Four journalists shot dead in Iraq

sHOCKING? Maybe, but there is more shocking news! Like the US Propaganda White Paper written to sell the War On Iraqis! Written by the PNAC Cartel!

The last two paragraphs are the evidence of the planned Murder of the al-Jazzera Reporters, by the US Government!




Inter Press Service News Agency Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:40 GMT





US/IRAQ:
'Pentagon Moved to Fix Iraqi Media Before Invasion'

Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, May 9 (IPS) - In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon planned to create a 'Rapid Reaction Media Team' (RRMT) designed to ensure control over major Iraqi media while providing an Iraqi 'face' for its efforts, according to a �White Paper' obtained by the independent National Security Archive (NSA) which released it Tuesday.

The partially redacted, three-page document was accompanied by a longer power point presentation that included a proposed six-month, 51 million-dollar budget for the RRMT operation, apparently the first phase in a one-to-two-year �'strategic information campaign''.

Among other items, the budget called for the hiring of two U.S. �'media consultants'' who were to be paid 140,000 dollars each for six months' work. A further 800,000 dollars were to be paid for six Iraqi �'media consultants over the same period.

Both the paper and the slide presentation were prepared by two Pentagon offices — Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, which, among other things, specialise in psychological warfare, and the Office of Special Plans under then undersecretary of defence for policy, Douglas Feith — in mid-January, 2003, two months before the invasion, according to NSA analyst Joyce Battle.

�'The RRMT concept focuses on USG-UK pre-and post hostilities efforts to develop programming, train talent, and rapidly deploy a team of U.S./UK media experts with a team of �hand selected' Iraqi media experts to communicate immediately with the Iraqi public opinion upon liberation of Iraq,'' according to the paper.

The �'hand-picked'' Iraqi experts, according to the paper, would provide planning and programme guidance for the U.S. experts and help �'select and train the Iraqi broadcasters and publishers (�the face') for the USG/coalition sponsored information effort.'' USG is an abbreviation for U.S. government.

�'It will be as if, after another day of deadly agit-prop, the North Korean people turned off their TVs at night, and turned them on in the morning to find the rich fare of South Korean TV spread before them as their very own,'' the paper enthused, adding that �'a re-constituted free Iraqi domestic media can serve as a model in the Middle East where so much Arab hate-media are themselves equivalent to weapons of mass destruction.''

Whether the plan was implemented as described in the paper is not clear, although the NSA Tuesday also released an audit by the Pentagon’s Inspector-General regarding two dozen, mostly non-competitive contracts totalling 122.5 million dollars awarded by the defence department to three defence contractors that carried out media-related activities in Iraq after the invasion.

The contractors included the Rendon Group and Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) which received a 25 million-dollar contract to create an Iraqi Media Network whose aims appear to be roughly consistent with those laid out in the White Paper, but which largely fell apart after about six months as a result of alleged incompetence and infighting.

SAIC is the same company that hired World Bank communications staffer Shaha Ali Riza at the reported behest of then deputy defence secretary (now World Bank President) Paul Wolfowitz with whom she was romantically involved. Riza worked for SAIC from March to May, 2003, as part of a �'Democracy and Governance'' team.

The third company covered by the audit is the five-year-old Lincoln Group which, among other activities, has reportedly paid millions of dollars to Iraqi newspapers to publish pro-U.S. articles since the invasion.

The RRMT was conceived as a â��'quick start bridge'' between Iraq’s state-controlled media network and an â��'Iraqi Free Media'' which the White Paper’s authors described as the long-term goal of the programme.

�'After the cessation of hostilities, having professional US-trained Iraqi media teams immediately in place to portray a new Iraq (by Iraqis for Iraqis) with hopes for a prosperous, democratic future, will have a profound psychological and political impact on the Iraqi people,'' according to the paper.

�'The mission will be to inform the Iraqi public about USG/coalition intent and operations, to stabilise Iraq (especially preventing the trifurcation of Iraq after hostilities and to provide Iraqis hope for their future,'' it went on, noting that the RRMT will immediately �'collocate and interface with the designated CENTCOM commander in Baghdad, and begin broadcasting and printing approved USG information to the Iraqi public.'' CENTCOM stands for U.S. Central Command.

The paper lays out a number of �'major tasks'' needed to set up the RRMT and its operations and to �'translate USG policy and thematic guidance into information campaign (news and entertainment).''

Among the â��'themes and messages'' to be communicated, the Paper ranked first â��'the De-Baathification programme'', followed by â��'recent history telling (e.g., â��Uncle Saddam,' History Channel’s â��Saddam’s Bomb-Maker,' â��Killing Fields, etc.); USG-approved â��Democracy Series'; â��'Environmental (Marshlands re-hydration)''; â��'Mine Awareness''; â��'Re-starting the Oil''; â��'Justice and rule of law topics''; and â��'War Criminals/Truth Commission.''

The plan also listed several related themes to be stressed in programming, including â��'political prisoners and atrocity interviews'', â��'Saddam’s palaces and opulence,'' and â��'WMD (weapons of mass destruction) disarmament.''

As for �'Entertainment and News Magazine programming, the plan listed at the top �'Hollywood'', followed by �'News networks''; �'Arab country donations''; and �'Sports''.

The plan also called for the production of �''on-the-shelf programming'' during the first month of the occupation, a process that included obtaining the rights to pre-existing programmes, producing new programmes, securing translations if produced in another language; and preparing print products, including the �'first edition of the new Iraq weekly newspaper (with section for missing persons, Shia news, Kurd news, and Sunni news, etc.)''

All but two million dollars of the total budget was to be devoted to media infrastructure and operating costs, including transmitters and studios for both radio and television and microwave links and repeaters.

The power point presentation called for the RRMT to �'identify and vet Iraqi media experts and �anchors', and train a group of Iraqi journalists to staff the new networks.

The RRMT should also �'identify the media infrastructure that we need left intact, and work with CENTCOM targeteers to find alternative ways of disabling key sites,'' including, presumably, those media outlets whose messages were not consistent with the themes the Pentagon wished to convey.

â��'Evidently, the Baghdad headquarters of the Arab satellite network â��al-Jazeera was not part of â��the media infrastructure that we need left intact,''' noted the NSA’s Battle, who pointed to the Apr. 8, 2003 U.S. missile attack that hit the network’s Baghdad bureau, killing reporter Tariq Ayoub. The Pentagon had been extensively briefed on the bureau’s location before the invasion, and the offices were well-marked as a â��'TV'' facility.

Al-Jazeera’s Kabul bureau which was located in a downtown office building was also destroyed by two â��'smart bombs'' during the U.S. air campaign in Afghanistan in late 2001. In April, 2004, during an extended battle covered by al-Jazeera — for Fallujah, Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush suggested attacking the network’s Qatar headquarters during a meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, according to leaked notes of the talks. (FIN/2007)




Contact Us | About Us | Subscription | Help us Improve | News in RSS | Mobile
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.

Uncle toms and pundits are your only words. Your brain is infested with worms. Stop making up all these stories because we all know youre full of shit.

Control the press control the news and you have control

Unregistered;26516:
sHOCKING? Maybe, but there is more shocking news! Like the US Propaganda White Paper written to sell the War On Iraqis! Written by the PNAC Cartel!

The last two paragraphs are the evidence of the planned Murder of the al-Jazzera Reporters, by the US Government!




Inter Press Service News Agency Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:40 GMT





US/IRAQ:
'Pentagon Moved to Fix Iraqi Media Before Invasion'

Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, May 9 (IPS) - In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon planned to create a 'Rapid Reaction Media Team' (RRMT) designed to ensure control over major Iraqi media while providing an Iraqi 'face' for its efforts, according to a �White Paper' obtained by the independent National Security Archive (NSA) which released it Tuesday.

The partially redacted, three-page document was accompanied by a longer power point presentation that included a proposed six-month, 51 million-dollar budget for the RRMT operation, apparently the first phase in a one-to-two-year �'strategic information campaign''.

Among other items, the budget called for the hiring of two U.S. �'media consultants'' who were to be paid 140,000 dollars each for six months' work. A further 800,000 dollars were to be paid for six Iraqi �'media consultants over the same period.

