Good and Evil at the Center of the Earth: A Quechua Christmas Carol by Greg Palast (+ video link)

Dandelion Salad

by Greg Palast
December 24th, 2007

[Quito] I don’t know what the hell seized me. In the middle of an hour-long interview with the President of Ecuador, I asked him about his father.

I’m not Barbara Walters. It’s not the kind of question I ask.

Continue reading

Information Warfare Without Limits Part 5 by Brent Jessop

Dandelion Salad

by Brent Jessop
Knowledge Driven
December 3, 2007

Information Operation Roadmap Part 5

The 2003 Pentagon document entitled Information Operation Roadmap describes the need to dominate the entire electromagnetic spectrum, ‘fight the net‘, and use psychological operations to aggressively modify behaviour. But one major question remains; are there any limits to information warfare?

If you are unfamiliar with the Information Operation Roadmap please read a previous article I wrote describing the major thrust of this document.

PSYOP, Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

From the Information Operation Roadmap:

“In the past some basic similarities and dissimilarities between PSYOP [psychological operations], support to public diplomacy and public affairs generally have been accepted. Historically all three used truth to bolster credibility, and all three addressed foreign audiences, both adversary and non-adversaries. Only public affairs addressed domestic audiences. In addition, all three activities sought a positive impact for USG [US Government] interests, but with some differences in the methods employed and objectives sought. The customary position was that “public affairs informs, while public diplomacy and PSYOP influence.” PSYOP also has been perceived as the most aggressive of the three information activities, using diverse means, including psychological manipulation and personal threats.” [emphasis mine] – 26

There is a lot happening in this paragraph, first, there is the almost humorous statement; “truth to bolster credibility”. Does anyone remember WMDs, Saddam and 9/11, maybe some uranium from Niger? Do you believe these examples of public affairs were to inform or influence?

Secondly, “USG interests” are by no means the same as the interests of the average American. Thirdly, the concept that only public affairs is being addressed to domestic audiences, is simply absurd given the ability of information to pass across borders. This document even admits as much:

“Impact of the global village. The increasing ability of people in most parts of the globe to access international sources makes targeting particular audiences more difficult. Today the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [US Government] intent rather than information dissemination practices:

PSYOP is restricted by both DoD [Department of Defense] policy and executive order from targeting American audiences, our military personnel and news agencies or outlets… However, information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa… PSYOP messages disseminated to any audience except individual decision-makers (and perhaps even then) will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public.” [emphasis mine] – 26

So there you have it, “the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of US government intent rather than information dissemination practices”. Therefore, the American public is fair game for all forms of US government propaganda, be it, public affairs, public diplomacy or PSYOP. Remember, PSYOP use “diverse means, including psychological manipulation and personal threats” among many other things.

It should also be highlighted that PSYOP are only restricted not prohibited from being used on the American public. If that loophole is not large enough, the distinctions between the tactics of public affairs, public diplomacy and PSYOP are elaborated in Appendix C of the Information Operation Roadmap. The very last task listed for PSYOP is: “when called upon, support to local public affairs activities”.

Appendix C of this document is well worth the one page read (pg 71). Some other highlight include:

Public Affairs:
“Rapid Response/Truth Squads and “Briefings Plus” ”
“Humanitarian road shows”
“Media embeds”
“Combat Camera products on events not accessible to news media”

Public Diplomacy:
“Content of speeches or OP/ED pieces by senior DoD [Department of Defense] officials to foreign audiences”
“Talking points for private exchanges with foreign leaders”
“Overt dissemination of USG [US Government] policy. e.g. Asia-Pacific Forum”

“Radio/TV/Print/Web media designed to directly modify behaviour and distributed in theatre supporting military endeavors in semi or non-permissive environments”
“When called upon, support to theatre public diplomacy”
“DoD advisors to assist friendly forces in developing PSYOP programs”

Changing Definitions

Definitions are another great tool if you are trying to deceive. As described above the definitions of and distinction between public affair, public diplomacy and PSYOP are left intentionally vague. Lawyers make a living out of this type of deception and their hands are all over this document.

“PSYOP should focus on support to military endeavors (exercises, deployments and operations) in non-permissive or semi-permissive environments (i.e. when adversaries are part of the equation).

– (U) However, PSYOP forces and capabilities may be employed to support U.S. public diplomacy as part of approved theatre security cooperation guideline. In this case PSYOP personnel and equipment are not conducting a PSYOP mission, but rather are providing military support to public diplomacy.” [emphasis mine] – 27

Get that? If PSYOP forces and equipment are used in support of military endeavours, it is a PSYOP mission. If PSYOP forces and equipment are used in support of public diplomacy, it is public diplomacy.

