was beyond doubt, just as Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, just as Israel can terrorise with impunity. However, unlike Vietnam and Iraq, North Korea has nuclear weapons, which helps explain why it has not been attacked, not yet: a salutary lesson to other countries, such as Iran, currently in the crosshairs.

In Britain, we have our own master illusions. Imagine someone on state benefits caught claiming £40,000 of taxpayers’ money in a second home scam. A prison sentence would almost certainly follow. David Laws, chief secretary to the Treasury, does the same and is described as follows:

“I have always admired his intelligence, his sense of public duty and his personal integrity” (Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister). “You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that throughout you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else.” (David Cameron, prime minister). Laws is “a man of quite exceptional nobility” (Julian Glover, the Guardian). A “brilliant mind” (BBC).

The Oxbridge club and its associate members in politics and the media have tried to link Laws’s “error of judgement” and “naivety” to his “right to privacy” as a gay man, an irrelevance. The “brilliant mind” is a wealthy Cambridge-groomed investment banker and gilts trader devoted to the noble task of cutting the public services of mostly poor and honest people.

Now imagine another public official, the force behind one of the great war criminals and liars. This official “spun” the illegal invasion of a defenceless country that resulted in the deaths of at least a million people and the dispossession of many more: in effect, the crushing of a human society. If this was the Balkans or Africa, he would very likely have been indicted by the International Criminal Court.

But crime pays for the clubbable. In quick step with the Laws affair, this truth was demonstrated by the continuing celebration of Alastair Campbell, whose frequent media appearances provide a vicarious thrill for the liberal intelligentsia. To the Guardian, Campbell is “bullish, sometimes misdirected, but unafraid to press on where others might have faltered”. The Guardian’s immediate interest is its “exclusive” publication of Campbell’s “politically explosive” and “uncut” diaries. Here is a flavour: “Saturday 14 May. I called Peter [Mandelson] and asked why he didn’t return my calls yesterday. ‘You know why.’ ‘No, I don’t.’ He said he was incandescent at my Newsnight interview...’ ”

In a promotional interview with the Guardian, Campbell dispensed more of this dated incest, referring just once to the bloodbath for which he was a principal apologist. “Did Iraq lose us support in 2005?” he asked rhetorically. “Without a doubt...” Thus, a criminal tragedy equal in scale to the Rwandan genocide was dismissed as a “loss” for New Labour: a master illusion of notable profanity.



The charge of the media brigade
8 July 2010

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes how an all-pervasive corporate media culture in the United States prepares the way for a permanent state of war. And yet for all the column inches and broadcast hours filled, the brainwashing is not succeeding. And this, he suggests, is 'America's greatest virtue'.

The TV anchorwoman was conducting a split screen interview with a journalist who had volunteered to be a witness at the execution of a man on death row in Utah for 25 years. “He had a choice,” said the journalist, “lethal injection or firing squad.” “Wow!” said the anchorwoman. Cue a blizzard of commercials for fast food, teeth whitener, stomach stapling, the new Cadillac. This was followed by the war in Afghanistan presented by a correspondent sweating in a flak jacket. “Hey, it’s hot,” he said on the split screen. “Take care,” said the anchorwoman. “Coming up” was a reality show in which the camera watched a man serving solitary confinement in a prison’s “hell hole”.

The next morning I arrived at the Pentagon for an interview with one of President Obama’s senior war-making officials. There was a long walk along shiny corridors hung with pictures of generals and admirals festooned in ribbons. The interview room was purpose-built. It was blue and arctic cold, and windowless and featureless except for a flag and two chairs: props to create the illusion of a place of authority. The last time I was in a room like this in the Pentagon a colonel called Hum stopped my interview with another war-making official when I asked why so many innocent civilians were being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then it was in the thousands; now it is more than a million. “Stop tape!” he ordered.

This time there was no Colonel Hum, merely a polite dismissal of soldiers’ testimony that it was a “common occurrence” that troops were ordered to “kill every mother fucker”. The Pentagon, says the Associated Press, spends $4.7 billion on public relations: that is, winning the hearts and minds not of recalcitrant Afghan tribesmen but of Americans. This is known as “information dominance” and PR people are “information warriors”.

American imperial power flows through a media culture to which the word imperial is anathema. To broach it is heresy. Colonial campaigns are really “wars of perception”, wrote the present commander, General David Petraeus, in which the media popularises the terms and conditions. “Narrative” is the accredited word because it is post-modern and bereft of context and truth. The narrative of Iraq is that the war is won, and the narrative of Afghanistan is that it is a “good war”. That neither is true is beside the point. They promote a “grand narrative” of a constant threat and the need for permanent war. “We are living in a world of cascading and intertwined threats,” wrote the celebrated New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, “that have the potential to turn our country upside down at any moment.”

Friedman supports an attack on Iran, whose independence is intolerable. This is the psychopathic vanity of great power which Martin Luther King described as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”. He was then shot dead.

The psychopathic is applauded across popular, corporate culture, from the TV death watch of a man choosing a firing squad over lethal injection to the Oscar winning Hurt Locker and a new acclaimed war documentary Restrepo. Directors of both films deny and dignify the violence of invasion as “apolitical”. And yet behind the cartoon facade is serious purpose. The US is engaged militarily in 75 countries. There are some 900 US military bases across the world, many at the gateways to the sources of fossil fuels.

