Blackwater: In through the back door

It may not look like it, but this is a licensed educational facility. Only one problem, though:

It's Blackwater in disguise!

Hired guns are hiding out in this import/export building,
just two blocks from the US/Mexican border

From the Calitics website:

Just when we thought we had won, Blackwater snuck in the back door and set up shop in San Diego with hardly anyone noticing. Citizen Oversight Projects started spreading the word today that Blackwater will be opening a 61,600 square foot training facility in Otay Mesa, just a block from the U.S./Mexico border. It's also about 4 miles from the Otay Mesa border crossing and about 6.5 miles from the San Ysidro border crossing. This is an indoor facility and obviously much smaller than the 824-acre project Blackwater had pursued in Potrero, but no less nefarious.

[...]

Ray Lutz, one of the key figures in the defeat of Blackwater in Potrero, visited the new site and reported back with pictures, impressions and particular points of concern. He notes 20 truck bays and its position not only near two major border crossings but also the Tijuana International Airport. And if there's any doubt about the facility being used to train more mercenaries (and pretty clearly in the art of desert AND border tactics), note the word from Kelly Broughton, director of the city of San Diego's development services department:

Broughton said the building was already permitted for use as a vocational trade school, and Blackwater's training activities would fall within that category.

Vocational trade school. That's what we're calling it. If ITT Tech and a career in medical transcription isn't for you, check out Blackwater West. However, I don't think I'd have the same concerns about a bunch of crazy dental-assistants-in-training being planted within four miles of five schools (including three elementary schools) as I do about mercenaries.

Citizens sound off about the mysterious causes of the wildfires that originated in Potrero Canyon, originally scheduled to be Blackwater's Southern California training camp, until they were kicked out by citizen action.

And be sure to visit Fun Facts About Blackwater.


current-events

What the Iraq War is About

Paul Craig Roberts has been wrestling with our incomprehensible foreign policy since he left the Reagan administration way back when. He's been very busy writing articles critical of the this administration since they took power, and rightly so. Now he's published an article (What the Iraq War is About) in which he proclaims that the "real reason" we're in Iraq is not for the oil, but to support Israel. Period.

Well, I'll go along with that to a limited extent, and no doubt the Israel lobby - as represented by the neoconservatives - has been more vocal than anyone of the perceived need to crush Iraq on the way to crushing Iran, but there are a few problems with PCR’s analysis of the Iraq situation as detailed in his latest article. First, it is based on a highly simplified explanation which is not actually held by any reputable majority; he trots out a series of strawmen and arrives at an unsupported conclusion as a consequence.

The key strawman is here:

“Why does the Bush regime want to rule Iraq? Some speculate that it is a matter of "peak oil." Oil supplies are said to be declining even as demand for oil multiplies from developing countries such as China. According to this argument, the U.S. decided to seize Iraq to ensure its own oil supply. This explanation is problematic.”

[This is only problematic if it were the only argument put forward by “some.” Even as a stand-alone explanation, this idea has a good deal of merit, but the “some” who advocate this explanation (leaving aside the all-too-noisy "Elders of Zion" fan club) actually only cite it as one part of a more complex argument. PCR knows this but ignores the several alternate theories, as they would distract from his thesis here.]

“Most U.S. oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.“

[This fact is irrelevant (red herring) to the real purpose of the Iraq war, although in point of fact, Mexico’s Cantrell field went peak about 1981 [http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cantarell.htm].

“The best way for the U.S. to ensure its oil supplies would be to protect the dollar's role as world reserve currency.“

[From a purely economic viewpoint, this is no doubt true, but again, irrelevant. Classic red herring follows.]

“Moreover, $3-5 trillion would have purchased a tremendous amount of oil. Prior to the U.S. invasions, the U.S. oil import bill was running less than $100 billion per year. Even in 2006 total U.S. imports from OPEC countries was $145 billion, and the U.S. trade deficit with OPEC totaled $106 billion. Three trillion dollars could have paid for U.S. oil imports for 30 years; $5 trillion could pay the U.S. oil bill for a half century had the Bush regime preserved a sound dollar.”