A Quick Recap

A close read of the above quotes reveal that information operations, specifically PSYOP, can be used on both domestic and foreign audiences, in non-permissive or semi-permissive environments, and on adversary and non-adversary. Are there any other limits?

Peace, Crisis and War

“The Department’s concept of IO [information operations] should emphasize full spectrum IO that makes a potent contribution to effects based operations across the full range of military operations during peace, crisis and war. [emphasis mine]” – 7

“Peacetime preparation. The Department’s IO concept should emphasize that full-spectrum information operations are full-time operations requiring extensive preparations in peacetimeWell before crises develop, the IO battlespace should be prepared through intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and extensive planning activities… Similarly, considerable effort should be made to characterize potential adversary audiences, and particularly senior decision-makers and decision-making processes and priorities. If such human factors analysis is not conducted well in advance of the conflict, it will not be possible to craft PSYOP themes and messages that will be effective in modifying adversary behaviour” [emphasis mine] – 8

“Clear, unambiguous and streamlined DoD [Department of Defense] oversight and policy that empowers Combatant Commanders to execute full spectrum IO before, during and after combat operations.” [emphasis mine] – 20

Denied Areas

“Improvements in PSYOP capability are required to rapidly generate audience specific, commercial-quality products into denied areas.” [emphasis mine] – 26

“Projecting electronic attack into denied areas by means of stealthy platforms.” [emphasis mine] – 62


Does the Pentagon define any real limits to information warfare? Information operations can be used on both domestic and foreign audiences, in non-permissive or semi-permissive environments, on adversary and non-adversary, during peace, crisis and war, and in denied areas. Should we really expect anything less? They did tell us that their goal was full spectrum dominance.

Copyright © 2005-7
All original material posted on can be reprinted freely and completely – as long as full credit and a hyperlink are provided.

Information Warfare Without Limits

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Full Spectrum Information Warfare Part 1 by Brent Jessop

The Pentagon’s Electronic Warfare Program: Maximum Control of the Entire Electro-Magnetic Spectrum Part 2 by Brent Jessop

“We Must Fight the Net” Part 3 by Brent Jessop

Information Warfare Using Aggressive Psychological Operations Part 4 by Brent Jessop

Information Warfare Using Aggressive PsychOps Part 4 by Brent Jessop + Facebook datamining (video)

Dandelion Salad

by Brent Jessop
Knowledge Driven
November 26, 2007

Information Operation Roadmap Part 4

The Pentagon’s plans for psychological operations or PSYOP in the global information environment of the 21st century are wide ranging and aggressive. These desires are outlined in the 2003 Pentagon document signed by Donald Rumsfeld in his capacity as the Secretary of Defense called the Information Operation Roadmap.

Continue reading

“We Must Fight the Net” Part 3 by Brent Jessop

Dandelion Salad

by Brent Jessop
Knowledge Driven
November 19, 2007

Information Operation Roadmap Part 3

The Pentagon’s Information Operations Roadmap is blunt about the fact that an internet, with the potential for free speech, is in direct opposition to their goals. The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy “weapons system”.

The 2003 Pentagon document entitled the Information Operation Roadmap was released to the public after a Freedom of Information Request by the National Security Archive at George Washington University in 2006. A detailed explanation of the major thrust of this document and the significance of information operations or information warfare was described by me here.

Computer Network Attack

From the Information Operation Roadmap:

“When implemented the recommendations of this report will effectively jumpstart a rapid improvement of CNA [Computer Network Attack] capability.” – 7

“Enhanced IO [information operations] capabilities for the warfighter, including: … A robust offensive suite of capabilities to include full-range electronic and computer network attack…” [emphasis mine] – 7

Would the Pentagon use its computer network attack capabilities on the Internet?

Fighting the Net

“We Must Fight the Net. DoD [Department of Defense] is building an information-centric force. Networks are increasingly the operational center of gravity, and the Department must be prepared to “fight the net.” ” [emphasis mine] – 6

“DoD’s “Defense in Depth” strategy should operate on the premise that the Department will “fight the net” as it would a weapons system.” [emphasis mine] – 13

It should come as no surprise that the Pentagon would aggressively attack the “information highway” in their attempt to achieve dominance in information warfare. Donald Rumsfeld’s involvement in the Project for a New American Century sheds more light on the need and desire to control information.

