Iraq

The Washington Post provides more information on the previously reported $300 million paid to private firms to propagandize Iraq over the next three years. The contractors will "produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to 'engage and inspire' the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government. ... The four companies that will share in the new contract are SOSi, the Washington-based Lincoln Group, Alexandria-based MPRI and Leonie Industries." Although U.S. law bans propagandizing domestic audiences, the contract lists "Iraqi, pan-Arabic, International, and U.S. audiences" as targets. One Pentagon official said information operations "helped in developing attitudes" against al-Qaeda in Iraq, and "could potentially be helpful" in minimizing Iran's influence. Another official admitted that Iraqi audiences rarely "know that the originator of the content is the U.S. government."

The managing editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, has admitted in a lengthy review of Bob Woodward's latest book that the Times failed to publish enough front-page articles questioning the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Midway through her 3,000-plus word review of "The War Within," Bob Woodward's latest book about George W. Bush's presidency, Abramson writes, "In 'Plan of Attack' Woodward acknowledges an error of his own: he admits he should have pushed The Washington Post to publish a front-page article about the flimsiness of the intelligence on W.M.D. I was Washington bureau chief for The Times while this was happening, and I failed to push hard enough for an almost identical, skeptical article, written by James Risen. This was a period when there were too many credulous accounts of the administration's claims about Iraq's W.M.D. (including some published in The Times and The Post)." Abramson admitted that at the time she "failed to grasp" the importance and the urgency of Risen's article.

The U.S. Defense Department has awarded its up to three-year, $300 million contract for "information operations" in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. There are four lucky firms: the Lincoln Group, which was outed in 2005 for planting U.S. military-written pieces in Iraqi newspapers; Leonie Industries, a woman-owned company that promises "access to seemingly impenetrable markets" around the world; SOS International, which in 2006 won a contract to monitor foreign media for coverage of the so-called Global War on Terrorism; and MPRI, a unit of L-3 Communications that won a contract in 2003 to involve former Iraqi soldiers in public works projects. The new PR push is "seen by the [U.S.] military as a means toward 'reconciliation' of the country and a way to foster support for Iraqi Security Forces from Iraqi civilians," reports O'Dwyer's.

Soldiers guarding pallets of money in IraqOver $13 billion that the U.S. sent to Iraq to pay for reconstruction projects has been wasted, stolen or diverted to al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to Salam Adhoob, a former chief investigator for Iraq's Commission on Public Integrity. Adhoob worked for the Commission for three years, where he oversaw 200 employees. He testified about the waste, fraud and diversion of U.S. funds before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. He told the panel that some of the investigations his and other agencies conducted uncovered "ghost projects" that never existed, or instances in which Iraqi and U.S. contractors did poor-quality work. In one case, Adhoob said that the U.S. had spent $24.4 million on an electricity project in Nineveh province, but that an oversight agency found that it "existed only on paper." He reported that he had a "firsthand, up-close look at corruption" and waste of U.S. funds, and that he eventually was forced to flee Iraq because of death threats.

Two years ago, public revulsion against the Bush Administration's unnecessary and disastrous attack and occupation of Iraq resulted in the Democratic Party taking control of the U.S. Congress. But Nancy Pelosi and the new political leadership backed down before President Bush and refused to withhold funding for the war, while rhetorically denouncing it and thus playing to anti-war voters. The liberal lobby group MoveOn spent tens of millions of dollars on anti-war advertisements and door-to-door canvassing events as part of its partisan campaign to blame the war on the Republicans, while letting Democrats off the hook for giving Bush all the money he wanted to continue the occupation into next year.

Today, as the 2008 election approaches, worry over Iraq has slipped down the public's list of concerns while more immediate economic issues and the spectacular collapse of the Wall Street investment banks take center stage. However, one anti-war organization has proven especially tenacious, independent and committed to immediately bringing home troops from Iraq and making good to the Iraqi people, while taking care of the soldiers who fought the war. That organization is the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) composed of more than thirteen hundred soldiers who have recently served or are still serving in the U.S. military.

Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush administration officials exaggerated what U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting about Iraqi weapons, according to Congressional investigations. But even before that exaggeration, the intelligence reports had been skewed by an administration eager for war, according to recently declassified documents. For example, the CIA's white paper on "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program" was supposedly based on the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). But drafts of the CIA paper existed in July 2002, "long before the NIE was even requested by Congress." There are few differences between the early draft and final paper, mostly made "to insert more charges" about Iraqi weapons activities, "or to sharpen them. ... Little of the text shows the kind of approach characteristic of intelligence analysis." An early draft of a September 2002 British paper on Iraqi weapons shows that its claims were also made "even more somber," suggesting that "the Bush administration and the Tony Blair government began acting in concert to build support for an invasion of Iraq two to three months earlier than previously understood." U.S. intelligence agencies' use of information from the anti-Saddam Hussein exile group Iraqi National Congress -- and their dismissal of more reliable sources saying there were no Iraqi WMDs -- "most likely flows directly from the prodding ... by high levels at the Pentagon and White House," concludes the National Security Archive.

Wounded Iraqi child (U.S. Army picture)The U.S. military is in the process of hiring a public relations firm to help it carry out "information operations" in Iraq, "to counter insurgent misinformation tactics." An Army public affairs officer said the goal of the work is to communicate "with people in Iraq in as many ways [as] possible what we're trying to do to help them, and what we're trying to do to prevent people from using these ruthless roadside bombs that blow up people in streets, in schools, and mosques." The one-year contract may be extended for up to three years and cost up to $300 million. "Public affairs executives speaking on background said the contract has elicited a lot of attention from Washington agencies because of its potential size," reports PR Week, "but that firms with previous experience working in dangerous, high-security environments in Iraq -- such as Lincoln Group, The Rendon Group and MPRI -- would have an inside track on winning the bid."

Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "Daily Show"An article in the New York Times asks whether Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's Daily Show has become the most trusted man in America, pointing out that his fake news comedy show has emerged in recent years as a "genuine cultural and political force." While 24-hour news networks like FOX, MSNBC and CNN have been pumping out infotainment-style news about topics like dead celebrities and sexual predators, the Daily Show has been critically tracking the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush Administration to increase the power of the executive branch. Stewart has proven to be a master at calling out government and corporate spin, hypocrisy and red herrings, and helping his audience see them, too. A 2008 study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism at the Pew Research Enter for the People and the Press found that the Daily Show has had an impact on American dialogue and that it is "getting people to think critically about the public square."

In a new book, Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Ron Suskind charges that in the autumn of 2003, the White House ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to forge and back-date a handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam Hussein, to fabricate a link between the Iraqi regime and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. In the book, The Way of the World, Suskind explains that the letter was to be backdated to July 2001, and say that "9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq -- thus showing finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq." White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto dismissed the charge, saying "Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence." Suskind also gave an interview about his book on National Public Radio.

A New York Daily News headline following the September 2001 anthrax attacksBruce Edwards Ivins, a top anthrax researcher at the U.S. Government's biological weapons research laboratories, died of an apparent suicide last Tuesday, just as the Justice Department was about to charge him with responsibility for the September 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people in the United States. Glenn Greenwald has written an important piece for Salon.com in which he demonstrates, with copious evidence, that a major government scandal lurks behind the anthrax story.

Ivins may have acted alone in carrying out the anthrax attacks. (I don't want to presume his guilt or anything else about this case until we see further details about the government's evidence against him.) However, Ivins most certainly did not act alone in falsifying information so the attacks could be used as a pretext for war.

"If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks," Greenwald writes, "then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks."