You remember the Lincoln Group? The guys the Pentagon paid tens of millions of dollars to pay-off Iraqi media and plant stories favorable to the U.S.?
The same guys The New York Times revealed to have lied about "partnerships with major media and advertising companies, former government officials with extensive Middle East experience, and ex-military officers with background in intelligence and psychological warfare" in order to receive those hefty contracts?
In short, just the kind of guys Bush, Cheney & Co. enjoys working with.
So it's hardly surprising – though completely outrageous – to read Walter Pincus' story in yesterday's Washington Post that the Lincoln Group has been handed a new "two-year, $12.4 million contract to handle strategic communications management…." Lincoln competed against seven other groups and was the lowest bidder "to help military commanders in Baghdad get what they consider the positive side of their operations in the news…."
At least one competitor might challenge the contract decision based on Lincoln's record. But when one considers Halliburton, Kellogg Brown and Root, Blackwater, Custer Battles, Bechtel and others… one can't be too terribly optimistic about the outcome of any appeal.
Pincus also notes that one day after the State Department poll revealed that the Iraqi people want U.S. forces to withdraw immediately and would feel safer if they did, the military now aims "to hire a private firm to conduct polling and focus groups in Iraq ‘to assess the effectiveness of operations as they relate to gaining and maintaining popular support.'"
Once again, the modus operandi of this administration is perfectly clear: if you don't like the news delivered (in this case, by the State Department), contract out to a hired gun (or Rummy). And if you don't like the news reported by Iraqis, hire the Lincoln Group.
And if you don't like the twisted thinking of this sick bunch, vote Democrat in November. It's the only way we will achieve any oversight of this continuing debacle in Iraq.
Just how bad was the legislation on military detainees, aka the torture bill, that passed the House on Wednesday and the Senate last night?
Read what the Washington Post had to say about it, under the headline "Many Rights in US Legal System Absent in New Bill":
"Included in the bill...are unique rules that bar terrorism suspects from challenging their detention or treatment through traditional habeas corpus petitions. They allow prosecutors, under certain conditions, to use evidence collected through hearsay or coercion to seek criminal convictions.
The bill rejects the right to a speedy trial and limits the traditional right to self-representation by requiring that defendants accept military defense attorneys. Panels of military officers need not reach unanimous agreement to win convictions, except in death penalty cases, and appeals must go through a second military panel before reaching a federal civilian court.
By writing into law for the first time the definition of an 'unlawful enemy combatant,' the bill empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have 'purposefully and materially' supported anti-U.S. hostilities. Only foreign nationals among those detainees can be tried by the military commissions, as they are known, and sentenced to decades in jail or put to death.
At the same time, the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. It gives the president a dominant but not exclusive role in setting the rules for future interrogations of terrorism suspects."
The legislation contains so many possibly unconstitutional provisions that one human rights expert called it "a full-employment act for lawyers."
At a gathering I attended in the remote mountains of eastern Washington state this week -- a breathtakingly beautiful region of the country -- people were discussing actions they could take to promote a "Fair Share for Health Care" law. Someone had a wonderful idea: a job fair in the Wal-Mart parking lot, urging Wal-Mart workers to quit and become unionized home health care workers instead. If more unions representing health care workers did this, everyone would benefit. The former Wal-Mart workers would end up with better benefits, the unions would gain more members, and Wal-Mart would finally face a problem that could inspire change: a workforce with better options. When workers have no exit strategy, a company has no reason to improve their conditions; if they start leaving in large numbers for better jobs, that's another story. (Given the nursing shortage, nurses' unions and nursing schools should be doing the same thing.)
The public would win, too, because home health care workers are badly needed. A report released this week by the Caregiving Project for Older Americans warns of a coming "caregiver crisis" ; as baby boomers age, the nation is expected to face a "severe and worsening" shortage of professional caregivers to look after them ( and because of demographics, the pool of family members able to provide care will also shrink). Japan, Austria and Germany have all adapted to their aging populations by adopting universal long-term care systems; the United States, by contrast, has no system in place, no plan to provide care that most families can afford, and not enough workers. Baby boomers should use their numbers and political savvy to advocate for solutions to this problem -- before they get too old and sick for political activism. And the labor movement should take notice of this situation's potential; a worker shortage always provides opportunities for greater justice.