PNAC Dominating Cyberspace

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was founded in 1997 with many members that later became the nucleus of the George W. Bush administration. The list includes: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz among many other powerful but less well know names. Their stated purpose was to use a hugely expanded U.S. military to project “American global leadership.” In September of 2000, PNAC published a now infamous document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defences. This document has a very similar theme as the Pentagon’s Information Operations Roadmap which was signed by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

From Rebuilding America’s Defenses:

“It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies… are creating a dynamic that may threaten America’s ability to exercise its dominant military power.” [emphasis mine] – 4

“Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.” [emphasis mine] – 51

“Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes.” [emphasis mine] – 60

For more on Rebuilding America’s Defences read this.

Internet 2

Part of the Information Operation Roadmap‘s plans for the internet are to “ensure the graceful degradation of the network rather than its collapse.” (pg 45) This is presented in “defensive” terms, but presumably, it is as exclusively defensive as the Department of Defense.

As far as the Pentagon is concerned the internet is not all bad, after all, it was the Department of Defense through DARPA that gave us the internet in the first place. The internet is useful not only as a business tool but also is excellent for monitoring and tracking users, acclimatizing people to a virtual world, and developing detailed psychological profiles of every user, among many other Pentagon positives. But, one problem with the current internet is the potential for the dissemination of ideas and information not consistent with US government themes and messages, commonly known as free speech. Naturally, since the plan was to completely dominate the “infosphere,” the internet would have to be adjusted or replaced with an upgraded and even more Pentagon friendly successor.

In an article by Paul Joseph Watson of Prison, he describes the emergence of Internet 2.

“The development of “Internet 2″ is also designed to create an online caste system whereby the old Internet hubs would be allowed to break down and die, forcing people to use the new taxable, censored and regulated world wide web. If you’re struggling to comprehend exactly what the Internet will look like in five years unless we resist this, just look at China and their latest efforts to completely eliminate dissent and anonymity on the web.”


The next article will examine the Pentagon’s use of psychological operations or PSYOP and the final article in this series will examine whether or not there are any limits to using information operations on the American public or foreign audiences.

Copyright © 2005-7
All original material posted on can be reprinted freely and completely – as long as full credit and a hyperlink are provided.

“We Must Fight the Net”

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Full Spectrum Information Warfare Part 1 by Brent Jessop

The Pentagon’s Electronic Warfare Program: Maximum Control of the Entire Electro-Magnetic Spectrum Part 2 by Brent Jessop

Information Warfare Using Aggressive Psychological Operations Part 4 by Brent Jessop

The Pentagon’s Electronic Warfare Program: Maximum Control of the Entire Electro-Magnetic Spectrum Part 2 by Brent Jessop

Dandelion Salad

by Brent Jessop
Global Research, December 24, 2007
Knowledge Driven – 2007-10-12

Information Operation Roadmap Part 2

In 2003, then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld signed a document called the Information Operation Roadmap which outlined, among other things, the Pentagon’s desire to dominate the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

If you are unfamiliar with this document, more detail can be found in a previous article here.


From the Information Operation Roadmap:

“We Must Improve Network and Electro-Magnetic Attack Capability. To prevail in an information-centric fight, it is increasingly important that our forces dominate the electromagnetic spectrum with attack capabilities.” [emphasis mine] – 6

“Cover the full range of EW [Electronic Warfare] missions and capabilities, including navigation warfare, offensive counterspace, control of adversary radio frequency systems that provide location and identification of friend and foe, etc.” – 61

“Provide a future EW capability sufficient to provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, denying, degrading, disrupting, or destroying the full spectrum of globally emerging communication systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependant on the electromagnetic spectrum.” [emphasis mine] – 61

“DPG [Defense Planning Guidance] 04 tasked USD (AT&L) [Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics], in coordination with the CJCS [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and Services, to develop recommendations to transform and extend EW capabilities, … to detect, locate and attack the full spectrum of globally emerging telecommunications equipment, situation awareness sensors and weapons engagement technologies operating within the electromagnetic spectrum.” [emphasis mine] – 59

Stealthy Platforms Above Your House

“Develop a coherent and comprehensive EW [Electronic Warfare] investment strategy for the architecture that… Pay particular attention to:

– (U) Projecting electronic attack into denied areas by means of stealthy platforms… As a matter of priority, accelerates joint development of modular EW payloads for the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.” [emphasis mine] – 62

It is interesting to see the mention of stealthy platforms like unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) because they are now patrolling both the Canadian and Mexican borders of the United States and will soon be patrolling the arctic. With funding supplied by Homeland Security, US police departments are also using UAVs to spy on the citizens below. A couple of examples are Sacramento, California and…

“one North Carolina county is using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air–close enough to identify faces–and many more uses, such as the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned.”