Both the paper and the slide presentation were prepared by two Pentagon offices — Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, which, among other things, specialise in psychological warfare, and the Office of Special Plans under then undersecretary of defence for policy, Douglas Feith — in mid-January, 2003, two months before the invasion, according to NSA analyst Joyce Battle.

�'The RRMT concept focuses on USG-UK pre-and post hostilities efforts to develop programming, train talent, and rapidly deploy a team of U.S./UK media experts with a team of �hand selected' Iraqi media experts to communicate immediately with the Iraqi public opinion upon liberation of Iraq,'' according to the paper.

The �'hand-picked'' Iraqi experts, according to the paper, would provide planning and programme guidance for the U.S. experts and help �'select and train the Iraqi broadcasters and publishers (�the face') for the USG/coalition sponsored information effort.'' USG is an abbreviation for U.S. government.

�'It will be as if, after another day of deadly agit-prop, the North Korean people turned off their TVs at night, and turned them on in the morning to find the rich fare of South Korean TV spread before them as their very own,'' the paper enthused, adding that �'a re-constituted free Iraqi domestic media can serve as a model in the Middle East where so much Arab hate-media are themselves equivalent to weapons of mass destruction.''

Whether the plan was implemented as described in the paper is not clear, although the NSA Tuesday also released an audit by the Pentagon’s Inspector-General regarding two dozen, mostly non-competitive contracts totalling 122.5 million dollars awarded by the defence department to three defence contractors that carried out media-related activities in Iraq after the invasion.

The contractors included the Rendon Group and Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) which received a 25 million-dollar contract to create an Iraqi Media Network whose aims appear to be roughly consistent with those laid out in the White Paper, but which largely fell apart after about six months as a result of alleged incompetence and infighting.

SAIC is the same company that hired World Bank communications staffer Shaha Ali Riza at the reported behest of then deputy defence secretary (now World Bank President) Paul Wolfowitz with whom she was romantically involved. Riza worked for SAIC from March to May, 2003, as part of a �'Democracy and Governance'' team.

The third company covered by the audit is the five-year-old Lincoln Group which, among other activities, has reportedly paid millions of dollars to Iraqi newspapers to publish pro-U.S. articles since the invasion.

The RRMT was conceived as a â��'quick start bridge'' between Iraq’s state-controlled media network and an â��'Iraqi Free Media'' which the White Paper’s authors described as the long-term goal of the programme.

�'After the cessation of hostilities, having professional US-trained Iraqi media teams immediately in place to portray a new Iraq (by Iraqis for Iraqis) with hopes for a prosperous, democratic future, will have a profound psychological and political impact on the Iraqi people,'' according to the paper.

�'The mission will be to inform the Iraqi public about USG/coalition intent and operations, to stabilise Iraq (especially preventing the trifurcation of Iraq after hostilities and to provide Iraqis hope for their future,'' it went on, noting that the RRMT will immediately �'collocate and interface with the designated CENTCOM commander in Baghdad, and begin broadcasting and printing approved USG information to the Iraqi public.'' CENTCOM stands for U.S. Central Command.

The paper lays out a number of �'major tasks'' needed to set up the RRMT and its operations and to �'translate USG policy and thematic guidance into information campaign (news and entertainment).''

Among the â��'themes and messages'' to be communicated, the Paper ranked first â��'the De-Baathification programme'', followed by â��'recent history telling (e.g., â��Uncle Saddam,' History Channel’s â��Saddam’s Bomb-Maker,' â��Killing Fields, etc.); USG-approved â��Democracy Series'; â��'Environmental (Marshlands re-hydration)''; â��'Mine Awareness''; â��'Re-starting the Oil''; â��'Justice and rule of law topics''; and â��'War Criminals/Truth Commission.''

The plan also listed several related themes to be stressed in programming, including â��'political prisoners and atrocity interviews'', â��'Saddam’s palaces and opulence,'' and â��'WMD (weapons of mass destruction) disarmament.''

As for �'Entertainment and News Magazine programming, the plan listed at the top �'Hollywood'', followed by �'News networks''; �'Arab country donations''; and �'Sports''.

The plan also called for the production of �''on-the-shelf programming'' during the first month of the occupation, a process that included obtaining the rights to pre-existing programmes, producing new programmes, securing translations if produced in another language; and preparing print products, including the �'first edition of the new Iraq weekly newspaper (with section for missing persons, Shia news, Kurd news, and Sunni news, etc.)''

All but two million dollars of the total budget was to be devoted to media infrastructure and operating costs, including transmitters and studios for both radio and television and microwave links and repeaters.

The power point presentation called for the RRMT to �'identify and vet Iraqi media experts and �anchors', and train a group of Iraqi journalists to staff the new networks.

The RRMT should also �'identify the media infrastructure that we need left intact, and work with CENTCOM targeteers to find alternative ways of disabling key sites,'' including, presumably, those media outlets whose messages were not consistent with the themes the Pentagon wished to convey.

â��'Evidently, the Baghdad headquarters of the Arab satellite network â��al-Jazeera was not part of â��the media infrastructure that we need left intact,''' noted the NSA’s Battle, who pointed to the Apr. 8, 2003 U.S. missile attack that hit the network’s Baghdad bureau, killing reporter Tariq Ayoub. The Pentagon had been extensively briefed on the bureau’s location before the invasion, and the offices were well-marked as a â��'TV'' facility.

Al-Jazeera’s Kabul bureau which was located in a downtown office building was also destroyed by two â��'smart bombs'' during the U.S. air campaign in Afghanistan in late 2001. In April, 2004, during an extended battle covered by al-Jazeera — for Fallujah, Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush suggested attacking the network’s Qatar headquarters during a meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, according to leaked notes of the talks. (FIN/2007)




Contact Us | About Us | Subscription | Help us Improve | News in RSS | Mobile
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.

See thats the problem the enemy controls the news coming out of Iraq and is doing a good job with propaganda inside Iraq.
They have even managed to convice people that eveyone that is killed at the hands of terrorists is still the fault of the US.
You are a perfect example of someone with no clue that believes anything bad or improper about the US no matter how cooked or phoney it might be is the Gospel.

How does it feel to be an enemy propagandist POS?
Had a nice knock and talk yet or are you still just on the watch list?

The Ideological War Within the West

Volume 3, Number 6
May 2002

by John Fonte


John Fonte is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. This piece is adapted from his article, “Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism," which will appear in the Summer 2002 issue of Orbis, and is based on a presentation made last fall to FPRI’s Study Group on America and the West, chaired by James Kurth.

Nearly a year before the September 11 attacks, news stories provided a preview of the transnational politics of the future. In October 2000, in preparation for the UN Conference Against Racism, about fifty American nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) called on the UN “to hold the United States accountable for the intractable and persistent problem of discrimination."

The NGOs included Amnesty International-U.S.A. (AI-U.S.A.), Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Arab-American Institute, National Council of Churches, the NAACP, the Mexican- American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and others. Their spokesman stated that their demands “had been repeatedly raised with federal and state officials [in the U.S.] but to little effect. In frustration we now turn to the United Nations." In other words, the NGOs, unable to enact the policies they favored through the normal processes of American constitutional democracy — the Congress, state governments, even the federal courts — appealed to authority outside of American democracy and its Constitution.

At the UN Conference against Racism, which was held in Durban two weeks before September 11, American NGOs supported “reparations” from Western nations for the historic transatlantic slave trade and developed resolutions that condemned only the West, without mentioning the larger traffic in African slaves sent to Islamic lands. The NGOs even endorsed a resolution denouncing free market capitalism as a “fundamentally flawed system."

The NGOs also insisted that the U.S. ratify all major UN human rights treaties and drop legal reservations to treaties already ratified. For example, in 1994 the U.S. ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), but attached reservations on treaty requirements restricting free speech that were “incompatible with the Constitution." Yet leading NGOs demanded that the U.S. drop all reservations and “comply” with the CERD treaty by accepting UN definitions of “free speech” and eliminating the “vast racial disparities_in every aspect of American life” (housing, health, welfare, justice, etc.).