But there is a problem. Most Americans are opposed to these wars and to the billions of dollars spent on them. That their brainwashing so often fails is America’s greatest virtue. This is frequnetly due to courageous mavericks, especially those who emerge from the centrifuge of power. In 1971, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked documents known as the Pentagon Papers which put the lie to almost everything two presidents had claimed about Vietnam. Many of these insiders are not even renegades. I have a section in my address book filled with the names of former officers of the CIA, who have spoken out. They have no equivalent in Britain.

In 1993, C. Philip Liechty, the CIA operations officer in Jakarta at the time of Indonesia’s murderous invasion of East Timor, described to me how President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had given the dictator Suharto “a green light” and secretly supplied the arms and logistics he needed. As the first reports of massacres arrived at his desk, he began to turn. “It was wrong,” he said. “I felt badly.”

Melvin Goodman is now a scholar at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. He was in the CIA more than 40 years and rose to be a senior Soviet analyst. When we met the other day, he described the conduct of the cold war as a series of gross exaggerations of Soviet “aggressiveness” that wilfully ignored the intelligence that the Soviets were committed to avoid nuclear war at all costs. Declassified official files on both sides of the Atlantic support this view. “What mattered to the hardliners in Washington,” he said, “was how a perceived threat could be exploited.” The present secretary of defence, Robert Gates, as deputy director of the CIA in the 1980s, had constantly hyped the “Soviet menace” and is, says Goodman, doing the same today “on Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran”.

Little has changed. In America, in 1939, W.H. Auden wrote:

As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives […]
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism’s face
And the international wrong


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:48 PM

Navy Information Dominance Warfare Officer September 21, 2010

available through cryptome or


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:51 PM
Fri Oct 1, 4:59 pm ET
Army embeds active-duty PSYOPS soldiers at local TV stations
By John Cook

By John Cook john Cook – Fri Oct 1, 4:59 pm ET


The U.S. Army has used local television stations in the U.S. as training posts for some of its psychological-operations personnel, The Upshot has learned. Since at least 2001, both WRAL, a CBS affiliate in Raleigh, N.C., and WTOC, a CBS affiliate in Savannah, Ga., have regularly hosted active-duty soldiers from the Army's 4th Psychological Operations group as part of the Army's Training With Industry program. Training With Industry is designed to offer career soldiers a chance to pick up skills through internships and fellowships with private businesses. The PSYOPS soldiers used WRAL and WTOC to learn broadcasting and communications expertise that they could apply in their mission, as the Army describes it, of "influenc[ing] the emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign audiences."

WRAL and WTOC were on a list of participants in the Army's Training With Industry program provided to The Upshot in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, and a spokeswoman with the Army's Human Resources Command confirmed that PSYOPS soldiers worked at the stations.

"Both of those stations are very supportive of the military, and think very highly of the program," said Lt. Col. Stacy Bathrick. "Our officers are there to learn best practices in terms of programming and production side that they can use when they deploy. To be able to get hands-on interaction with a news station — there's nothing like that." Bathrick said the soldiers were never involved in newsgathering.

The relationship between PSYOPS, Training With Industry, and television news operations has stirred controversy in the past. In 2000, after a Dutch newspaper reported that PSYOPS troops had been placed in CNN's newsroom under the program, CNN discontinued the internships and admitted that they had been a mistake. "It was inappropriate for PSYOPS personnel to be at CNN, they are not here now, and they never again will be at CNN," a spokesperson said at the time.

WRAL's news director, Rick Gall, feels differently. "My sense was, this was an educational opportunity to see how the broadcasting industry operates," said Gall. "They'd spend time in the various departments of the station, including the newsroom. I wasn't concerned about having someone learn what we do, and there was no influence on newsgathering. It was like shadowing." WRAL is owned by Capitol Broadcasting Company, which owns a variety of media outlets in North Carolina. Gall said WRAL hasn't hosted a soldier — which he described as an "embed" — since 2007. According to Bathrick, the Army's relationship with WTOC in Savannah is ongoing — a PSYOPS officer is currently embedded there. Bill Cathcart, WTOC's vice president and general manager, did not return phone calls or an e-mail seeking comment. WTOC is owned by Raycom Media, a television chain based in Alabama.

WRAL and WTOC are not alone among media outlets that the U.S. military has sought to learn from through Training With Industry. The Upshot has previously reported that the Marine Corps placed public affairs officers with the Chicago Tribune for several years in order to better understand how to influence and work with the news media, and CNNMoney.com hosted an officer in 2007 and 2008, despite the network's embarrassment over the program in 2000.


Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:58 PM
Sunday, October 10, 2010

The Emperor's Spokesman Has No Clothes (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/10/corporate-media-has-no-clothes.html)


As Gallup notes, trust in the corporate media is at an all-time low (http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/Distrust-Media-Edges-Record-High.aspx).

Much of the loss of trust is due to the media's selling of Iraq war lies and covering up the severity of the financial crisis.