The Electronic Battlespace

“The ACTD [Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration] should examine a range of technologies including a network of unmanned aerial vehicles and miniaturized, scatterable public address systems for satellite rebroadcast in denied areas. It should also consider various message delivery systems, to include satellite radio and television, cellular phones and other wireless devices and the Internet.” [emphasis mine] – 65

“Exploits other transformational EW initiatives, including use of the E-Space Analysis Center to correlate and fuse all available data that creates a real time electronic battlespace picture.” [emphasis mine] – 62

How exactly do you create a real time electronic battlespace picture? And where exactly is the battlespace? A very similar statement was made in the Project for a New American Century document Rebuilding America’s Defenses published in September of 2000 (more about this document here and here.)

“New classes of sensors – commercial and military; on land, on and under sea, in the air and in space – will be linked together in dense networks that can be rapidly configured and reconfigured to provide future commanders with an unprecedented understanding of the battlefield.” – pg 59

An article written by Mark Baard from sheds some light on this subject.

“Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, and Providence, R.I. are among the cities partnering with private companies and the federal government to set up public broadband internet access. Providence used Homeland Security funds to construct a network for police, which may be made available to the public at a later date…”

“But even if the cities fail to complete their Wi-Fi projects, the military will be able to set up wireless networks within hours, perhaps even faster.”

“The DOD [Department of Defense], which is in the middle of joint urban war-games with Homeland Security and Canadian, Israeli and other international forces, is experimenting with Wi-Fi networks it can set up on the fly.”

“According to a recent DOD announcement for contractors, soldiers will be able to drop robots, called LANdroids… when they arrive in a city. The robots will then scurry off to position themselves, becoming nodes for a wireless communications network. (Click here to download a PDF of the DOD announcement.)”

“The Wi-Fi antennae dotting the urban landscape will serve not only as communications relays, but as transponders that can pinpoint the exact positions of of individual computers and mobile phones – a scenario I described in the Boston Globe last year.”

“In other words, where GPS loses site of a device (and its owner), Wi-Fi will pick up the trail.”

“The antennae will also relay orders to the brain-chipped masses, members of the British Ministry of Defense and the DOD believe.”


My next article will examine the Pentagon’s desire to “fight the net” as outlined in the Information Operation Roadmap. Also, I will examine the use of psychological operations or PSYOP and highlight the complete lack of limits to the use of all these information operations, be it on domestic American or foreign audiences.

Global Research Articles by Brent Jessop contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:

© Copyright Brent Jessop, Knowledge Driven, 2007
The url address of this article is:

Full Spectrum Information Warfare by Brent Jessop

There was once a man who didn’t believe in God… (The Goose Story)

Brendan wanting to be a goose

Image by Kurt and Sybilla via Flickr

Merry Christmas everyone! love, Lo

Dandelion Salad

(From a very good friend of mine, “Boot” via email.)

Author unknown
Dec. 24, 2007

There was once a man who didn’t believe in God, and he didn’t hesitate to let others know how he felt about religion and religious holidays.

His wife, however, did believe, and she raised their children to also have faith in God and Jesus, despite his disparaging comments. Continue reading

A Christmas Tale: Libertarianism, Paulism, & Fantasy by Fred Stopsky

by Fred Stopsky
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
December 24, 2007

A Christmas Tale: Libertarianism, Paulism, and Fantasy

Christmas is a time of fantasy and dreams. It is also a time when humans take pride in their relationship with other people and are proud to be part of the human community. During the past several months writing this blog, I continually encounter the Ron Paul/Libertarianism cohort who believe freedom entails being free of “coercive government” and a return to a time when people controlled their property and were free of nasty intrusions like income taxes and laws that said people had to behave in certain ways. So, this is my Christmas tale. Continue reading

New York Times bows to White House pressure over CIA tapes story by Bill Van Auken

Dandelion Salad

by Bill Van Auken
Global Research, December 23, 2007

The decision by the New York Times to bow to White House pressure and publish a correction of the sub-head on its December 19 story linking senior Bush advisors to the destruction of CIA torture tapes has been hailed by the Republican right—echoed by large sections of the media—as a major political victory.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, for example, headlined its story on the correction, “White House Slams New York Times Piece on Destroyed CIA Tapes,” while Murdoch’s main American print outlet, the New York Post, published a story with the headline “Times suffers a ‘head’ wound over CIA story.”

In interviewing Mark Mazzetti, one of the reporters who wrote the story for the Times, CNN’s John Roberts declared, “The White House tried to beat the stuffing out of you.”