HRW complained that the U.S. offered “no remedies” for these disparities but “simply supported equality of opportunity” and indicated “no willingness to comply” with CERD. Of course, to “comply” with the NGO interpretation of the CERD treaty, the U.S. would have to abandon the Constitution’s free speech guarantees, bypass federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule — since practically nothing in the NGO agenda is supported by the American electorate.

All of this suggests that we have not reached the final triumph of liberal democracy proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama in his groundbreaking 1989 essay.


Post-September 11

In October 2001, Fukuyama stated that his “end of history” thesis remained valid: that after the defeat of communism and fascism, no serious ideological competitor to Western- style liberal democracy was likely to emerge in the future. Thus, in terms of political philosophy, liberal democracy is the end of the evolutionary process. There will be wars and terrorism, but no alternative ideology with a universal appeal will seriously challenge the principles of Western liberal democracy on a global scale.

The 9/11 attacks notwithstanding, there is nothing beyond liberal democracy “towards which we could expect to evolve." Fukuyama concluded that there will be challenges from those who resist progress, “but time and resources are on the side of modernity."

Indeed, but is “modernity” on the side of liberal democracy? Fukuyama is very likely right that the current crisis with radical Islam will be overcome and that there will be no serious ideological challenge originating outside of Western civilization. However, the activities of the NGOs suggest that there already is an alternative ideology to liberal democracy within the West that has been steadily evolving for years.

Thus, it is entirely possible that modernity — thirty or forty years hence — will witness not the final triumph of liberal democracy, but the emergence of a new transnational hybrid regime that is post-liberal democratic, and in the American context, post-Constitutional and post-American. This alternative ideology, “transnational progressivism," constitutes a universal and modern worldview that challenges both the liberal democratic nation-state in general and the American regime in particular.


Transnational Progressivism

The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows:

The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.

A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist “privileged vs. marginalized” dichotomy. Group proportionalism as the goal of “fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that “victim” groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of “underrepresentation."

The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the “dominant” culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.

The “demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U.S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes “diversity," defined as group proportionalism.

The redefinition of democracy and “democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of “democracy” from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education’s leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that “to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different “peoples” that live within America “share power” as groups.

Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of “Britishness” and declared that British history needed to be “revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed “National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural “convergence” of three civilizations-Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a “post-Zionist” intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized “sovereignty” and called for regional “elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.

Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully “Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?"

(9) The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of “global governance” because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.

The same scholars who touted multiculturalism now herald the coming transnational age. Thus, Alejandro Portes of Princeton University argues that transnationalism, combined with large-scale immigration, will redefine the meaning of American citizenship.

The promotion of transnationalism is an attempt to shape this crucial intellectual struggle over globalization. Its adherents imply that one is either in step with globalization, and thus forward-looking, or one is a backward antiglobalist. Liberal democrats (who are internationalists and support free trade and market economics) must reply that this is a false dichotomy — that the critical argument is not between globalists and antiglobalists, but instead over the form global engagement should take in the coming decades: will it be transnationalist or internationalist?


Transnational Progressivism’s Social Base: A Post-National Intelligentsia

The social base of transnational progressivism constitutes a rising postnational intelligentsia (international law professors, NGO activists, foundation officers, UN bureaucrats, EU administrators, corporate executives, and politicians.) When social movements such as “transnationalism” and “global governance” are depicted as the result of social forces or the movement of history, a certain impersonal inevitability is implied. However, in the twentieth century the Bolshevik Revolution, the National Socialist revolution, the New Deal, the Reagan Revolution, the Gaullist national reconstruction in France, and the creation of the EU were not inevitable, but were the result of the exercise of political will by elites.

Similarly, transnationalism, multiculturalism, and global governance, like “diversity," are ideological tools championed by activist elites, not impersonal forces of history. The success or failure of these values-laden concepts will ultimately depend upon the political will and effectiveness of these elites.


Human Rights Activists

A good part of the energy for transnational progressivism is provided by human rights activists, who consistently evoke “evolving norms of international law." The main legal conflict between traditional American liberal democrats and transnational progressives is ultimately the question of whether the U.S. Constitution trumps international law or vice versa.

Before the mid-twentieth century, traditional international law referred to relations among nation-states. The “new international law” has increasingly penetrated the sovereignty of democratic nation-states. It is in reality “transnational law." Human rights activists work to establish norms for this “new international [i.e. transnational] law” and then attempt to bring the U.S. into conformity with a legal regime whose reach often extends beyond democratic politics.

Transnational progressives excoriate American political and legal practices in virulent language, as if the American liberal democratic nation-state was an illegitimate authoritarian regime. Thus, AI-U.S.A. charged the U.S. in a 1998 report with “a persistent and widespread pattern of human rights violations," naming the U.S. the “world leader in high tech repression." Meanwhile, HRW issued a 450-page report excoriating the U.S. for all types of “human rights violations," even complaining that “the U.S. Border Patrol continued to grow at an alarming pace."


Anti-Assimilation on the Home Front

Many of the same lawyers who advocate transnational legal concepts are active in U.S. immigration law. Louis Henkin, one of the most prominent scholars of international law, calls for largely eliminating “the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen permanent resident." Washington University international law professor Stephen Legomsky argues that dual nationals holding should not be required to give “greater weight to U.S. interests, in the event of a conflict” between the U.S. and the other country in which the American citizen is also a dual national.

Two leading law professors (Peter Spiro from Hofstra and Peter Schuck from Yale) complain that immigrants seeking American citizenship are required to “renounce all allegiance” to their old nations." Spiro and Schuck even reject the concept of the hyphenated American and endorse what they call the “ampersand” citizen. Thus, instead of traditional “Mexican-Americans” who are loyal citizens but proud of their ethnic roots, they prefer postnational citizens, who are both “Mexican & American," who retain “loyalties” to their “original homeland” and vote in both countries.

University professor Robert Bach authored a major Ford Foundation report on new and “established residents” (the word “citizen” was assiduously avoided) that advocated the “maintenance” of ethnic immigrant identities and attacked assimilation as the “problem in America." Bach later became deputy director for policy at the INS in the Clinton administration.

The financial backing for this anti-assimilationist campaign has come primarily from the Ford Foundation, which made a conscious decision to fund a Latino rights movement based on advocacy-litigation and group rights. The global progressives have been aided — if not always consciously, certainly in objective terms — by a “transnational right." It was a determined Right-Left coalition led by libertarian Stuart Anderson, who currently holds Bach’s old position at the INS, that killed a high-tech tracking system for foreign students that might have saved lives on September 11. Whatever their ideological or commercial motives, the demand for “open borders” (not simply free trade, which is a different matter altogether) by the libertarian right has strengthened the Left’s anti-assimilationist agenda.


The EU as a Stronghold of Transnational Progressivism

The EU is a large supranational macro-organization that embodies transnational progressivism. Its governmental structure is post-democratic. Power in the EU principally resides in the European Commission (EC) and to a lesser extent the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The EC, the EU’s executive body, initiates legislative action, implements common policy, and controls a large bureaucracy. It is composed of a rotating presidency and nineteen commissioners chosen by the member-states and approved by the European Parliament. It is unelected and, for the most part, unaccountable.

A white paper issued by the EC suggests that this unaccountability is one reason for its success:“[the] “essential source of the success of European integration is that [it] is_independent from national, sectoral, or other influences." This “democracy deficit” represents a moral challenge to EU legitimacy.

The substantive polices advanced by EU leaders on issues such as “hate speech," “hate crimes," “comparable worth” for women’s pay, and group preferences are considerably more “progressive” in the EU than in the U.S.. The ECJ has overruled national parliaments and public opinion in nation-states by ordering the British to incorporate gays and the Germans to incorporate women in combat units in their respective military services. The ECJ even struck down a British law on corporal punishment, declaring that parental spanking is internationally recognized as an abuse of human rights

Two Washington lawyers, Lee Casey and David Rivkin, have argued that the EU ideology that “denies the ultimate authority of the nation-state” and transfers policy making from elected representatives to bureaucrats “suggests a dramatic divergence” with “basic principles of popular sovereignty once shared by both Europe’s democracies and the United States."