Over the next week, pro-choice activists across the United States will hold potluck fundraisers to fight South Dakota's draconian abortion bill. The legislation, HB-1215, was signed into law last March by Governor Mike Rounds to the delight of the anti-choice movement, and calls for a near-complete ban on abortions with no exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or for the health of the mother.
The law is not designed to minimize abortions (there are fewer than 1,000 abortions per year in South Dakota). Rather, the real aim is to ignite a nationwide effort to challenge Roe v Wade and advance an ideological agenda that includes limiting access to emergency contraception and abstinence-only sex education in public schools.
Fortunately, this heavy-handed approach has set off a backlash, and on May 30, some 38,416 signatures from South Dakota voters were delivered to the State Legislature asking for a vote on the matter. Now verified, these signatures put the future of the abortion ban up for grabs on November 8 when a statewide referendum ("Referred Law 6") will determine whether the law goes into effect.
A flood of rightwing money is flowing into the state for anti-choice advertising in support of Referred Law 6. That's where the potlucks come in. StandUpSD.com, a nationwide campaign to repeal South Dakota's abortion ban sponsored by Planned Parenthood (which operates the only two clinics in the state performing abortions), is using the dinners to raise counter-funds. There are currently more than 300 potluck events planned in 38 states -- from Belfast, ME, to Davenport, IA, to Arcata, CA. The dinner themes range from turkey fries to luaus to pizza parties, with events being held in churches and synagogues, backyards, parks, homes and sororities.
Click here to see if there's a potluck near you, sign on to StandupSD's petition to Governor Rounds, volunteer to go to South Dakota to work with PP before the election, learn about and support South Dakota's progressive women candidates, and click here to tell everyone you know that you're joining the fight now before anti-choice extremists advance their cause to your state. According to a new Zogby report released on September 28, polls show the referendum in a statistical heat with opponents of the ban leading by a slim margin of 47 to 44 percent. So in this fight every little bit really does help.
It's do or die time for California Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides -- but he's mostly dying. With just a handful of weeks to go in the re-election race of Governor Schwarzenegger, new polls show Angelides trailing by as much as 17%.
Next week is the only televised debate of the campaign and most observers believe that if Angelides doesn't land some sort of knock-out punch he will be doomed for defeat in November. The new polls show that while Arnold has sewn up Republican support, Angelides is attracting only about 3 out of 5 California Democrats. Independents, meanwhile, are tilting toward the incumbent.
Some California unions, including the prison guards, teachers, and service employees have just rolled out a multi-million TV ad campaign slamming the Governator as too conservative to govern one of the bluest states in the union. And Angelides has come up with a new campaign tack of calling for the withdrawal of California National Guard troops from the conflict in Iraq.
But nothing seems to be slowing Arnold's momentum. He has made recent deals with the Democratic legislature on raising the minimum wage, lowering prescription drug prices and has just signed the most advanced anti-Global Warming legislation in the country.
Angelides' slumping campaign is now beginning to worry other California Democrats. Could his stall-out depress Democratic turn-out and in November and erode the chances of other down-ballot candidates? Worried Democrats want to know.
UPDATE: The Senate passed legislation a few hours ago that endorsed President George W. Bush's plan to prosecute and interrogate terrorism suspects. The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end to be signed into law. The House of Representatives passed almost identical legislation on Wednesday by 253-168 and was expected to endorse the Senate bill on Friday, then ship it to the White House.
The bill--which was opposed by humans rights rights groups and a majority of the legal profession--would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects, would grant the president flexibility to decide what interrogation techniques are permissible and generally, "Give the executive branch a tremendous amount of unfettered power to detain people who otherwise are here in the United States lawfully," according to CBS legal analyst David Cohen. Our only hope now to live in a land where the President can't decide to torture someone is the Supreme Court. But don't hold your breath.
I don't mean to go all torture, all the time, but as the inimitable Molly Ivins wrote today, "With a smug stroke of his pen, President Bush is set to wipe out a safeguard against illegal imprisonment that has endured as a cornerstone of legal justice since the Magna Carta" was codified in 1215.
Yesterday, the House passed GOP compromise detainee legislation which would strip terror detainees of basic legal rights, but there's still time to call the Senate about bill S.3930--IF you act immediately. The deal President Bush struck with Congress is a betrayal of the best of America and would make this country a distinctly less democratic place. No citizen should remain on the sidelines in the days ahead.