At least for the moment, the cowardly climbdown by the Times has tended to overshadow the substance of the story itself, which points to the administration’s role in a criminal coverup of acts of torture that amount to war crimes.

The Times story established that at least four senior lawyers and White House advisors—Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s White House counsel and then attorney general; Harriet Miers, his successor in the counsel position; David Addington, counsel and then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney; and John Bellinger III, the National Security Council’s top lawyer—had participated in discussions on the tapes and their destruction.

The story also cited one former senior intelligence official, who stated that “there had been ‘vigorous sentiment’ among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes.”

Given their political record, there is every reason to believe that Gonzales and Addington were directly involved in the decision to destroy the tapes, in what amounted to criminal obstruction of justice, under conditions in which a federal court had ordered that all such evidence be preserved. They are both identified with the Bush administration’s contempt for the law and assertion of the most extreme interpretation of unilateral executive power.

Moreover, given that all four worked as the closest advisors to the president and vice president, it strains credulity to claim that Bush and Cheney were kept in the dark about the criminal action that they were discussing with the CIA.

This is the basis of the extreme sensitivity of the White House to the Times story. There is a potential—given a sharp shift in the political situation—that these revelations could lead to an unraveling of the administration and criminal prosecution of its leading figures, including Bush himself.

So a campaign was mounted to change the story by focusing on the offending second deck of the Times headline, which read, “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said.”

White House press secretary Dana Perino issued a written statement Wednesday morning claiming that the eight-word subhead implied “that the White House has been misleading in publicly acknowledging or discussing details related to the CIA’s decision to destroy interrogation tapes.”

The statement insisted that the White House press secretary, acting on the advice of the White House general counsel, had refused to comment publicly on the issue because of an ongoing investigation by the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General. In other words, the role of the White House could not be wider “than it said,” because Perino had refused to say anything.

“The New York Times’ inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story,” the statement declared.

It went on to criticize the paper for its “reliance on un-named sources and individuals lacking a full availability of the facts,” comparing this method unfavorably to what it portrayed as the more sensible method favored by the White House, the CIA and the Justice Department, “where facts can be gathered without bias or influence and later disseminated in an appropriate way.”

Later on Wednesday, the better part of the White House press briefing by Perino was given over to an exchange on the matter that frequently descended to the level of the absurd. Much of it consisted of Perino taking umbrage over what she claimed was the newspaper’s suggestion that she personally had “misled the American public.”

Her argument consisted of the assertion that only she could speak formally for the White House, and therefore to publish the subhead “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said” constituted a direct charge that she had either lied or changed her story. Instead, she insisted, she had refused to comment on the destruction of the tapes, as she continued to do during the press conference.

“I speak for the President and the White House,” Perino said at one point. “This says that I was misleading, and I was not.”

“It doesn’t say you,” a reporter responded. “It doesn’t say you at all…They didn’t specifically say its you. It’s talking about the White House, the administration in general.”

“I speak for the White House,” Perino reiterated. “I represent the White House.”

Asked why she was “taking it personally,” Perino responded: “It’s not a personal thing. The White House asked for a correction. And I would remind you, the New York Times is going to do one.” Thus ended the discussion.

As anyone with even a passing acquaintance with American politics knows, the phrase “White House” is routinely used—particularly in the enforced shorthand of newspaper headlines—to refer to the executive branch of the US government.

Whatever the intellectually challenged Ms. Perino did or did not say from her podium in the White House briefing room, administration officials had assured reporters that the White House had no significant involvement in the discussions that led to tapes’ destruction. That had now been exposed as a lie.

Therefore, there was nothing to retract in relationship to the headline, and instead of printing a correction, any newspaper genuinely committed to upholding its independence and defending first amendment rights in general would have told the administration to get lost and denounced the demand from Perino as a blatant attempt at political intimidation and censorship.

Instead, the Times quickly caved in to the White House’s attack, publicly announcing that it would print the retraction. In its Thursday edition, it stated that the headline referred “imprecisely to the White House’s position thus far on the matter.” The newspaper accepted the specious argument that “the White House itself has not officially said anything on the subject, so its role was not ‘wider than it said.’”

This revealing episode is only the latest in a long series of actions that have exposed the so-called “paper of record” as a willing and servile accomplice of the Bush administration.

It is worth recalling that in August 2002, precisely when Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were being waterboarded and subjected to other forms of torture at Guantanamo—acts filmed on the videotapes that we now know were destroyed—the Times published a feature article by its national security correspondent Eric Schmitt under the sarcastic headline, “There are ways to make you talk.” The article, based entirely on the assurance of US officials, told the Times’ readers that the interrogation methods being employed by the American military, CIA and FBI were all in strict compliance with the Geneva Conventions and that “torture is not an option.”