In international politics, in the period immediately prior to 9/11, the EU opposed the U.S. on some of the most important global issues, including the ICC, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Land Mine Treaty, the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, and policy towards missile defense, Iran, Iraq, Israel, China, Cuba, North Korea, and the death penalty. On most of these issues, transnational progressives in the U.S. — including politicians — supported the EU position and attempted to leverage this transnational influence in the domestic debate. At the same, the Bush administration on some of these issues has support in Europe, particularly from parts of the British political class and public, and elements of European popular opinion (e.g., on the death penalty.)

After 9/11, while some European nation-states sent forces to support the U.S. in Afganhistan, many European leaders have continued to snipe at American policies and hamper American interests in the war on terrorism. In December 2001 the European Parliament condemned the U.S. Patriot Act (the bipartisan antiterrorist legislation that passed the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly) as “contrary to the principles” of human rights because the legislation “discriminates” against non-citizens. Leading European politicians have opposed extraditing terrorist suspects to the U.S. if those terrorists would be subjected to the death penalty. Even a long-time Atlanticist, like the Berlin Aspin Institute’s Jeffrey Gedmin, questions the “basis for a functioning alliance” between the U.S. and Western Europe.

Both, realists and neoconservatives have argued that some EU, UN, and NGO thinking threatens to limit both American democracy at home and American power overseas. As Jeanne Kirkpatrick puts it, “foreign governments and their leaders, and more than a few activists here at home, seek to constrain and control American power by means of elaborate multilateral processes, global arrangements, and UN treaties that limit both our capacity to govern ourselves and act abroad."


Conclusion

Talk in the West of a “culture war” is somewhat misleading, because the arguments over transnational vs. national citizenship, multiculturalism vs. assimilation, and global governance vs. national sovereignty are not simply cultural, but ideological and philosophical. They pose Aristotle’s question: “What kind of government is best?"

In America, there is an elemental argument about whether to preserve, improve, and transmit the American regime to future generations or to transform it into a new and different type of polity. We are arguing about “regime maintenance” vs. “regime transformation."

The challenge from transnational progressivism to traditional American concepts of citizenship, patriotism, assimilation, and the meaning of democracy itself is fundamental. If our system is based not on individual rights (as defined by the U.S. Constitution) but on group consciousness (as defined by international law); not on equality of citizenship but on group preferences for non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) and for certain categories of citizens; not on majority rule within constitutional limits but on power-sharing by different ethnic, racial, gender, and linguistic groups; not on constitutional law, but on transnational law; not on immigrants becoming Americans, but on migrants linked between transnational communities; then the regime will cease to be “constitutional," “liberal," “democratic," and “American," in the understood sense of those terms, but will become in reality a new hybrid system that is “post-constitutional," “post-liberal," “post-democratic," and “post-American."

This intracivilizational Western conflict between liberal democracy and transnational progressivism accelerated after the Cold War and should continue well into the twenty-first century. Indeed, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the attacks of September 11, the transnational progressives were on the offensive.

Since September 11, however, the forces supporting the liberal-democratic nation state have rallied throughout the West. In the post-9/11 milieu there is a window of opportunity for those who favor a reaffirmation of the traditional norms of liberal-democratic patriotism. It is unclear whether that segment of the American intelligentsia committed to liberal democracy as it has been practiced on these shores has the political will to seize this opportunity. In Europe, given elite opinion, the case for liberal democracy will be harder to make. Key areas to watch in both the U.S. and Europe include immigration-assimilation policy; arguments over international law; and the influence of a civic-patriotic narrative in public schools and popular culture.


Fourth Dimension?

I suggest that we add a fourth dimension to a conceptual framework of international politics. Three dimensions are currently recognizable. First, there is traditional realpolitik, the competition and conflict among nation-states (and supranational states such as the EU). Second is the competition of civilizations, conceptualized by Samuel Huntington. Third, there is the conflict between the democratic world and the undemocratic world. My suggested fourth dimension is the conflict within the democratic world between the forces of liberal democracy and the forces of transnational progressivism, between democrats and post-democrats.

The conflicts and tensions within each of these four dimensions of international politics are unfolding simultaneously and affected by each other, and so they all belong in a comprehensive understanding of the world of the twenty-first century. In hindsight, Fukuyama is wrong to suggest that liberal democracy is inevitably the final form of political governance, the evolutionary endpoint of political philosophy, because it has become unclear that liberal democracy will defeat transnational progressivism. During the twentieth century, Western liberal democracy finally triumphed militarily and ideologically over National Socialism and communism, powerful anti-democratic forces, that were, in a sense, Western ideological heresies. After defeating its current antidemocratic, non-Western enemy in what will essentially be a material-physical struggle, it will continue to face an ideological-metaphysical challenge from powerful post-liberal democratic forces, whose origins are Western, but, which could be in the words of James Kurth, called “post-Western

Four journalists shot dead in Iraq

Sadly for the Coalition of the Killing, sensible world watchers cannot tell now whether the journalists were killed by Islamists, regular forces of the present Iraqi government, former Saddam Hussein agents, British secret service, or the U.S Central Intelligence Agency. You see, both of the latter have been caught driving along, dressed as Arabs, with explosives on board. In neither case, to my knowledge, has the Western government given an explanation. The British smashed their way into an Iraqi police station to rescue their two agents.
Really, unless the Coalition of the Killing withdraw to the BORDERS of Iraq, and try to stop the inflow of weapons, fanatics, and other dangeroups people, they will just cause more hatred and jihad teachings among the 1000 million Muslims in the world.

The making of War on Iraqis or the Lies of the pUNDITS!

Clearly the supporting of Lies takes more than just the 'stodgies' supporting the pUNDITS, it 'Takes' planning when the Scale is making a war for profit. Selling the War to a lil pUNDIT! Then selling the lil pUNDIT to the American 'Public'!

The saga goes on, but the bottom line is, out of the mouthes of the 'liars' the facts of lying are not the inventions of those that oppose the Killings and the crimes!

The supporting uncle toms are just that! Clothed in lies and their 'nakedness' comes from their own doing!

galljdaj;26521:
See thats the problem the enemy controls the news coming out of Iraq and is doing a good job with propaganda inside Iraq.
They have even managed to convice people that eveyone that is killed at the hands of terrorists is still the fault of the US.
You are a perfect example of someone with no clue that believes anything bad or improper about the US no matter how cooked or phoney it might be is the Gospel.

How does it feel to be an enemy propagandist POS?
Had a nice knock and talk yet or are you still just on the watch list?

Well arnt you a good jew. Bush will be proud of you, you might even get to suck his dick!

galljdaj;26521:
See thats the problem the enemy controls the news coming out of Iraq and is doing a good job with propaganda inside Iraq.
They have even managed to convice people that eveyone that is killed at the hands of terrorists is still the fault of the US.
You are a perfect example of someone with no clue that believes anything bad or improper about the US no matter how cooked or phoney it might be is the Gospel.

How does it feel to be an enemy propagandist POS?
Had a nice knock and talk yet or are you still just on the watch list?

I didnt know the Iraqi people were the enemy, thanx jew for the information. :)

Planned Murder of al-Jazzeera Reporters goes...

UNINVESTIGATED by the US Attorney General!! Why?

Is it because he was involved? He had prior Knowledge, and did nothing but help the 'Plan' go forward?

oNE of the Early on Lies!...

The bush administration announced rebuilding Contracts included:

Rendon Group 25 million dollars to “structure and rebuild the 'Iraq Educational System'!

Well the Pentagon White Paper shows the Bush Administration’s Lie!

Rebuilding the Schools of Iraq was not the 'Mission'! It was Propagandizing! iNTENDED FOR iRAQIS AND aMERICAN!

Is the a heil for our lEADER?

Unregistered;26531:
The bush administration announced rebuilding Contracts included:

Rendon Group 25 million dollars to “structure and rebuild the 'Iraq Educational System'!

Well the Pentagon White Paper shows the Bush Administration’s Lie!

Rebuilding the Schools of Iraq was not the 'Mission'! It was Propagandizing! iNTENDED FOR iRAQIS AND aMERICAN!

Is the a heil for our lEADER?