This analysis is a kettle of fish, as we all know that the Neocons projected the cost of the war to be “about $50 to $60 billion,” which would be paid for by “Iraq itself” through the expropriation of Iraq’s oil. The fact that the costs of the occupation have escalated so wildly is due to the fact that Neocons – and let’s not forget Donald Rumsfeld - can plot like crazy, but they know zero about combat – or warmaking.

And while the Iraq oil fields were indeed allotted to various oil companies - both foreign and domestic - during the Cheney energy conferences, the consensus of the oil companies themselves was that it is was more profitable to leave the oil in the ground, with the oil itself nationalized. The oil companies couldn’t give a shit less how much oil is under the sands of Iraq, because unpumped oil is oil that is withheld from the market, leaving the oil actually on the market in limited supply, and thus more expensive. This follows the prime directive of profitability in any commodity: limited supply demands higher prices.

So, the war for Iraq was indeed partially “about the oil,” but there are other US strategic factors at play, specifically National Security Policy, which the Pentagon has implemented under a program dubbed “Full Spectrum Dominance” (and here). This last is the explanation for the huge US embassy in Iraq; it’s not the embassy for a single country, but rather the regional forward headquarters of an imperial network of hardened “enduring bases,” not only in Iraq, in which there are 14 absolutely huge and impregnable bases, but of the B-1 bomber base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, lend-lease bases in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Kuwait, to name just a few. This particular region is not called “US Central Command” for arbitrary reasons. There is an on-going but dubious war in Afghanistan, threats of sending special forces into Pakistan, and our recent nuclear agreements with India, no details of which fit into any Zionists plots, but do fit into the imperialist plans of the Anglo-Saxon oligarchs (read central bankers and representatives of the military-industrial complex) who actually run the global economy in tandem with similar elements in Great Britain, and to a lesser extent, the central bankers of Europe.

Iraq was (in part) a Bronx cheer to China, and to a lesser extent Russia, in response to Unocal (now Chevron-Texaco) losing the Afghan pipeline some fifteen years ago to a Chinese consortium, as well as another step towards Full Spectrum Dominance; payback and profits for the oil corporations, and big profits for the bankers, who make their money by making the loans that fund the purchase of oil futures – which is what is actually sold on the commodities markets.

After the fall of the Shah of Iran, Israel was for a long time the United State’s sole ally in this crucial geostrategic region and thus has been uncritically supported by the powers that be, just as we have supported dictators and monsters throughout our history, as long as they serve our economic purposes. In this regard, it’s helpful to remember that we bought his oil and supplied the arms (including WMD and the means to manufacture same) to Saddam Hussein in his eight-year war with Iran.

current-events

The Man Who Brainwashed America

Doggerel by Fido

Now that the New York Times seems to have found its cojones, it's probably time to drag out some old news which will go a long way to explaining why the American people have seemed to be shellshocked, and so reluctant to embrace the simple fact that they have been had.

There is an advertising agency in Washington, D.C. which holds a Top Secret clearance. The boss of that ad agency is a lifelong Democrat and has been deeply involved in politics on the national level for some time. He probably considers himself a patriot, inasmuch as receives millions of dollars in billing, principally from the CIA. Yeah, that CIA. And what does his crackerjack agency do for its daily bread?

Glad you asked. What they do is lie to the American people and the world about stuff like Ahmad Chalabi and WMD, feed lies to an uncritical Judith Miller, assist in regime change in places like Panama (remember Noriega, the drug king?) and basically engage in brainwashing on behalf of their client, the United States government.

The following transcript has been floating around the Internet since 2005, and it's about time it resurfaced, preferably on the front page of every newspaper and on every nightly news show in the country, but that ain't gonna happen by itself, so we'll start the ball rolling.

The Rendon agency that will be discussed was the goto outfit for the buildup to the Iraq war (as well as previous CIA shenanigans). I wrote about them at the time (2005), but had forgotten about them, as the distractions came so thick and fast for so long. James Bamford is the man who wrote the book on the NSA, The Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization

From 2005, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now interview with James Bamford: The Man Who Sold the War

So how did the Bush administration sell the war to the American public? Well, a new article in Rolling Stone magazine (December 1, 2005) examines just that. In it, investigative journalist James Bamford looks at the role of one of the most powerful public relations firms in Washington D.C in setting the stage for the Iraq war. The firm is the Rendon Group and it's founder and CEO is John Rendon – the former Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee.

AMY GOODMAN: James Bamford joins us in our Firehouse studio here in New York, the author of several books including the first one ever written about the National Security Agency called The Puzzle Palace: Inside America’s Most Secret Intelligence Organization. His latest book is A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

JAMES BAMFORD: Thanks, Amy. I appreciate it.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. Well, this piece in Rolling Stone is quite a read. Why don’t you start off by talking about a man in the Gulf of Thailand who was taking a lie detector test?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, this took place in December of 2001. This was really the sort of opening shot of the propaganda war to get the United States into war. And the person being polygraphed was an Iraqi defector by the name of al-Haideri, and the Iraqi National Congress, the I.N.C., had brought him out of Iraq and brought him to Thailand primarily to expose him to the media and to try to get his story told. And what his story was was that Saddam Hussein had not only chemical and biological weapons but even nuclear weapons and precursors to nuclear weapons hidden in Iraq in various places. Some of the biological weapons were supposedly hidden under the main hospital in Baghdad, for example. So it was an amazing story.

And this was the—up until this time there was a lot of speculation in the press and in Congress and other places about what Saddam may have, what might have been left over from the Gulf War and so forth. But this was going to be the very first time that somebody could actually point to information as proof, having seen where these things were buried and so forth. So, the I.N.C., the Iraqi National Congress, which was led by Ahmed Chalabi, decided to call in two journalists to broadcast this information to the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait. First, the lie detector proved what?

JAMES BAMFORD: Exactly. Before he actually called these people in to broadcast this information, obviously the C.I.A. had a big interest in this and the Pentagon had a big interest in this, so the C.I.A. flew a polygraph operator with his machine all the way over to Thailand, Pattaya, Thailand, which is south of Bangkok, and they went into a hotel room, they strapped up al-Haideri, and they asked him all these questions. And they went over and over for hours his allegations regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and they came away with charts that indicated he was deceptive, that he was lying, that this was not true. And they flew back to Washington and, presumably, assuming this was going to be the end of it. But that was information that was never made public. They didn’t broadcast that information. So what happened was the I.N.C. and Chalabi decided to take that bogus information that al-Haideri was giving and broadcast it around the world. So, they called in two journalists. One of the journalists was Judy Miller, who was given the worldwide print exclusive rights to the story.

AMY GOODMAN: And who called her in?

JAMES BAMFORD: Chalabi called her in. Chalabi asked her if she wanted to do the story, and she flew from Washington all the way over to Bangkok to interview al-Haideri.

AMY GOODMAN: Chalabi on the payroll of the C.I.A.?

JAMES BAMFORD: At this time, Chalabi was—he had been getting money from the C.I.A. up until the mid-1990s, and then he started getting money from the Pentagon after the C.I.A. failed to trust him any more. So, the other journalist that they called in was Paul Moran, who was a journalist working for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And what makes this very interesting was how this came about. The people setting this up were members of the I.N.C. whose main goal all along from the very beginning was overthrowing Saddam Hussein anyway possible. And ironically, one of the people they called in, Paul Moran, had formerly worked for the I.N.C., and he had also worked for another company called the Rendon Group.