Needless to say, the Times’ editors felt no compunction to retract or correct this article, which has since been revealed as false and a whitewash of war crimes.

The incestuous relationship between the Times, known as the voice of America’s erstwhile liberal establishment, and the right-wing Republican administration was revealed most clearly in the newspaper’s handling of a story exposing the illegal warrantless wiretapping carried out by the National Security Agency against American citizens under Bush’s orders.

The Times reported the massive NSA spying operation in December 2005, acknowledging that it had—at the urging of the Bush administration—suppressed the story “for a year.” Only later did the newspaper’s public editor reveal that the discussions on squelching the exposé had actually unfolded in the weeks leading up to the November 2004 election.

The effect of the Times editors’ decision to stop the story’s publication was to deny American voters as they went to the polls the knowledge that the incumbent president was carrying out a massive abuse of power by spying on US citizens in violation of the law and the Constitution. It could well be argued that this act of self-censorship played a decisive role in Bush’s re-election.

It should be noted that the publication in the Times earlier this month of the original article on the destruction of the CIA videotapes came only after discussions with the government, the contents of which are unknown. The newspaper’s forewarning allowed CIA director Michael Hayden to have the first word on the destruction of the tapes, in which he sought to frame the decision as an entirely legal and necessary act.

There is no telling how long the Times sat on this story, but leading Democrats were aware of the tapes’ destruction at least as early as November 2006. They knew of the existence of the tapes themselves in 2003. There is every reason to suspect that the Times, which its myriad ties to the political establishment, had at least some knowledge of the story as well.

Then there is the paper’s long record of promoting the illegal war against Iraq, both in the disseminating false information about non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” by its former senior correspondent, the ideologically driven Judith Miller, and in the noxious opinion columns of its foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman.

The Times, as with the American media as a whole, has done everything it can to cover up the real brutality of the American occupation of Iraq. It helped to bury the story of the estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion—655,000 through June 2006—produced by the medical journal Lancet. It did not even report on a subsequent estimate by the British polling agency ORB, which put the number at 1.2 million.

This latest capitulation over the headline of the CIA tapes story is only one more verification of a fundamental trend: the disappearance of anything that could legitimately be described as a “fourth estate,” a genuinely independent media committed to the exposure of abuses of state power and the defense of the democratic rights of the population.

Instead the mass media, itself run by massive capitalist corporations, serves largely as a propaganda arm of the government and the ruling elite, suppressing and distorting information as needed and seeking to shape public opinion to conform to their interests. contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries:
© Copyright Bill Van Auken,, 2007
The url address of this article is:


9/11 Panel Study Finds That CIA Withheld Tapes By Mark Mazzetti

Former CIA analyst says evidence abounds for impeachment

Elizabeth Kucinich stands in for Dennis at UNH visit By Jason Claffey

Dandelion Salad

By Jason Claffey
Monday, December 24, 2007

DURHAM — As she ascended the stairs leading to the second floor of the Memorial Union Building at the University of New Hampshire, hands jammed in her olive-colored trench coat, long red hair falling over her shoulders, Elizabeth Kucinich and her entourage of campaign officials strode past dozens of students on their way to class or lunch.

Some students, who were either on their cell phone or lugging a bunch of books under their arm, turned their heads for a passing glance; others simply stared, as if to ask themselves, “Who’s that?”

She is the wife of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, and with her movie-star looks suggesting a taller Nicole Kidman, she would seem to make an appealing substitute for her husband simply because she can make people stop and stare.

But her educational resume — degrees in religious studies and international conflict analysis from the University of Kent in England, certificates in peace and reconciliation, experience with the American Monetary Institute — make her more than a jewel piece in Kucinich’s campaign, because she can talk the issues as well as her husband, as she proved Tuesday night during an hour-long discussion with about 20 students at a table in the Union Court lunch room.

Kucinich was supposed to speak about children’s issues at UNH but the Ohio Congressman had to stay in Washington for a war vote, so Elizabeth filled in.

Speaking in soft, measured tones as curious students gathered around, she spoke about her husband’s proposed policies — including cutting the Pentagon budget, starting government-funded environmental engineering programs, overturning the North American Free Trade Agreement and starting universal pre-kindergarten and college.

Those measured tones turned to visible anger when discussing the perception that Kucinich is an “unelectable” candidate.

“I get very frustrated on the presidential campaign when I hear people say to me, ‘You know, your husband, he’s perfect on the war, he’s perfect on the environment, he’s perfect on trade, he’s perfect on health care, he’s very strong, he’s always right on the issues, we love him, but … he’s unelectable.'”