Please people for your own good do not include Nazi messages with the bush administration. Even though your post was good the Nazi organization does not now and will not ever suport the kkk bush movement, they are supported by jews like the likud. Fbi infiltrated the nazi party to commit hate crimes in our name throughout california and other states so that hate crimes laws could be made against whites who wish to protect themselves and thier daughters from further jewish eugenics. Freedom of information act documents on the fbi website will confirm these truths. thank you have a nice day. bush is not a nazi he is a jew. Hmmm i wonder why hitler tried to kill them all?

Nazi party now I know why you are such an idiot

Mor;26543:
Please people for your own good do not include Nazi messages with the bush administration. Even though your post was good the Nazi organization does not now and will not ever suport the kkk bush movement, they are supported by jews like the likud. Fbi infiltrated the nazi party to commit hate crimes in our name throughout california and other states so that hate crimes laws could be made against whites who wish to protect themselves and thier daughters from further jewish eugenics. Freedom of information act documents on the fbi website will confirm these truths. thank you have a nice day. bush is not a nazi he is a jew. Hmmm i wonder why hitler tried to kill them all?

You don’t have to be Jewish to support Israel over Palistinians nor do you have to be Jewish to understand the difference between KNOWING Sunni or Shia' terrorists to be the enemy all it takes is a little common sense.
People are people till you pull warped religions or ideoligy into the mix and from what I can see of your rants you are as warped as they come.

Mor, thank you for the explanation...

of your objection. While I respect your choice and objection, I certainly was not attempting to 'relate' the two factions.

I have/had begun to rethink Hitler, because others have compared Our President and Hitler.

I see one as reasonably honest in his beginings and the other an opposite. I see both as dupes from the beginings of Power. I see both as very destructive forces. Both becoming heady with power. Which is where my use of 'heil' came from.

Having fought in the first fight and having some very strong feelings about the right to condemn similars 'Acts', I feel a certain right in using the term. Especially for those that are being dishonored by the lil pUNDIT, his aDMINISTRATION, and the uncle toms supporters!

I hear your objection, and I realize you understand I meant you no disrespect in my use, I am not decided which respect I should honor in this case. I can tell you I lean towards all those that never got the chance to live life. Those that paid an even higher price than I paid have my loyalty!

I will try to not offend but there are times when one word is needed.

Unregistered;26546:
of your objection. While I respect your choice and objection, I certainly was not attempting to 'relate' the two factions.

I have/had begun to rethink Hitler, because others have compared Our President and Hitler.

I see one as reasonably honest in his beginings and the other an opposite. I see both as dupes from the beginings of Power. I see both as very destructive forces. Both becoming heady with power. Which is where my use of 'heil' came from.

Having fought in the first fight and having some very strong feelings about the right to condemn similars 'Acts', I feel a certain right in using the term. Especially for those that are being dishonored by the lil pUNDIT, his aDMINISTRATION, and the uncle toms supporters!

I hear your objection, and I realize you understand I meant you no disrespect in my use, I am not decided which respect I should honor in this case. I can tell you I lean towards all those that never got the chance to live life. Those that paid an even higher price than I paid have my loyalty!

I will try to not offend but there are times when one word is needed.

Well, I DO mean disrespect to you, little boy. Based on your continual support for Islamofascist terrorists, support for murderers, and continual lying; that is all you deserve.

Go ahead and cry, little baby.

What an obtuse idiot, uncle toms...

Everyone that can read with comprehensions knows lil pundits and lil pUNDIT’s aDMINISTRATION are 'disrespectors'! Your parroting and puppetting are mere are just more of the same iceberg.

Another display of the infestation!!...

The Propaganda White Paper offers additional insight as to how deep the infestation is!

Note that Wolfowitz and Riza are connected SAIC, the World Bank, the Pentagon, the PNAC, and the lil pUNDIT aDMINISTRATION!

rEMEMBER THE LOVELY LITTLE SAYING for the Abuse Scandal, “just a few bad apples”, it may be true, but just who are the 'bad apples'?

Disrespect you say?

Unregistered;26550:
Everyone that can read with comprehensions knows lil pundits and lil pUNDIT’s aDMINISTRATION are 'disrespectors'! Your parroting and puppetting are mere are just more of the same iceberg.

You above all are disrespectful and a liar.
I can’t believe the depths of hipocracy you plumb.

Unregistered;26550:
Everyone that can read with comprehensions knows lil pundits and lil pUNDIT’s aDMINISTRATION are 'disrespectors'! Your parroting and puppetting are mere are just more of the same iceberg.

And you continue with nothing worthwhile to say and avoid answering any questions. You are nothing but a pundit for the Democraps.

Now, where are you really from?

Poor uncle toms the theif coward...

misrepresenter, plagiarist, wants respect!

Well stealing names is not the way to gain my respect!

Killing innocent people is not the way to get my respect!

Changing peoples words! does not gain my respect either!

Hypocracy would be to give you an uncle toms 'respect'!

What?

Unregistered;26564:
Uncle toms and pundits are your only words. Your brain is infested with worms. Stop making up all these stories because we all know youre full of shit.

I know no one else on this site but mor agree’s or believes one of your posts.
Sorry, I have yet to see one of your “posts” that are truthful, a real question or even logical, all you ever do is attack, provide zero proof or a even a reasoned response. You refuse to answer a single question and obfuscate anything to the point of nonsense using your wrongly used term of Pundit to cover your tracks.

Don’t even try and pawn off the Dictator of Venazuela’s site or Alex Jones for that matter as proof of anything but how unhinged and off track you really are.
Ever wonder why Alex Jones never attacks Israel? Look it up for a dose of Zionist conspiracy theroy.

You fit the exact profile of a foreign terrorist trying to play itself off as an American to further the propaganda war on America it’s interests and the current lack luster embattled administration.
Everyone knows you are patently full of shit or sorely ill informed.
My main beef with you is not your ignorant ramblings so far it’s a free country to speak as you see fit but your complete lack of proof I draw into question since most of what you post borders on Libel. Doing so can make this site and owners at risk for legal proceedings.

That is all provide proof or go sell your load of guano elsewhere.

More the same

Unregistered;26566:
misrepresenter, plagiarist, wants respect!

Well stealing names is not the way to gain my respect!

Killing innocent people is not the way to get my respect!

Changing peoples words! does not gain my respect either!

Hypocracy would be to give you an uncle toms 'respect'!

No one stole the name you refused to register. I believe you used a term “comprehension deficiancy” Good term by the way.
What do you term as innocent?
Try giving a little respect to get a little respect.

Like the Pentagon White Paper!

Who would want your Respect?! Thieves cowards liars!

Post your truths about starting the War on Iraqis back in feb of 2001!

Post your truths about the Bybee White Paper that has brought disgrace to Americans!


Much safer to attack me, well I will continue to discredit you by showing just what kind ugly Americans you are! uncle toms for a Criminal Administration!

Journalists are the front line to maintain free communications

Yes Our journalists risk their lives everyday in bringing the truth to the world, wheather it is to the free world or the controlled world by tyrants and bullies who fear the truth from coming afloat because it ruins their plans to continue their corruption and evil that they are practicing.

So in most cases when the brave journalists evidence to the world community the true facts regarding the corruption, evil, Innocent killings that are going on, most time these journalists are either blackmailed, threathened or stopped from telling the truth.

Generally +60 journalists are killed each year, either accidently or premeditated, and in conflicts the number of dead journalists are much higher.

Sammy, I take my hat off as a tribute to those journalists who risk their lives to bring the truth to the world community. These are the real heros whose only arms are words of truth.

You make the allegations provide the proof

Unregistered;26572:
Who would want your Respect?! Thieves cowards liars!

Post your truths about starting the War on Iraqis back in feb of 2001!

Post your truths about the Bybee White Paper that has brought disgrace to Americans!


Much safer to attack me, well I will continue to discredit you by showing just what kind ugly Americans you are! uncle toms for a Criminal Administration!

Again with the allegations and no proof.
Are you a broken record?