Here are two essays I wrote - the first from a year ago, and the second from last December - explaining why media is so bad, and why we need to "be the media" ourselves .

Herding the Sheep (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/herding-sheep.html)

Financial insider and commentator Yves Smith wrote an essay (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/msm-reporting-as-propaganda-no-one-minds-our-new-financial-lords-and-masters-edition.html) last week entitled "MSM Reporting as Propaganda" arguing that the government has been using propaganda to make people think that things are getting better, no one is angry, and - therefore - no one should get upset:

The message, quite overtly, is: if you are pissed, you are in a minority. The country has moved on. Things are getting better, get with the program...
Per the social psychology research, this “you are in a minority, you are wrong” message DOES dissuade a lot of people. It is remarkably poisonous. And it discourages people from taking concrete action.
Is Smith right? And even if she is, isn't "propaganda" too strong a word?

Think Positive
Sure, William K. Black - professor of economics and law, and the senior regulator during the S & L crisis - says that that the government's (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/senior-s-regulator-says-government.html)entire strategy (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/senior-s-regulator-says-government.html) now - as during the S&L crisis - is to cover up how bad things are ("the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts").
Admittedly, 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/fed-economist-american-banks-went.html) in the 1980's during the "Latin American Crisis", and the government's response was to cover up their insolvency.

It's true that Business Week wrote (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060523_2210.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily) on May 23, 2006:
President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations.I can't deny that the Tarp Inspector General said (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/report-bernanke-paulson-misled-on-bailouts/) that Paulson and Bernanke falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy, when they were not.

Okay, the government and Wall Street have traditionally tried to dispense happy talk (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/happy-talk-can-not-improve-economy.html) when there is an economic crash, and Arianna Huffington recently pointed out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/wall-street-dc-and-the-ne_b_201899.html):
There is something in the current DC/NY culture that equates a lack of unthinking boosterism with a lack of patriotism. As if not being drunk on the latest Dow gains is somehow un-American.

And I'll give you that a recent Pew Research Center study on the coverage of the crisis found (http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/covering_great_recession) that the media has largely parroted what the White House and Wall Street were saying.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-wall-street-reform-is_b_330105.html

But that's not propaganda . . . its just positive thinking, right?

The Other Guy
And the whole word propaganda is a Nazi, communist kind of thing which has no place in the same sentence as America. Right?

Granted, famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists (http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php).

And sure, the New York Times discusses (http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/the-cia-and-the-culture-war/index.html?hp) in a matter-of-fact way the use of mainstream writers by the CIA to spread messages.
True, a 4-part BBC documentary (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22the%20century%20of%20the%20self%2 2&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#) called the "Century of the Self" shows that an American - Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays - created the modern field of manipulation of public perceptions, and the U.S. government has extensively used his techniques (but the BBC isn't American, so it doesn't count).
I won't deny that the Independent discusses (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html) allegations of American propaganda (but that's a British paper, doesn't count).
And (ho hum) one of the premier writers on journalism says (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-invisible-government/) the U.S. has used widespread propaganda.
And (are we still talking about this?) an expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations (http://youtube.com/watch?v=C4rFXjGJ5os) (the expert has an impressive background (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0&feature=related)).
And (I can't believe we're still talking about this) while the U.S. government has repeatedly claimed that it was launching propaganda programs solely at foreign enemies, it has actually used them against American citizens. For example:

In 2002, the Pentagon announced that it was considering spreading false propaganda in the foreign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1830500.stm) press. However, the military has spread propaganda within the U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) in an operation so aggressive that one participant, a military analyst, called it "psyops on steroids (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/83541/?page=entire)"

Raw Story confirmed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/bush-pentagon-used-psycho_n_328619.html) yesterday the use of propaganda on Americans

The U.S. government long ago announced its intention to "fight the net" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm).

As revealed by an official Pentagon report signed by Rumsfeld called "Information Operations Roadmap":

The roadmap [contains an] acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.
"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.***
"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system".And (when's the next episode of American Idol on?) CENTCOM announced in 2008 that a team of employees would be "[engaging] bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information." (http://web.archive.org/web/20070119090059/http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Raw_obtains_CENTCOM_email_to_bloggers_1016.html)An d (who do you think will win the playoffs?) the Air Force (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/usaf-blog-respo.html) is also engaging bloggers. Indeed, an Air Force spokesman said:

"We obviously have many more concerns regarding cyberspace than a typical Social Media user," Capt. Faggard says. "I am concerned with how insurgents or potential enemies can use Social Media to their advantage. It's our role to provide a clear and accurate, completely truthful and transparent picture for any audience."And (did you see that crazy photo?) it is well known that certain governments use software to automatically vote stories questioning their interests down and to send letters favorable to their view to politicians and media (see - as just one example - this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media), this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/nov/20/mondaymediasection.israel) and this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010301993.html)). The U.S. government is very large and well-funded, and could substantially influence voting on social news sites with very little effort, if it wished.
The Bottom Line
Yeah yeah, people say this or that, whatever, I'm too busy to think about it.
Even if true, propaganda is too strong a word for attempts to convince people that important issues are boring, that no one else is angry about them, and that everything is normal.
Perhaps "herding the wayward sheep" would be better . . .