“Well, he’s been elected for 40 years,” she said, referring Kucinich’s resume, which includes stints as Cleveland state senator, mayor and city councilor, and terms as a U.S. Congressman.

She said people shouldn’t vote based on what a candidates’ chances of getting elected are, they should vote for who they think is the best candidate.

“You here in New Hampshire have the most powerful opportunity to show the rest of the country exactly where your courage is,” she said. “When you understand what it would take to end all these unnecessary wars, to change the level of thinking in Washington, and to bring about economic and environmental sustainability, then you vote for it, you vote for your own self-interest.”

She described her husband’s “Strength through Peace” campaign slogan — a play on the conservative “Peace through Strength” phrase. Kucinich has said he will create a Department of Peace to help negotiate peace agreements around the world.

She said Kucinich would cut the Pentagon budget by 15 percent on what she called unnecessary weapons programs — “fat” — and pour the money into educational programs, like universal pre-kindergarten and college.

Another of Kucinich’s proposals is the Works Green Administration, modeled after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Works Project Administration. The WGA would be a large-scale, government-funded engineering program that would make the country’s infrastructure, like roads and bridges, more environmentally friendly. It would help retrofit homes with solar panels and wind power devices.

“The technologies are there to do that,” Elizabeth said.

On NAFTA, she said it has contributed to illegal immigrants entering the United States because it’s created “economic refugees.”

“When NAFTA was passed in the mid-90s, we were told that it would mean economic activity and increased production, jobs, benefits, etc.,” she said.

“(But) it opened the door for industries to leave and go to countries where they don’t uphold workers’ rights, they don’t uphold environmental policies, they don’t uphold human rights … it goes down to the corruption within those trade agreements.

“We need to cancel NAFTA, withdraw from the (World Trade Organization), and have trade that is based on workers rights, human rights and environmental quality controls,” she said.

Speaking to students about how she met Dennis, Elizabeth said she was working for the American Monetary Institute and saw him at a conference in 2005. It was instant love. She said the second time she saw him she knew she wanted to marry him.

“I hadn’t even Googled him yet,” she said.

Elizabeth, 30, who was born in England, worked her way through college as a nursing assistant, and has no loan debt.

“I didn’t drink. I hardly socialized,” she said.

One of the reasons she came to the U.S. was the experience of taking the final exam for her master’s degree in international conflict analysis. It happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Her class went ahead with the exam — one of the essays she wrote about was on terrorism. She ended up getting a “first,” the equivalent of an “A.”

Freshman Andrew Middleton, who sat in a chair right next to Elizabeth’s side for the discussion, said he was a little disappointed that the Ohio Congressman couldn’t make it to UNH.

“But this is a marvelous substitute,” he said. “I am just as enamored with her speech as I am with Dennis’ (speeches).”

Evan Shuman, a senior, asked Elizabeth questions about environmental programs, and received a compliment that certainly made his day. While shaking hands with Elizabeth after the sit-down, she told him he had “beautiful eyes.”

“All the other candidates are too big to take a moment out (like that),” Shuman said.

After the lunch room discussion, it was off to UNH’s Diamond Library museum, where Elizabeth was to view a political exhibit. She strode down an icy sidewalk on Main Street, head and shoulders above her campaign staff, students and media. She stopped to shake hands with a woman walking the other way, then made her way to the museum’s front entrance, where she would probably turn some more heads, and, she hopes, change some minds.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Dennis Kucinich Can Win by Lo

How to Vote in Primaries and Not Be an Idiot by David Swanson

Caucus for Kucinich!

3 New Polls: The Nation Poll + AOL Poll + Progressive Poll

Dandelion Salad

Anita Stewart

Who was the most valuable Progressive of 2007?

This is a straw poll being conducted on AOL!

The Progressive Poll:
VOTE NOW and put Dennis Kucinich in FIRST PLACE!


Kucinich Campaign Weekly Update 12-24-07 (video)

Dennis Kucinich Can Win by Lo

Kucinich Campaign Weekly Update 12-24-07 (video)

Dandelion Salad


Happy holidays from the Kucinich campaign!