As to your above post numerous post on the matter have been posted on this site and the previous site.
Had you any length of posting history you would see all the above as having been born out already.
You the new guy need to show some form of credibility, REGISTERING A NAME is a step in that direction.
Anonymous poster are by and large trolls or to cowardly to post attacks and insults under there registered name.
What are you waiting for?
Register, Scared?

Unregistered;26572:
Who would want your Respect?! Thieves cowards liars!

Post your truths about starting the War on Iraqis back in feb of 2001!

Post your truths about the Bybee White Paper that has brought disgrace to Americans!


Much safer to attack me, well I will continue to discredit you by showing just what kind ugly Americans you are! uncle toms for a Criminal Administration!

It is too easy to discredit you since you have NO credibility. As for respect, you sure don’t have any since you continually lie like a broke-back dog.

Sammy the problm being no one just report the news

Sammy;26574:
Yes Our journalists risk their lives everyday in bringing the truth to the world, wheather it is to the free world or the controlled world by tyrants and bullies who fear the truth from coming afloat because it ruins their plans to continue their corruption and evil that they are practicing.

So in most cases when the brave journalists evidence to the world community the true facts regarding the corruption, evil, Innocent killings that are going on, most time these journalists are either blackmailed, threathened or stopped from telling the truth.

Generally +60 journalists are killed each year, either accidently or premeditated, and in conflicts the number of dead journalists are much higher.

Sammy, I take my hat off as a tribute to those journalists who risk their lives to bring the truth to the world community. These are the real heros whose only arms are words of truth.

Everyone spins it or slants it to their viewpoint.
No one is a centrist.
Just report the news leave the opinion out of it.

uncle toms wants...

to change his name... to almost anything, from anonymous to bill, but the smell come from the words like a big uncle toms ad.

The point here is that on numerous occassions of uncle toms having his shorts twisted, tries to advance his illogical put downs!, like calling me a 'pundit democrat'.

Which is ok as far as name calling goes, he is doing just that. But if he could point to any pontificating that I have done regarding Democrats, it just might add some truth to his lies!

Clearly I respect Bill Bradley, a former Democratic Senator. Clearly I respect (11) democrats that voted against giving the lil pUNDIT the decision authority to make War in particular against Iraq. It was a voice vote, and no names were recorded. After the Vote, eleven Democrats stood before television cameras and declared they voted 'no'. Although I do not know any of the names of the eleven, I respect them for their declaration.

Over the years I have come to respect Jimmy Carter. And Before him I came to respect Walter Reuther.

The Last Republican I respected was actually two, Nixon and Ford. Nixon because he was an American for the People first. Ford because of his relative honesty, and acting on behalf of the People in his Pardon of Nixon, which I was totally against, but still respect Ford for his Heart was for the People.

Ford kept his mouth shut about the Gang running our Country, but he also made it clear he would not have done what was done!

Nixon is probably ruing the day he ever gave this 'gang' a door into the People’s Government!


While I respect part of Nixon, I still would have sent him to Jail!

Now we have the twisted mind of an uncle toms trying to make a Democrat out the fabrications in his shorts twisted mind!

He’s upset by me, too bad! He can’t compete using his mind, so he resorts... , fabricates... , and uses multiple identities to prop himself up. He even tries 'justification' for theft of a name(galljdaj)! That is a sick mind! One that cannot stand on its own merit! An uncle toms!

Unregistered;26589:
to change his name... to almost anything, from anonymous to bill, but the smell come from the words like a big uncle toms ad.

The point here is that on numerous occassions of uncle toms having his shorts twisted, tries to advance his illogical put downs!, like calling me a 'pundit democrat'.

Which is ok as far as name calling goes, he is doing just that. But if he could point to any pontificating that I have done regarding Democrats, it just might add some truth to his lies!

Well, if you walk like a Democrap, talk like a Democrap, lie like a Democrap, it usually is a Democrap. You have lied too many times using Democrap talking points. That is the reason you are considered a Democrap pundit. Either that or an Islamofascist who is stirring up trouble.

]Clearly I respect Bill Bradley, a former Democratic Senator. Clearly I respect (11) democrats that voted against giving the lil pUNDIT the decision authority to make War in particular against Iraq. It was a voice vote, and no names were recorded. After the Vote, eleven Democrats stood before television cameras and declared they voted 'no'. Although I do not know any of the names of the eleven, I respect them for their declaration.

Over the years I have come to respect Jimmy Carter. And Before him I came to respect Walter Reuther.[/quote:


Respecting probably the worst President of the US? That answers the question of how dumb you are. Carter was the worst President and thankfully he was in office only one term. The only other President who was nearly as bad as Carter was BJ Bill Clinton, a true and proven criminal.

Quote:
The Last Republican I respected was actually two, Nixon and Ford. Nixon because he was an American for the People first. Ford because of his relative honesty, and acting on behalf of the People in his Pardon of Nixon, which I was totally against, but still respect Ford for his Heart was for the People.

Ford kept his mouth shut about the Gang running our Country, but he also made it clear he would not have done what was done!

Nixon is probably ruing the day he ever gave this 'gang' a door into the People’s Government!

While I respect part of Nixon, I still would have sent him to Jail!

You don’t respect the greatest 20th century President, Ronald Reagan?

[quote]Now we have the twisted mind of an uncle toms trying to make a Democrat out the fabrications in his shorts twisted mind!

He’s upset by me, too bad! He can’t compete using his mind, so he resorts... , fabricates... , and uses multiple identities to prop himself up. He even tries 'justification' for theft of a name(galljdaj)! That is a sick mind! One that cannot stand on its own merit! An uncle toms!

You lie to much and too often not to be a Democrap under the thumb of Zowie Howie Dean.

rwn; do you mean 'report' like the Lincoln Group...

reports the News?

a project of the
Center for Media & Democracy

Discover SourceWatch: Main topics | All topics | Articles | Most popular | Help
Lincoln Group
From SourceWatch
The Lincoln Group, formed in 1999, is “a D.C.-based business 'intelligence' company that handles services from 'political campaign intelligence' to commercial real estate in Iraq." [1][2][3]

The Lincoln Group states on its website that “our employees and consultants have worked, and continue to work, around the world in such places as Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Colombia, Indonesia and elsewhere. While others may view these locations as 'inhospitable', we prefer to call them 'challenging'."

Contents
[hide]
1 Updates
1.1 September 2006
1.2 July 2006
1.2.1 No more TV ads
1.3 March 2006
1.3.1 No Fault Reporting
1.3.2 Pakistan
1.4 Pakistan: “leaflet drops”
1.5 January 2006
2 Company History
2.1 Overview
2.2 Iraqex 2004
2.3 Pentagon Contract 2005
3 Planting Fake News in Iraq
3.1 “The Making of Heroes: Lincoln Group and the Fight for Fallujah”
3.2 Pentagon Looking Into It
3.3 Hiring Sunni Religious Scholars, Working with AEI’s Michael Rubin
4 Personnel
4.1 Other Personnel Cited on Lincoln Group Website
5 Advisors
5.1 Previously Listed
6 Lincoln Group Partners
6.1 Previously Listed Partners
7 Subcontractors
8 Lincoln’s Lobbyists
9 Case Studies
10 Contact Details
11 Related SourceWatch Resources
12 External Links

[edit]Updates
[edit]September 2006
According to O’Dwyer’s, The Lincoln Group “won a competitive review to handle PR and strategic communications for the U.S.-led military force in Iraq. The two-year contract with the Multi-National Force-Iraq is valued at more than $6M per year, although contracting documents indicated that additional efforts could be “ordered” from the Pennsylvania Avenue firm for up to $20M."

O’Dwyer’s goes on to state that: “Among the tasks outlined for the Lincoln Group, the military wants the firm to put together a unit of 12-18 communicators to support military PR efforts in Iraq and throughout the Middle East from media training to pitching stories and providing content for government-backed news sites." [4]

[edit]July 2006
[edit]No more TV ads
On July 18 the Washington post reported that the US military Special Operations Command decided not to continue two contracts of the Lincoln Group and SAIC. The contracts were part of a $300 million dollar 5 year contract to make TV spots for Iraq and �other nations where the United States is combating terrorism�, according to the post.

According to the post the pentagon claims the contract is unrelated to the controversial unattributed �reports� that were paid for to be printed in Iraqi newspapers. �The newspaper contract was unaffected by the change to the TV and radio contract.� according to the post.

The Washinton post quotes Col. Jack Summe, commander of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element. : â��Certainly we would intend to accept attribution for the spots,â��, â��We will not place things under someone else’s name, trying to fool people into thinking it’s a true news item.â��

But the Washington post further reports �But Summe said that the ultimate decision on how the spots will be attributed has still not been made pending the outcome of a policy review and that the military does not have a timetable for when they will air.� This would mean that there is no policy review finished more than four years after Donald Rumsfeld`s infamous �you can have the name� remark over the Office of Strategic Influence.

The work under the $300 million contract will be continued by SYColeman, a L-3 Communications subsidiary. Though the washingpost mentions: â��Summe said that even though SYColeman’s contract is worth up to $20 million this year, he expects actual spending to be far less. Last year, he said, the military paid the three firms a total of just over $3 million under the contract.â��

Lt. Col. David Farlow, spokesman for the US military’s psychological operations unit is quoted saying: â��We learned that working with three companies increases expenditures in both time and money and does not provide best value to the governmentâ��

Lincoln group spokesman Bill Dixon is quoted as saying: â��[the firm] continues to win contracts in the American effort to engage audiences in transitional areas of the world because of its unique capabilities and proven record of accomplishing the objectives of its clients.â�� He added, â��Because confidentiality is vital to this work, the firm will not comment on the details of any contracts.â�� Dixon said the company believes the military’s Special Operations Command needs more money â��and clearer policy guidance in order to fight the 'War of Ideas,' a key component of the global War on Terrorism.â��

[edit]March 2006
[edit]No Fault Reporting
“The U.S. military plans to continue paying Iraqi newspapers to publish articles favorable to the United States after an inquiry found no fault with the controversial practice," Army General George W. Casey, Jr. said March 3, 2006. Casey said that “the internal review had concluded that the U.S. military was not violating U.S. law or Pentagon guidelines with the information operations campaign, in which U.S. troops and a private contractor write pro-American articles and pay to have them planted without attribution in Iraqi media." [5]

[edit]Pakistan
In March 2006, O’Dwyer’s PR Daily reported the Lincoln Group “is working to boost economic development in Pakistan." Lincoln is working with former U.S. diplomat Carol Fleming to increase “investments in the country’s textile, energy, technology and telecom” industries. The firm produced “a documentary” of areas devastated by the October 2005 earthquake, “to remind countries to honor their pledges to support the victims." Lincoln has also “expressed interest” in a contract to help the U.S. Army Reserve communicate its “vision of the future." The contract includes “speech writing, research, development of a comprehensive ... communications plan," support for “national outreach programs," and media outreach for Army Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. James Helmly. Other firms seeking the Army contract include CorpComm Group, MyMic, Polestar Applied Technology and ICOR Partners. [6] (Sub req’d)

Lincoln Group’s Country Director Carol Fleming did an interview — available on Pakistan Link — praising the investment opportunities in Pakistan. Its publication coincided with President George W. Bush’s trip to the country, during which there where some widely published attacks in the north of Pakistan on suspected militants, including the use of helicopters, by the Pakistani army. Bush was seen in front of a photo meeting two victims of the recent earthquake and attempting to play cricket, all on the U.S. Embassy grounds due to security fears.

According to Fleming’s interview:

Pakistan is “the hub of economic activities and provides enormous opportunities in Energy, Information Technology, Telecomm, and textile sectors."
The Lincoln Group “established its office in Islamabad in November 2005."
Fleming said that the Lincoln Group “has realized to accelerate its plan to establish its presence in Pakistan."
The Lincoln Group “responded quickly after the October 8 [2005] earthquake by deploying its teams in the earthquake region for documenting the wide range of humanitarian support."
Fleming said that “since their teams were already on the ground in Pakistan, they produced a documentary portraying the utter devastation and relief efforts. She added that the video served as a reminder to the international community to continue their aid and to fulfill their promises of support."
On women’s rights, Fleming said “that women should not compromise on their values. She added that their company would try to enhance and assist the womenâ��s development issues."
Fleming said the Lincoln Group “provides insight and influence in challenging and hostile environments. 'Our firm provides its clients access to cultures which have historically been difficult to reach through traditional Western communities'."
Fleming said that the Lincoln Group “conducts market research, evaluates political situation and studies demography for the companies intending to invest in Pakistan."
[edit]Pakistan: “leaflet drops”
On March 24, 2006, Reuters reported leaflet drops in Northern Pakistan near “Tank, a town close to the boundary with the semi-autonomous tribal agency of South Waziristan." No evidence links the leaflets to anyone but the Pakistani military, and apparently no further information on the mysterious 'well wishers' is reported elsewhere.

[edit]January 2006
The Lincoln Group’s Washington, DC headquarters, which is now located on K Street, is “soon to move to larger quarters in the Pennsylvania Avenue building that housed Jack Abramoff’s famous restaurant, Signatures," Justin Fox, reported in the January 20, 2006, online edition of Fortune magazine.

“The firm says it has entered into more than 20 Defense Department contracts (the biggest of which could be worth as much as $100 million) and a similar number of commercial and nonmilitary government deals. It has more than 40 employees in the U.S. and 200 overseas, mostly in Iraq, doing research, communications, and even some investing," Fox wrote.

[edit]Company History
[edit]Overview
According to the Lincoln Group website, the “Lincoln Alliance Corporation, with the assistance of a cadre of investors, formed Lincoln Group to pursue private sector opportunities in Iraq. Lincoln Group brings a unique combination of expertise in collecting and exploiting information; structuring transactions; and mitigating risks through due diligence and legal strategies."

In September 2004, the major PR contract for the Multi-National Corps-Iraq was awarded to Iraqex, a “business clearinghouse company formed specifically to provide a swath of services in the war-torn country." The Washington DC-based Lincoln Alliance Corporation, a “business 'intelligence' company that handles services from 'political campaign intelligence' to commercial real estate in Iraq," set up Iraqex last year. Iraqex has four Iraq offices, including in Baghdad and Basra. Iraqex will develop video and print publications, purchase TV and radio time, and oversee public affairs and advertising for MNC-I, to ensure “that the Coalition gains widespread Iraqi acceptance of its core themes and messages." [7]

Iraqex subsequently changed its name to Lincoln Group, after its holding company, Lincoln Alliance Corporation. Lincoln Group has a $6 million, 3-year PR contract for the U.S.-led Multi-National Corps-Iraq, for which it “develops video, audio and print products to support MNC-I initiatives." It also published [the] Iraq Business Journal, a “monthly publication on contract opportunities, life in Iraq and classifieds." The publication recently interviewed Grand Ayatolla Ali Al-Sistani, who said foreign investment is acceptable, as long as the investor is not with the “occupation forces” or taking “advantage of any instability." Lincoln Group is still looking for interns. [8]

[edit]Iraqex 2004
In the fall of 2004, Christian Bailey had formed a Lincoln subsidiary, called Iraqex. The Independent reported in December 2005 that Iraqex “seems to have formed a partnership with another American PR firm called Rendon, famous in Washington for having promoted Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress." [9]

According to a December 11, 2005 New York Times article, Iraqex’s “stated purpose was to provide support services for business development, trade and investment in Iraq. The company’s earliest ventures there included providing security to the military and renovating buildings. Iraqex also started a short-lived online business publication." The Times also reported on the 2004 partnership between Iraqex and Rendon. Together they “won a $5 million Pentagon contract for an advertising and public relations campaign to 'accurately inform the Iraqi people of the Coalition’s goals and gain their support.' Soon, the [Iraqex] changed its name to Lincoln Group. It is not clear how the partnership was formed; Rendon dropped out weeks after the contract was awarded," the Times wrote.

In September 2004, “Christian Bailey, an executive at Iraqex/Lincoln, told O’Dwyer’s his company [had] established four offices in Baghdad and other outposts, including an additional operation in Basra. He said Iraqex began handling PR work for private entities in sectors like manufacturing and finance within the country last year and has established close ties with 300-400 members of the Iraqi media."