5 Reasons that Corporate Media Coverage is Pro-War (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/5-reasons-that-most-corporate-media-is.html)

Note: McClatchy and several other large news sources are exceptions which have reported well on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

There are five reasons that the mainstream media is worthless.
1. Self-Censorship by Journalists
Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.
For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/05_may/16/dan_rather.shtml) the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":

There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism. What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship.
Keith Olbermann agreed (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/4) that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:
You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble .... You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our .... system. As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote (http://blog.niemanwatchdog.org/?p=53) in 2006:

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . .
There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.
If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.
I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.
2. Censorship by Higher-Ups If journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.

The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14010621/national_affairs_cheneys_nemesis_seymour_hersh_rev eals_white_houses_secret_plan_to_bomb_iran/print):

"All of the institutions we thought would protect us -- particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress -- they have failed. The courts . . . the jury's not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn't. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that's the most glaring.... Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?
[Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that."
In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0413-11.htm). See this announcement (http://web.archive.org/web/20060427000715/http://www.fccj.or.jp/modules/eCal/display-event.php?id=2014) and this talk (http://ia301214.us.archive.org/0/items/phillipsprojcensored/phillipsprojcensoredchicago0606disdn.wmv).
And a series of interviews with award-winning journalists (http://www.alternet.org/story/12753/) also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples (http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacover-up)).
There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups.
One is money.
The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power (http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-Leading-Journalists-Expose/dp/1573929727). Indeed, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.” (http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/2003-2004workshops/taha.pdf)
In addition, the government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade.
Dan Rather has slammed (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20090729/NEWS/907289967/1058) media consolidation:

Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, Rather claimed that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations.This is documented by the following must-see charts prepared by:

Media Channel (http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml)

The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_entertainment.pdf)

Free Press (http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main)

And check out this list (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2870) of interlocking directorates of big media companies from Fairness and Accuracy in Media, and this resource (http://www.cjr.org/resources/) from the Columbia Journalism Review to research a particular company.

This image gives a sense of the decline in diversity in media ownership over the last couple of decades:
http://www.corporations.org/media/media-ownership.gif (http://www.corporations.org/media/media-ownership.gif)
The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the Obama administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tacit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government's goodies. 3. Drumming Up Support for War
In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.
It is painfully obvious that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government's claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government's war agenda.
Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/index-premiere.html) the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:

"the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked." And as NBC News' David Gregory (later promoted to host Meet the Press) said (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/05/28/david-gregory-rewrites-history-says-the-press-did-a-good-job-on-iraq/):

"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say 'this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this,' that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role" But this is nothing new. In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars.
For example, Hearst helped drum up support for the Spanish-American War (http://www.pbs.org/crucible/frames/_journalism.html).
And an official summary of America's overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950's states, "In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq." (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/summary.pdf) (page x)
The mainstream media also may have played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian (http://web.archive.org/web/20011006161822/http://www.pearlharbor41.com/praise.htm) (Bob Stineet) argues (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743201299/104-2012810-3385542?v=glance&n=283155) that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) .
And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist says (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/norman_solomon/2007/11/us_media_poodles.html), "viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.")
As the mainstream British paper, the Independent, writes (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-%20the-news-780672.html):

There is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news. The article in the Independent discusses the use of "black propaganda" by the U.S. government, which is then parroted by the media without analysis; for example, the government forged (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-%20the-news-780672.html) a letter from al Zarqawi to the "inner circle" of al-Qa'ida's leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war, which was then publicized without question by the media..
So why has the American press has consistenly served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war?
One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/05/fox-in-henhouse.html) or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC - which is being sold to Comcast - was owned by General Electric (http://www.google.com/search?q=nbc+is+owned+by&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).
Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government's imperial war agenda.
And the media support isn't just for war: it is also for various other shenanigans by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentary proves (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml):

There was "a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression." Moreover, "the tycoons told the general who they asked to carry out the coup that the American people would accept the new government because they [I]controlled all the newspapers." (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/25/17852/8697)

See also this book (http://www.amazon.com/Plot-Seize-White-House-Conspiracy/dp/1602390363).
Have you ever heard of this scheme before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?
4. Access
Politico reveals (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24441.html):

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors...

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival. That may be one reason that the mainstream news commentators hate bloggers so much. The more people who get their news from blogs instead of mainstream news sources, the smaller their audience, and the less the MSM can charge for the kind of "nonconfrontational access" which leads to puff pieces for the big boys. 5. Censorship by the Government
Finally, as if the media's own interest in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts) if they've been too critical. The media companies have felt great pressure from the government to kill any real questioning of the endless wars.
For example, Dan Rather said (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/182654/1125580), regarding American media, "What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states".
Tom Brokaw said (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10038103 84) "all wars are based on propaganda.
And the head of CNN said (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html):

There was 'almost a patriotism police' after 9/11 and when the network showed [things critical of the administration's policies] it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and "big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.' Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5260#more-5260) that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"]. As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."
"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.
* * *
"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"
Of course, if the stick approach doesn't work, the government can always just pay off (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=journalists+paid+government&btnG=Google+Search) reporters to spread disinformation.

Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists (http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php). See also this (http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/the-cia-and-the-culture-war/index.html?hp) New York Times piece, this essay (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html) by the Independent, this speech (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-invisible-government/) by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this (http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-mockingbird) and this roundup (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html). Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the real stories or question the government's actions or policies in any meaningful way is that the American government and mainstream media been somewhat blended together.
Can We Win the Battle Against Censorship? We cannot just leave governance to our "leaders", as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to the corporate media. We need to "be the media" ourselves.
"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men."
- Abraham Lincoln
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"Powerlessness and silence go together. We...should use our privileged positions not as a shelter from the world's reality, but as a platform from which to speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used."
– Margaret Atwood
"There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress."
- Howard Zinn (historian)
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson

http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_email.gif (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=53246864840716464&postID=7425123707782144409) (http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=53246864840716464&postID=7425123707782144409)

Ed Jewett
10-17-2010, 09:59 PM
Families, veterans call operation name on Arlington headstones propaganda move

11 Oct 2010 Along the meticulously spaced rows of graves at Arlington National Cemetery, the names of the nation's wars are clearly etched into the headstones: World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, the Persian Gulf. Soon, a new inscription for troops killed in Iraq could appear: "Operation New Dawn." Some families and veterans groups say those slogans are little more than propaganda tactics, ways for politicians and the Pentagon to sanitize the wars and drum up public support.

via legitgov


File transfer now complete.

Ed Jewett
11-01-2010, 12:04 AM
Thought Control: The Rendon Group and Iraq War Opinion Formation

26th October 2010
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Examples_of_american_cold-war_propaganda-2654.jpg (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Examples_of_american_cold-war_propaganda-2654.jpg)

The Rendon Group Convenes a Congress

SourceWatch: “The Rendon Group is a secretive public relations firm that has assisted a number of U.S. military interventions in nations including Argentina, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Kosovo, Panama and Zimbabwe. Rendon’s activities include organizing the Iraqi National Congress, a PR front group designed to foment the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. …. ‘In the Pentagon, in addition to the normal public affairs structure, the Special Plans Office was deeply involved in this effort, supported (with information) by the Iraqi National Congress. There was the Rendon Group, headed by John Rendon who gave media advice to OSD, the Joint Staff and the White House. Finally, there were connections to large PSYOPS activities. The Rendon Group worked for the Government of Kuwait during the Gulf I. John Rendon proudly tells that it was he who shipped small American flags to Kuwait for the citizens to wave as troops entered Kuwait City. … The Rendon Group worked for both OSD and the Joint Staff during this war. John Rendon says he was part of the daily 9:30 phone calls with the key information players to set themes. …

On the Rendon Group and the CIA

SourceWatch cont’d: ” … A February 1998 report by Peter Jennings cited records obtained by ABC News which showed that the Rendon Group spent more than $23 million dollars in the first year of its contract with the CIA. It worked closely with the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an opposition coalition of 19 Iraqi and Kurdish organizations whose main tasks were to ‘gather information, distribute propaganda and recruit dissidents.’ According to ABC, Rendon came up with the name for the Iraqi National Congress and channeled $12 million of covert CIA funding to it between 1992 and 1996. Writing in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/index.php?title=Seymour_Hersh) says the Rendon Group was ‘paid close to a hundred million dollars by the CIA’ for its work with the INC. … “
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rendon_Group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rendon_Group)

Come Again? (Or, Let Main Street Eat Foreclosures and Illicit Wars)

” … Rendon came up with the name for the Iraqi National Congress and channeled $12 million of covert CIA funding to it between 1992 and 1996 . … Seymour Hersh says the Rendon Group was ‘paid close to a hundred million dollars by the CIA’ … “

Pentagon Deceit on Media Manipulation Confirmed

By Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque | August 28, 2009
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/bg_logo.gif (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/bg_logo.gif)A few days ago, we noted the revelations by Stars and Stripes that the Pentagon was using a shadowy PR firm to identify the political leanings of journalists trying to cover the “Good War” in Afghanistan (as well as the “Forgotten War” in Iraq). The idea, clearly, was to encourage and reward “pro-war” reporters while planting a big red flag on the backs of any writers considered less than gung-ho about the imperial bloodshed in Muslim lands.
Naturally, the Pentagon denied that the vetting program operated by the Rendon Group – which was hired by the Bush gang to help instigate the mass murder in Iraq – was in any way a sinister, slimy attempt to manipulate the news in order to make the endless slaughter of the Terror War more palatable for the folks back home. Perish the thought! declared the brass. Why, goodness mercy me, the only aim of the program is to help reporters tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. As Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman put it after S&S first broke the story: “It’s a good article if it’s accurate. It’s a bad article if it’s inaccurate. That’s the only measurement that we use here at the Defense Department.” Makes you want to puddle up, don’t it?
Well, Stars and Stripes has done something almost unheard-of in modern journalism – followed up on a story with a skeptical stance toward the bland assurances of authority – and guess what they found? Go ahead, try – you’ll never guess. They found that the Pentagon was lying! From S&S:

Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”
Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The Pentagon — run by honest Brother Bob Gates, who is such a straight arrow that the saintly progressive Barack Obama carried him over from the Bush Regime to keep running our “overseas contingency operations” — has been caught lying through its teeth!
Back to S&S:

“The purpose of this memo is to provide an assessment of [a reporter from a major U.S. newspaper] … in order to gauge the expected sentiment of his work while on an embed mission in Afghanistan,” reads the preamble to one of the reporter profiles prepared for the Pentagon by The Rendon Group, a controversial Washington-based public relations firm.
S&S also shreds the post-revelations denials by the Pentagon and Rendon, including the lie by Gates’ mouthpiece that the vetting program (that isn’t a vetting program, of course) ended last October, in the bad old Bush days:

But the Rendon profiles reviewed by Stars and Stripes prove otherwise. One of the profiles evaluates work published as recently as May, indicating that the rating practice did not in fact cease last October as Whitman stated.
And the explicit suggestions contained in the Rendon profiles detailing how best to manipulate reporters’ coverage during their embeds directly contradict the Pentagon’s stated policies governing the embed process.
By week’s end, the Pentagon was in full retreat on the story (in public, at least), pulling out the old stand-by used to cover a multitude of sins, from torture to corruption to atrocity to systematic deceit: a “review” of the program. Whitman, who days before had been loudly trumpeting the program’s decency and goodness, was now declaring — what else? — that he didn’t know the first thing about it, but he was sure enough gosh-dang-diddley-darn going to find out:

“For me, a tool like this serves no purpose and it doesn’t serve me with any value,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters as some of the affected war correspondents began demanding to see their secret military profiles….“I haven’t seen anything that violates any policies, but again, I’m learning about aspects of this as I question our folks in Afghanistan,” Whitman said. “If I find something that is inconsistent with Defense Department values and policies, you can be sure I will address it.”
And we’re sure a grateful nation gives its thanks for this great diligence. Whitman, a former Special Forces op whose last wetwork was back in the bug-out from Somalia, has long shown a dogged fealty to the truth: for example, planting stories of Iranian “threats” to U.S. boats in the powderkeg of the Strait of Hormuz; or early on in the mass murder in Iraq, ardently peddling the Pentagon’s knowingly false stories about the “heroic” rescue of Jessica Lynch. There is perhaps one aspect of his promised “review” that might trouble a cynic, however:

Whitman told Pentagon reporters that he was inquiring about the issue, but he added that the Pentagon is not launching any formal inquiry to the matter.
No “formal” review, then. No official inquiry. Just a couple of phone calls from good old Bryan to a few top brass and their mercenary manipulators: “You doing something dirty over there?” “Nope. Everything’s jake.” “Cool.”
Whitman, by the way, is not really a holdover from the Bush Administration, like his boss, Bob Gates. He is actually a holdover from the Clinton Administration, having ascended into the higher Pentagon PR ranks back in 1997, where he helped shape the presentations of Clinton’s “good war” against Serbia in 1998, then went on to serve the the cause of imperial message massage into Afghanistan and Iraq.
As we always say around here: Continuity! It’s what makes America great!

Pentagon terminates controversial contract with The Rendon Group

ThinkProgress | Aug 30th, 2009
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/imagesCAYNGY1T.jpg (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/imagesCAYNGY1T.jpg)Last week, Stars and Stripes revealed that the Pentagon had contracted The Rendon Group to screen journalists seeking to embed with U.S. forces. Rendon was rating whether reporters were giving the military “positive” coverage. Journalism groups immediately criticized the arrangement, calling it “alarming.” One week later, the Pentagon has announced that it is canceling the contract with Rendon:

“The decision to terminate the Rendon contract was mine and mine alone. As the senior U.S. communicator in Afghanistan, it was clear that the issue of Rendon’s support to US forces in Afghanistan had become a distraction from our main mission,” said Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, in an e-mail sent Sunday to Stars and Stripes.
“I have been here since early June and at no time has anyone who worked for me ever conducted themselves in a manner as your newspaper alleged. I cannot and will not speculate on the past, although I have found no systemic issues with fairness or equity in the way U.S. forces have run their media embed program.”
Although military officials denied using Rendon’s work to reject reporters wishing to embed with U.S. troops, a public affairs officer with the 101st Airborne Division said that “when his unit was in Afghanistan and in charge of the Rendon contract, he had used the conclusions contained in Rendon profiles in part to reject at least two journalists’ applications for embeds.”

On John Rendon: “The CIA Made Him”

The Pentagon PR Guru

Chicago Tribune | 08-11-2009
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/TerryAllen-092207b-300x282.jpg (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/TerryAllen-092207b.jpg)When U. S. troops go into a war zone, John Rendon is rarely far behind. He was in Panama in 1989 for the brief invasion that toppled strongman Manuel Noriega. He was in Kuwait when allied forces took it back from Saddam Hussein in 1991, making sure that citizens had little American flags to wave for the conquering troops and television cameras. He has worked in Haiti and in the Balkans, and is now fully engaged in the war against terrorism.
But John Rendon is not a military officer, government adviser, diplomat, spy or journalist. He is, to use his own words, “an information warrior and a perception manager.”
Rendon makes images, manipulates scenes and manages news. He advises politicians and spreads propaganda.
Rendon and his public-relations firm, The Rendon Group, have many clients, but none bigger–or more loyal–than the U.S. government. Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Pentagon gave Rendon a $100,000-a-month contract to track foreign news reports and offer advice on media strategy. Rendon also worked for the Defense Department in the Balkans, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
The State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and foreign governments also have turned to Rendon in recent years for help in relaying and shaping messages for the mainstream, according to government officials and federal records. Rendon has beamed radio broadcasts into hostile countries, helped design leaflets for distribution in war-torn areas, and designed Web sites and run PR campaigns to give the U.S. spin on world events.
When the Pentagon earlier this year wanted to create an Office of Strategic Influence to spread its own version of the news in foreign lands, it asked Rendon for advice. President Bush ultimately nixed the office after a storm of protest over reports that it planned to spread false information through foreign news outlets. But the controversy raised even more questions about the government’s need to pay someone to manage its image, and about the man hired to do the job.
Over two decades of navigating Washington’s inner circles, Rendon has built a unique business. While maintaining his political and public-relations credentials, he also has channeled his energies and staff into the murky bog of intelligence and defense work. In the course of that career, Rendon has garnered contracts worth millions of dollars, a good bit of it, government sources say, from classified work. “
I have a feeling that The Agency helped make him, filled his coffers,” said one former senior CIA official. ..
Last fall, the White House named advertising executive Charlotte Beers undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, and she is developing a full-fledged campaign to sway minds abroad. And the administration has been quick to send top officials to appear on Al Jazeera, the Arabic television station.
“Our own government propagandizing its position–it’s not like it didn’t happen before,” said John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper‘s Magazine and author of “Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. ” “But this is a sophisticated, mass-market approach to it.” …
Also see: “How To Sell a War – The Rendon Group deploys ‘perception management’ in the war on Iraq” (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/how_to_sell_a_war/)
Elsewhere: “Pentagon Paid The Rendon Group $1.6 Million To Influence Vieques Vote” (http://www.prwatch.org/node/3874)


Magda Hassan
11-01-2010, 02:03 AM
What a lovely source of psy op info here Ed, many thanks! :top::adore::flowers:

Jan Klimkowski
11-01-2010, 05:01 PM
What a lovely source of psy op info here Ed, many thanks! :top::adore::flowers:

Also an insight into the potential profits available to covert psyops operators...

” … Rendon came up with the name for the Iraqi National Congress and channeled $12 million of covert CIA funding to it between 1992 and 1996 . … Seymour Hersh says the Rendon Group was ‘paid close to a hundred million dollars by the CIA’ … “

Ed Jewett
11-27-2010, 01:31 AM
Human Resources

Submitted by Danse (http://911blogger.com/users/danse) on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 3:20pm

Social Engineering (http://911blogger.com/topics/social-engineering)

A few quotes to pique your interest…
“Brilliant…Riveting…The amount of material the filmmaker covers and unifies is astounding… Human Resources diagnoses the 20th century.”
- Stephen Soldz, Professor, Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Terrifiying in its implications….Human Resources is a must see for those of us who still take democracy seriously.”
- Bruce E. Levine, Author Commonsense Rebellion
“A Masterpiece. Unless you weep, you may be damaged by this film. Viewer discretion, and love, advised.
- David Kerr Thomson, Professor, Language and Thinking Program at Bard College
I’m pleased to present the second film in my documentary series, Human Resources. If you missed the first, Psywar, you can view it here. (http://metanoia-films.org/psywar.php)

Other quotes about Human Resources are available on the acclaim (http://metanoia-films.org/hr_acclaim.php) page of the website, some of which sum up the film quite well. Stephen Soldz refers to a “a unifying theme of the misuses of behavioral psychology to destroy human subjectivity and reduce people to manipulable objects.”
Esentially, this film is about the rise of mechanistic philosphy and the exploitation of human beings under modern hierarhical systems.
Topics covered include behaviorism, scientific management, work-place democracy, schooling, frustration-aggression hypothesis and human experimentation.
It includes origianl interviews with Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Rebecca Lemov (“World as Laboratory”), Christopher Simpson (“The Science of Coercion”), George Ritzer (“The McDonaldization of Society”), Morris Berman (“The Reenchantment of the World”), John Taylor Gatto (“Dumbing us Down”), Alfie Kohn (“What does it mean to be well educated?”) and others.
Some of the images contained in the film have never been seen before outside of a university laboratory, or in some cases a single television broadcast, and were purchased at great expense for a blue collar joe like me. These include an NBC clip from 1974 describing some of the CIA’s MKULTRA experiments on children.
The section on fear-based conditioning will be of special interest to 911 truth activists, as the war on terror is essentailly an experiment by behaviorists writ large. Additionally, the sections on human experimentation and MKULTRA put the lie to the common opinion that the American government cannot keep secrets for any length of time, and that government officials would never attack their own citizens on a significant scale.
As indicated, this film was made on a miniscule budget, so don’t expect immaculate audio-visual quality.
Full film can be viewed here –
If you post the film on other websites, please include that link.
I had issues with my previous film being removed by its hosting site, so I included a mirror and will be posting a download link tomorrow.
My next film, Counter-Intelligence, will explore the rise of black propaganda and other counter-insurgency techniques during the Cold War – both at home and abroad. It should be online in about three months.
Feedback appreciated. Thanks!