Perry J. Kucinich, beloved brother 12/11/56 – 12/19/07

Winter Wonderland (wake up, this winter, take a stand!) by Davis Fleetwood (music video)

Being part of the solution: GOOD Congresspeople need support by Kathryn Smith

The results are in! Kucinich won in the IndependentPrimary.Com Poll

Dennis Kucinich Can Win by Lo

Elizabeth Kucinich on Dennis’ Presidential Campaign (videos)

3 New Polls: The Nation Poll + AOL Poll + Progressive Poll


Dennis 4 President

Dennis Kucinich for President – Contribute

Big Oils Profit and Plunder by Ralph Nader

Dandelion Salad

by Ralph Nader
Friday, December 21. 2007

While many impoverished American families are shivering in the winter cold for lack of money to pay the oil baron their exorbitant price for home heating oil, ex-oil man, George W. Bush sleeps in a warm White House and relishes his defeat of the Congressional attempt to get rid of $15 billion in unconscionable tax breaks given those same profit-glutted oil companies like ExxonMobil when crude oil was half the price it is today.

This is the same George W. Bush who, calling himself a “compassionate conservative” in October 2000 made this promise to the American people: “First and foremost, we’ve got to make sure we fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay for their high, high fuel bills.”

So what did this serial promise-breaker propose this year? Mr. Bush wanted to cut the fuel aid program by $379 million! This entire assistance program is funded at about half of the $5 billion that state governors and lawmakers believe is essential to meet the needs of the six million people eligible to apply for such help this year.

Everyone in Washington knows that the big, coddled, subsidized oil industry has many politicians over a barrel. When it comes to oily Bush and Cheney though, the global melting industry has these two indentured servants marinated in oil.

Look at what ending regulation of natural gas prices has produced: prices up 50 percent since last year. Home heating oil prices are up 30 percent. Bush’s own Energy Department estimates the rise of heating oil costs will impose an average increase of $375 for customers this winter. No way that supply and demand explains this gouge.

If a home dweller is too poor to order more than 100 gallons at a time, they get smacked with an extra surcharge of 60 to 70 cents per gallon for delivery.

Some states set aside some money. New York State will spend $25 million. Joe Kennedy and Citgo sell discounted heating oil, but that Venezuelan program is undergoing a reduction.

Efforts in Congress to impose a windfall-profits tax on the King Kong, record-profit-setting oil companies got nowhere.

Two years ago, efforts by Senator Charles Grassley (Rep. Iowa), then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, begging the major oil giants to slice off a tiny portion of their profits for charitable contributions toward energy assistance for the poor did not receive even the courtesy of a response.

I’ve asked members of Congress, including the Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus in the House of Representatives to take up this cause vigorously and prominently on behalf of their constituents back home. Have you heard any high-visibility demand from these veteran lawmakers? I haven’t.

Even Senator Grassley seems to have despaired.

Please note that ExxonMobil alone made $36 billion in profits last year. That’s one company profiting over seven times the amount of dollars needed for energy assistance. Greed, arrogance, callousness and far too much unaccountable power exists in Big Oil and in its White House.

Enforcing the antitrust laws and prohibiting organized speculators at the Mercantile Exchange from determining the price of an essential product like petroleum will bring prices down. But there is no action in the White House. No demand from the Congress.

Veteran free lance reporter, Lance Tapley has been reporting for The Portland Phoenix newspaper on the price bilking of recipients of energy assistance programs. For thirty years, he writes, the oil dealers have been charging the Maine state housing authority, which administers the LIHEAP program, higher prices than they set for their payment-plan customers, despite the large bulk purchasing by this housing authority.

Tapley severely criticizes the failure of Governor John Baldacci for not standing up for poor Maine people at the same time he promotes large subsidies for business and sells off state-owned assets at bargain-basement prices to corporations.

Mr. Tapley writes: “The heating oil crisis could be a big test in 2008 for Baldacci and the State House Democrats. The picture will not be pretty if elderly poor people freeze in their trailers while rich Republicans and professional-class Democrats snuggle up in their McMansions or old Colonials…but, with our Democrats, who needs Republicans?” (Contact Lance Tapley at

Some day, the tens of millions of poor people in America, most of them working poor, will be heard from. Until now, they have been exhausted, powerless, despairing, fearful and grasping for whatever crumbs fall off the table. History teaches us that such a subdued human condition does not continue indefinitely.

Call the White House switchboard (202-456-1414) and your member of Congress (Senate Information: 202-224-3121; House Information: 202-225-3121). Tell them not all these low-income Americans have been sent to oil rich Iraq. Many are here mourning their losses of and injuries to loved ones while they shiver in the cold.

Tell them to make those big oil CEOs making as much as $50,000 an hour to ante up.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


$70 billion more for the Terror War. Stand and Deliver: Democrats take a Bow by Chris Floyd

Bush Administration cuts $700 million in Medicaid funds for schools h/t: ICH

Write To Congress