As an important Amnesty International alert summarizes, this new legislation, only days away from being passed, would abandon the rule of law and give the President the freedom to interpret the Geneva Conventions any way he sees fit; would provide immunity to those responsible for past human rights abuses, would exempt from prosecution those who authorize treatment traditionally considered torture and would deprive detainees of access to US courts.
It's not too melodramatic to say that the soul of our nation could be in jeopardy. Much of what we're meant to believe in is on the line. And it's not only a question of morality and democracy--there's also self-interest, as many retired military brass have been saying of late. If America renounces the Geneva Conventions like President Bush has proposed, nations all over the world will likely follow. The result: American soldiers will be placed in greater threat of torture when captured, not just by one or two rogue nations, but by numerous countries around the world.
Click here for contact info to implore your Senators to resist S.3930 and oppose this attempted rollback of democracy today. Or call 1-800-AMNESTY and an operator will connect you to the appropriate Congressional office. Let the person on the phone know that you are a constituent, that you think the deal President Bush has struck is a betrayal of the America you believe in, and that you expect your Senator to stand firm in defense of human rights.
Okay, it wasn't on the front page of my hometown paper, but maybe it should have been. How many of you remember the fun folks at the Lincoln Group, an outfit that bills itself as "a strategic communications & pubic relations firm providing insight & influence in challenging & hostile environments." You said it! And the last time around, on a $5 million-plus yearly Pentagon contract to produce a little good news in Iraq, they did a great job of adding to the general hostility of several environments.
Using US military personnel to write "news" stories, they had them translated and (for a price) slipped into the new "free" Iraqi press. It was a fine lesson in the spread of democratic habits, Bush-style. (After all, the same administration was paying columnists at home to slip a little of that good news our way.) The Lincoln Group's modus operandi blew up into a little scandal. The result? According to Rebecca Santana of the Associated Press, based on the Brownie-you're-doing-a-heck-of-a-job school of government -- what US military spokesperson in Iraq, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, simply terms a "standard contracting process" -- they're back for more. The Group just got a new, two-year, approximately $6.2 million annual Pentagon contract "to monitor a number of English and Arabic media outlets and produce public relations-type products such as talking points or speeches for U.S. forces in Iraq." A Lincoln Group spokesman put it eloquently: They are "proud to be trusted to assist the multinational forces in Iraq with communicating news about their vital work."
Who knows exactly what this means, but it can't be good.
Still, using the same principle on which the Bush administration awarded the new contract -- if at first you don't succeed, try, definitely try again (and spend an absolute boodle on your cronies in the process), let me, for five cents, offer some advice of my own. After all, I've been monitoring the press for a while and military spokespeople as well.
Now, we all know that imagery is important in the process of producing "public relations-type products" that will turn the tide of the media war (especially here at home). So, here are some images and claims that have worked -- for a while, at least -- these last years. They may still be useful for military spokespeople eager to put the best twist on a situation that was, from the beginning, twisting, twisting in the wind:
*Suggest that you want to help the Iraqi child get on that bike of democracy and remove "the training wheels"
*Insist that we are working to "put an Iraqi face on" [choose an Iraqi event]
*[Choose an Iraqi moment or event, but do it quickly before things go sour] and label it a "milestone" or a "landmark"
*Suggest that, thanks to [choose your event], we are finally "turning a corner" (but don't look around that corner, not without body armor anyway)
*Suggest that [choose your enemy method of attack], these are "last ditch efforts" aimed at "bolstering flagging insurgent moral"; speak of whatever disaster has just happened as "predictable" or "an indicator of insurgent desperation"
*Claim that [whatever bad stats may be spiking at the moment] will probably decline in [choose another moment perhaps three to six months away]
*Assert that however bad the news may seem, "we" are "making progress" in certain areas (about which you can remain suitably vague)
But above all, retain anonymity. Insist on being called a "senior military official." You don't want to be held responsible for the ensuing mess.
Now, that'll be $6.2 million dollars, please...
As Congress has debated legislation that would set up military tribunals and govern the questioning of suspected terrorists (whom the Bush administration would like to be able to detain indefinitely), at issue has been what interrogation techniques can be employed and whether information obtained during torture can be used against those deemed unlawful enemy combatants. One interrogation practice central to this debate is waterboarding. It's usually described in the media in a matter-of-fact manner. The Washington Post simply referred to waterboarding a few days ago as an interrogation measure that "simulates drowning." But what does waterboarding look like?