Danse's blog (http://911blogger.com/blog/712)

Ed Jewett
12-06-2010, 03:22 AM
Hill & Knowlton Merges with Public Strategies – GW Bush Admin. Aide to Chair H&K

4th December 2010
” … At the end of 2007 [Dan] Bartlett, during an interview with Evan Smith published in the January ’08 Texas Monthly, implied some conservative bloggers, such as HUGH HEWITT, were unfiltered mouthpieces for the GOP and Bush White House. … “

By Kirk Ladendorf
Austin American-Statesman | Nov. 15, 2010
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1702359789_165d642645_m1.jpg (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1702359789_165d642645_m1.jpg)Austin-based Public Strategies Inc. will merge with Hill & Knowlton on Jan. 1 to form “a distinctive global communications consultancy,” the companies announced Monday.
Jack Martin and Dan Bartlett, the two top executives of Public Strategies, will have significantly expanded roles in the merger, which will create an international public affairs and public relations firm with 2,300 workers in 44 countries.
Martin, the 56-year-old founder and executive chairman of Public Strategies, will become global executive chairman of Hill & Knowlton. Bartlett, 39, will become president and CEO of Hill & Knowlton USA and chairman and CEO of Public Strategies.
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DanBartlett.jpg (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DanBartlett.jpg)Bartlett, a former counselor to President George W. Bush, joined Public Strategies after leaving the White House in 2007. …

[Re Dan Bartlett, from WikiPedia: "Bartlett worked on George W. Bush (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/George_W._Bush)'s first successful campaign for Governor of Texas in 1994. He was appointed as Deputy to the Policy Director in the Governor's office in Texas, and was Issues Director for Bush's 1998 gubernatorial re-election campaign. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bartlett was the Director of Rapid Response for Bush for President; he later worked as a deputy to presidential advisor Karen Hughes (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Karen_Hughes) before being named White House Communications Director (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/White_House_Communications_Director). On January 5, 2005, the White House announced that Bartlett would assume the role of Counselor to the President, which allows him to focus more broadly on strategic communication and the formulation of policy. He has also worked for Karl Rove (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Karl_Rove)'s political consulting firm. On June 1, 2007, Bartlett announced his resignation as Counsel to the President.
On October 28, 2007, Public Strategies (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Public_Strategies&action=edit&redlink=1), Inc., a business advisory firm, announced they had hired Bartlett as a senior strategist. ... In March, 2009, Bartlett was named president and CEO of Public Strategies.
Controversies: Following the July 6, 2003, editorial by former ambassador Joseph Wilson (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson), Bartlett (with Ari Fleischer (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Ari_Fleischer)) pushed reporters to pursue who in the CIA sent him to Niger (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Niger), but stopped short of revealing that his wife worked for the agency. At the end of 2007 Bartlett, during an interview with Evan Smith published in the January '08 Texas Monthly (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Texas_Monthly), implied some conservative bloggers, such as Hugh Hewitt (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt), were unfiltered mouthpieces for the GOP and Bush White House:
"I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."
In May 2008, Bartlett appeared on various media outlets casting aspersions on the contentions raised by Scott McClellan (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Scott_McClellan) in his book What Happened (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/What_Happened) that the administration had repeatedly "shaded the truth" in connection with justifying the Iraq War (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Iraq_War), and describing the role that various administration officials played in the Valerie Plame (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Valerie_Plame) leak case. In a May 2008 telephone interview with CNN (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/CNN), Bartlett "asserted that McClellan did not play a major role in key events, noting that the former aide was serving as deputy press secretary for domestic issues during the run-up to the war in Iraq, raising questions about how McClellan could claim the President used 'propaganda (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wiki/Propaganda)' to sell the war." ...
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pic_taaffe.jpg (http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pic_taaffe.jpg)Paul Taaffe will remain global CEO of Hill & Knowlton.
“We are excited about expanding on the global stage,” Martin said. “This gives us a premier platform on which to showcase our leadership and further expand our offer of unique new business strategies for our clients.”
Both companies are owned by WPP Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPP_Group), a London-based international marketing and communications conglomerate.
Under the merger, each company will keep its own brand and client base for the foreseeable future.
“H&K and Public Strategies will be a formidable combination and industry leader, combining global expertise and talent with strong financial services, public affairs, research and digital capabilities” aimed at senior corporate executives, said Martin Sorrell, CEO of WPP Group, in a statement.
Although the merger will greatly expand the jobs of Martin and Bartlett, it’s not expected to have a big impact on Public Strategies’ operations in the near term.
The company, which provides crisis management and strategic communications consulting to a variety of clients, has about 175 workers worldwide, including about 70 in Austin and a slightly larger number in Dallas. It also has operations in San Antonio, New York, Washington and Mexico City.
Hill & Knowlton, which does public relations and communications work, has operations in Dallas but not in Austin.
Public Strategies is a consultant to Fortune 500 companies, nonprofit groups, associations and other clients. The company does not disclose its clients, but the list is known to include Dell Inc. and AT&T Inc.