AMY GOODMAN: Hold it there. We have to break. When we come back, we’ll take a look at the Rendon Group. We are talking to investigative reporter James Bamford, author of A Pretext for War, has just written a piece in Rolling Stone called “The Man Who Sold the War.”

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is James Bamford. He’s written the piece in Rolling Stone magazine, “The Man Who Sold the War: Meet John Rendon, Bush’s General in the Propaganda War.” So, the Rendon Group and John Rendon.

JAMES BAMFORD: That’s right. The Rendon Group plays an important part in this, because it was the Rendon Group, who few people have heard about, that actually set up the I.N.C., the Iraqi National Congress, in the first place. In a very unusual move, the Bush administration, the first Bush administration, outsourced the propaganda for the war in Iraq basically to a private company.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

JAMES BAMFORD: The reason they did it was because they specialize in this. The Rendon Group for years have been able to take information that the C.I.A. was trying to get across to the public and broadcast it. For example, they went back to Panama. Just before the U.S. action in Iraq in 1990, the Bush administration invaded Panama and ousted Manuel Noriega. Well, all along, the C.I.A. had a person they wanted to put in there to take Noriega’s place, a person by the name of Endara. And the C.I.A. outsourced to the Rendon Group the propaganda campaign to put Endara in there. So they took this person who was basically a lawyer, a businessman, and Rendon built him up into a presidential candidate, took him around Europe, introduced him to the Pope, and when his group was attacked, one of his vice presidents was attacked, a very bloody attack, it made the front page of newspapers all over the world, including Time magazine.

AMY GOODMAN: With the Rendon Group’s help getting that image out?

JAMES BAMFORD: Exactly, the Rendon Group is the public relations group that pushed all of that information out there.

AMY GOODMAN: John Rendon flying in a few minutes before the actual invasion took place, of Panama.

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, as the invasion took place, before the planes actually started attacking, John Rendon was in a plane about to land in Panama. So he was there right at the beginning, and he was there, too, right about the same time that his candidate, Endara, was sworn in as president. So he did such a good job in Panama in terms of regime change, getting the C.I.A.’s man into office, the Bush administration decided—the first Bush administration decided to use him to help do regime change in Iraq. And after the first Gulf War, the whole idea was to oust Saddam Hussein and put in Ahmed Chalabi as the leader. So, John Rendon, his company the Rendon Group, created an umbrella group known as the Iraqi National Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: He came up with the name?

JAMES BAMFORD: John Rendon came up with the name. He formed an organizational meeting in Vienna. He helped install Chalabi as the head of the group, and then the money was originally funneled from the C.I.A. through the Rendon Group, about $350,000 a month, to Chalabi.

AMY GOODMAN: Was this also for deniability, so it wouldn’t be the C.I.A. directly giving the money?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, definitely. That’s one of the key reasons that they wanted to use a private company like the Rendon Group as a cutout. And they did that in Panama also. So it was a very convenient organization to turn to in order to help regime change. The C.I.A. could help in terms of the combat, overthrowing a foreign leader like Saddam Hussein, but in terms of building up the world propaganda, number one, hating Saddam Hussein, number two, loving Ahmed Chalabi, that was something that they had to outsource, and the Rendon Group had become specialists in that type of propaganda.

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking with investigative reporter, Jim Bamford, author of A Pretext for War. That’s his book. “The Man Who Sold the War” is the name of his article in Mother Jones. So let’s go back—

JAMES BAMFORD: In Rolling Stone.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, in Rolling Stone magazine. Let’s go back to Judith Miller and Paul Moran. One is a radio reporter who worked for the Rendon Group, and you could talk about that; and the other, Judith Miller, worked for The New York Times.

JAMES BAMFORD: That’s right. And how this comes full circle is that the Rendon Group created the I.N.C., put in Chalabi in there, and then now we have December of 2001, right after the September 11 attacks, and while the administration is gearing up to sort of get the public behind the administration in going into war in Iraq. So up until this time it had been all speculation about what had been going on in terms of Saddam’s use of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and now the I.N.C., the Iraqi National Congress, comes up with this defector who is telling this huge lie about where all of these weapons are being hidden.