You can see here. Jonah Blank, an anthropologist and foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff of the US Senate, was in Cambodia last month and came across an actual waterboard at a former prison turned into a museum that chronicles the horrors of the Khmer Rouge regime. Blank took photos of the waterboard and a painting depicting its use. I cannot post photos in this space, but I've published his photos on my own blog at www.davidcorn.com.
Go there for Blank's photos and commentary. As he notes,
These photos are important because most of us have never seen an actual, real-life waterboard. The press typically describes it in the most anodyne ways: a device meant to "simulate drowning" or to "make the prisoner believe he might drown." But the Khymer Rouge were no jokesters, and they didn't tailor their abuse to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. They--like so many brutal regimes--made waterboarding one of their primary tools for a simple reason: it is one of the most viciously effective forms of torture ever devised.
Legislation backed by Bush and congressional Republicans would Congressional would explicitly permit the use of evidence obtained through waterboarding and other forms of torture. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and other top al Qaeda leaders have reportedly been subjected to this technique. They would certainly note--or try to note--that at any trial. But with this legislation, the White House is seeking to declare the use of waterboarding (at least in the past) as a legitimate practice of the US government.
The House of Representatives voted for Bush's bill on Thursday, 253 to 168 (with 34 Democrats siding with the president and only seven Republicans breaking with their party's leader). The Senate is expected to vote on the bill today. Its members should consider Blank's photos and arguments before they, too, go off the deep end.
INFO ON HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR: Tom Brokaw says "Hubris, the new best-seller by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For more information on Hubris, click here.
Recently, I wrote an article for the magazine -- sorry, it's not available on the web unless you subscribe -- on Wal-Mart's recent decision to become a major player in the organic food business. The Cornucopia Institute, a progressive group that advocates for family-scale farming, released a report today showing that an "organic Wal-Mart" may indeed be more Mean than Green.
According to the report, the company has a contract to source milk from Aurora Organic Dairy, which is one of the worst industrial organic offenders -- using cattle confined in feedlots, with little if any access to pasture. Aurora is also being investigated for a number of other violations of the organic standards. While there are plenty of problems with milk sold by Horizon (also available at Wal-Mart) at least Horizon gets about half of its milk from family-scale farms; Aurora's is 100% factory farm.
Cornucopia also reports that Wal-Mart is indeed, as many observers predicted, sourcing some of its organic products from China -- canned chick peas and other beans, for example. This could certainly be good for the Chinese, as the demand may cause many acres of conventional farmland to go organic, cleaning up the surrounding groundwater and soil. But it's also troubling because shipping products such a distance, when they could be grown locally, is a waste of energy, and exacts a formidable toll on the ozone layer; such a practice hardly meets the ideal of sustainability that many customers are seeking when they look for that organic label. Cornucopia also found that Wal-Mart was selling two brands of "organic" infant formula containing synthetic additives that have not yet been reviewed by the National Organic Standards Board, and that have been processed with hexane, a scary neurotoxin.
In other Wal-Mart news, the company is trying to counter its political troubles -- from site fights to "Fair Share" laws to living wage ordinances -- through "voter education" within its own workforce. Of course the company insists that the information it's giving workers is nonpartisan, but in fact, very few of the politicians that publicly criticize the company are Republican, and the company is clearly responding to recent attacks by Democrats hoping to rally their base. A Wal-Mart department manager -- who wished to remain anonymous -- told me the other day that it might backfire. "Oh, of course they want us to vote Republican," she explains, "but you know, I have been talking to some associates and just the mere fact that Wal-Mart is trying to coerce them... is making them vote the other way."
"All three of the most commonly purchased electronic systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities," says a report by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.
As Katrina notes today, e-voting machines are not the only obstacle facing voters on election day. But they remain a major one.
That's why Senators Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold introduced the "Confidence in Voting Act" to ensure that paper ballots are available at every polling place.
Governor Robert Ehrlich of Maryland, a Republican, last week endorsed the paper ballot alternative, concluding after the primaries that his state's new $106 million electronic system wasn't up to the test.
There are only two days left before Congress adjourns and members spend the rest of their time campaigning for re-election.
You can click here to urge Congress to take up the emergency legislation before it's too late.