AMY GOODMAN: And they know it’s a lie?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, I don’t know when they knew it, but they certainly should have known it at some point, that the C.I.A. person who walked out of the room wasn’t smiling about all of the happy news he was hearing—

AMY GOODMAN: And the guy who did the lie detector test said, “He is not telling the truth.”

JAMES BAMFORD: That’s right, exactly, and it didn’t seem to make much difference, because they called in the press, and the two people that they called in, ironically one of them was Paul Moran who had formerly worked, not only for the I.N.C., but also for the Rendon Group. So you have a journalist who has the worldwide broadcast exclusive for this interview with this defector who is telling a lot of lies, who actually had formerly worked for the group putting this show on the road, and then they called in Judy Miller, who was going to be granted the worldwide print exclusives. And Judy Miller, in her own words in a memo she wrote to her bureau chief in Baghdad at one point, mentioned that for a decade Chalabi had been one of her key sources and that he was responsible for many of the front page stories on W.M.D. in The New York Times.

So, they called in these two very sympathetic journalists to broadcast this story, and it made huge news. It came out, I think it was December 20, 2001, and again it made a great impact, because this was the first time that an actual eyewitness was able to say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. So, this was a major milestone in the road to the war. And from then on, the I.N.C. began coming up with other defectors, and The New York Times and other organizations started promoting the war. But a lot of it had its origins with this first defector, al-Haideri.

AMY GOODMAN: James Bamford, Paul Moran died in Iraq.

JAMES BAMFORD: One of the biggest and most tragic ironies of the entire war was the fact that this journalist, Paul Moran, who had formerly worked for both the I.N.C. and the Rendon Group and then broadcast—had the worldwide broadcast rights for this story about al-Haideri, which helped push the U.S. into war with Iraq—into invading Iraq; Paul Moran actually became the very first journalist killed in the war. He was in northern Iraq, and a car bomb exploded very close to him, and he was killed instantly. I think it was within two or three days of the beginning of the war. So, it was a very tragic irony that Paul Moran, who helped generate some of the early publicity for the war ended up being one of the first people killed in the war.

AMY GOODMAN: John Rendon went to his funeral in Australia?

JAMES BAMFORD: Yes, the Rendon Group really went to a lot of trouble and expense to really create a lot of memorials for Paul Moran. John Rendon flew to the funeral in Australia. They had a memorial service for him in Washington. They had another larger memorial service for him in London, where Rendon and Paul Moran first began working around 1990. So, it was a very big tragedy, and it was a tragedy for the Rendon Group, who had relied on Paul Moran for many, many years.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the I.O.T.F., what it stands for and the Information War Room?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, the Information Operation Task Force was set up by the Pentagon, because, if you read some of the Pentagon documents that are coming out in the last few years, they wanted to turn information into a major weapon to use during a war. They realized with the internet and with the explosion of information technology around the world that getting a message out is extremely important. It’s especially important in a case like this where we weren’t attacked by Iraq. This wasn’t a case of the United States defending itself against an attack. So, we had to—the United States had to go on a propaganda war in order to convince the world that this preemptive invasion had legitimacy. So, in order to do that the Pentagon created a number of organizations to help promote this information around the world, and the Information Operation Task Force was one of those, and the Rendon Group played an extremely important role in that. And one of the key objectives of the Rendon Group in this aspect was to analyze media all over the world. John Rendon, in my interview with him, and it was the first interview I think he’s ever granted, or at least within probably twenty years—

AMY GOODMAN: And why did he grant it to you?

JAMES BAMFORD: You’re going to have to ask him. I don’t ask questions. I just am very happy when somebody does agree to be interviewed. So he—and one of the ironic aspects of John Rendon is you have somebody here who started out as basically an anti-war activist. He went to work for the George McGovern campaign, actually ran the Maine operation, the operation up in Maine, for George McGovern. So you have a person who started out as an anti-war activist and a lifelong Democrat, head of the Democratic National Committee, Executive Director of the D.N.C., and here he is the chief of propaganda for the Bush administration in their war with Iraq. So it was a very interesting progression, and when I interviewed him, he said he’s still never voted for a Republican, he still votes Democratic, and he donated money to the Democratic Party not long ago.

So now what his role is, is as chief of propaganda and as that, the Pentagon has been using him a great deal to analyze information around the world. Rendon told me that they analyze something like 143 newspapers and a lot of broadcast media around the world and that he prides himself on being able to get to policy makers information on what news organizations all over the world are going to do six hours before they actually do it. And that way, the Pentagon can prepare a response or some kind of rebuttal to whatever may be coming on a news organization hours in advance.

AMY GOODMAN: You write, James Bamford, “A key weapon, according to the documents, was Rendon’s proprietary state-of-the-art news-wire collection system called ‘Livewire,’ which takes real-time news-wire services as they’re filed, before they’re on the internet, before CNN can read them on the air, and 24 hours before they appear in the morning papers, and sorts them by key word. The system provides the most current real time access to news and information available to private or public organizations. The top target that the Pentagon assigned to Rendon was the Al-Jazeera television network. The contract called for the Rendon Group to undertake a massive media mapping campaign against the news organization.” Why, what did they do?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, it’s a very interesting area, this media mapping. And basically, what it is, is they were directed to take a close look at the actual reporters who were reporting the news and analyze them. What is their slant? What is their bias? What is the background for these people? What makes that very worrisome is that there was another group that was set up by the Pentagon, Office of Strategic Influence, and that was eventually closed down, but one of the things—

AMY GOODMAN: Forced to because it became public?

JAMES BAMFORD: That’s right, when it became knowledge, and one of the aspects was that they were going to plant phony stories in news organizations around the world, and when you plant a phony story in a news organization anywhere in the world today, I mean, it’s immediately accessible to people in the United States. So, it would have had a very bad blowback effect.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, I remember when Rumsfeld closed it. He said, ‘Yeah, we may change the name, but it doesn’t mean we have to stop doing what we are doing.’

Continue reading "The Man Who Sold the Iraq War: John Rendon, Bush’s General in the Propaganda War"

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

current-events

NYT on the Generals' Revolt

Coming as it does after years of promoting Judith Miller and other liars on their front page - which some have seen as either craven kowtowing to the power elites or else burying their heads in the sand - the editors of the New York Times seem to have thrown caution to the wind and published a scathing article critical of this sitting president's conduct of the Iraq occupation, and specifically how his administration - and Donald Rumsfeld in particular - using the very generals various news programs call upon to give unbiased, professional military commentary - attempted to mold public perceptions about the situation on the ground in Iraq with what can only be characterized as no less than an illegal PsyOps against the American people. In other words, brainwashing by the Pentagon.

Given the track record of the entire mainstream media and its (choose one) naive, cynical or manipulative reporting (or lack) of the Long War, I am moved to ask the following:

Q: Are the Bilderbergs actually beginning to think that this engineered recession might not be such a good idea after all, and looked the other way as the NYT published this article? or,

Q: Is the NYT becoming a real newspaper again, and published this article despite the Bilderbergs?

Q: Are the Cowboys beginning to lose ground to the Yankees in the war for the Republic? (1) (2) (3)

Q: Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Q: Will the Chicago Cubs take the pennant this year, or will they wimp out and blame it on the start of WWIII?


Inquiring minds want to know.


Thanks and a tip 'o the hat to Chris Locke

Update: PDF of a transcript of one of Rumsfeld's meeting with his pet media generals is here.

Update: Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper yesterday talked about the travel plans of the Bush administration lawyers who wrote the Guantanamo torture memos,

"Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez and - at the apex - Addington, should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court."

current-events