“The company, which submitted a proposal of $5.5 million for the first year of the sweeping PR and advertising contract, beat five other firms. A contracting officer for the military did not disclose the competitors” to O’Dwyer’s “or an email address to this website or in an e-mail to the losing bidders." [10]

[edit]Pentagon Contract 2005
A June 11, 2005, Washington Post article reported that the Pentagon had just awarded three contracts, potentially worth up to $300 million over five years, to three companies it hopes will inject more creativity into its psychological operations efforts to improve foreign public opinion about the United States, particularly the military. Lincoln Group won one of the three contracts, Science Applications International Corporation and SYColeman, Inc., a subsidiary of L-3 Communications, the other two. All three companies declined to comment for the article. [11][12]

In 2006 the New York Times reported that the Lincoln Group won U.S. military contracts “after claiming to have 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."

“But some of those companies and individuals say their associations were fleeting. ... 'They appear very professional on the surface, then you dig a little deeper and you find that they are pretty amateurish,'" said former Marine officer and former Lincoln “strategic adviser” Jason Santamaria. Lincoln had short-lived partnerships with The Rendon Group and the New York ad firm Della Femina Rothschild Jeary and Partners. Lincoln also told U.S. Special Operations Command that it worked with the ad conglomerate Omnicom Group, but an Omnicom spokesperson said, “We’re not aware of any relationship with Lincoln Group." Lincoln continues to bid for U.S. government contracts. [13]

As the Richmond (Virginia) Times-Dispatch wrote, “The use of contractors in psyops is a new wrinkle. But psychological warfare expert Herb Friedman said he is not surprised. ... With only one active-duty and two reserve psyops units remaining, Friedman said, 'The bottom line is, they don’t have the manpower.'" [14]

A December 12, 2005 Sunday Times article reported that the Lincoln Group�s willingness to work outside the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad helped it to land the lucrative deals with the Pentagon. [15]

In September 2005, the Lincoln Group was looking to hire “senior media and PR professionals to guide an advertising and PR campaign to inform the Iraqi people of 'the Coalition’s goals and to gain their support," according to O’Dwyer’s. The firm also was recruiting “polling and trend analysis pros to analyze media and compile statistics with the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies." The new hires are due to an “ongoing expansion (it is in the first year of a $6M, three-year PR contract)." [16]

In March 2006 the New York Times reports that the U.S. military’s review of a PR firm’s covert propaganda program in Iraq, led by Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, has been completed but not made public. According to military officials, “The findings are narrow in focus, and conclude that the Lincoln Group committed no legal violations because its actions in paying to place American [information operations troops]-written articles without attribution were not expressly prohibited by its contract or military rules." The report “did not deal deeply” with such issues as how the small, young, well-connected firm received large government contracts, or whether its work was effective. It also did not address how, “in a modern information world connected by satellite television and the Internet, misleading information and lies could easily migrate into American news outlets." The Lincoln Group’s Iraq work, on “a contract estimated at several million dollars," remains “fully in effect." The firm continues to bid for U.S. government contracts. [17]

[edit]Planting Fake News in Iraq
In November 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Lincoln Group was helping the Pentagon covertly place pro-United States stories in Iraqi news outlets. “Dozens” of pieces written by U.S. military “information operations” troops were placed during 2005, according to the LA Times. “The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military," the LA Times reported. The Lincoln Group “helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group’s Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets." [18]

The LA Times piece continued, “Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was being directed by the 'Information Operations Task Force' in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. ... As part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece” [19]

In response to the story Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said “this article raises some questions as to whether or not some of the practices that are described in there are consistent with the principles of this department ... And that’s what we’re going to take a look at."

Voice of America noted that while the official communications principles state information will be “timely and accurate," they “do not include any prohibition against paying to place stories in the media."

“Pentagon documents indicate the Lincoln Group ... received a $100 million contract to help produce favorable articles, translate the articles into Arabic, get them placed in Iraqi newspapers and not reveal the Pentagon’s role," according to MSNBC’s December 1, 2005, Hardball. Additionally, the Chicago Tribune reported that “Lincolns' PR workers in Iraq included three Republican operatives who helped run the Bush campaign in Illinois and had no apparent experience in Iraq."

[edit]“The Making of Heroes: Lincoln Group and the Fight for Fallujah”
ABC News reported December 15, 2005, that it had “obtained a strategy document called 'The Making of Heroes: Lincoln Group and the Fight for Fallujah' â�� part of the Pentagon’s multi-million dollar public relations campaign to sell the American war effort to the Iraqis."

Martha Raddatz, who filed the ABC report, wrote that a “small number of Iraqi forces were with the U.S. troops in Fallujah in November of 2004, but some Marines and reporters said the Iraqis were only minimally involved.

“But under the heading 'The Concept,' the document shows, the Lincoln Group seeks to promote 'the strength, integrity and reliability of Iraqi Forces during the fight for Fallujah.'

“Under the heading 'Rumor Control,' according to the document, the Lincoln Group strives to dispel the notion that the war is 'America’s fight' or that Iraqi forces were defecting.

"'It’s a little strange to see because even the Pentagon’s own estimates and the administration’s own estimates of the state of the Iraqi forces in 2004 when these fights for Fallujah occurred were never very glowing,' said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.

“The Lincoln Group said it could not provide a comment about this report under the terms of the Pentagon contract," Raddatz reported.

[edit]Pentagon Looking Into It
Regarding the news reports about the military planting news stories, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in his November 30, 2005, daily press briefing that his “colleagues over at the Pentagon” were “looking in[to]” and were “probably in the best position to address those news reports." A reporter then commented: “Why would they have to look into the news reports if it’s — if it’s happening, wouldn’t they know they did it."

On the November 30, 2005, Hardball, Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) told Chris Matthews “I saw that for the first time today. And as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, we’ll look into that because Iâ��m concerned that our credibility abroad is very important. And if we’re manufacturing things or taking our wonderful troops and trying to translate their ideas into something that’s more our idea, rather than the trooper’s idea, then I think we should be looking at it."

In his December 1, 2005, press gaggle, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that “the Los Angeles Times was the first place” the White House had heard about “the military using this Lincoln Group to plant stories in Iraqi newspapers” and that “We have asked the Department of Defense for more information. General [Pete] Pace has asked people to look into the matter and get the facts, and so we want to see what those facts are."

In response to the controversy, the Lincoln Group issued a media release itself in which it stated that it had “consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq. Our priority has always been, and continues to be, accuracy and timeliness."

“Our clients, our employees and the Iraqis who support this effort have maintained a commitment to battle terror with a powerful weapon - the truth.We counter the lies, intimidation, and pure evil of terror with factual stories that highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and their struggle for freedom and security. We are encouraged by their sacrifice and proud to help them tell their side of the story," it stated. [20]

In an interview on ABC’s This Week program, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley claimed, referring to the controversy over the military covertly sponsoring Iraqi news, that Bush was “very troubled by it."

“If it is inconsistent with the policy guidance it will be shut down," Hadley said.

On Fox News Hadley said that if the stories were factual, "'it’s got to be done in a way that reinforces a free media, not undermines it.' ... The policy, he suggested the administration wanted to pursue is 'support for a free media, for truth about what’s going on in Iraq — that is the policy.' Asked by Wallace whether Bush viewed the reports of planted stories as 'inconsistent with that policy,' Hadley said 'Yes. It’s very troubling. And if it turns out to be true, I think you’ll find that activity stopped.'" [21]

Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, Republican Senator John McCain, said that “if that’s the way to get stories, I’m not terribly offended by it." [22]

In “his most specific comments thus far about the information operations program," U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told interviewer Charlie Rose that his reaction to reports that the Lincoln Group paid Iraqi newspapers to run Pentagon-written stories was, “Gee, that’s not what we ought to be doing." Rumsfeld said “he had not been initially aware of the clandestine program, and ordered it shut down” after the Los Angeles Times report. However, “Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said during a Dec. 16 news conference — more than two weeks after the existence of the operation was revealed — that it had not been shut down." An anonymous source told the LA Times that “the program in Iraq was still active as of a week ago." In a separate talk, Rumsfeld said negative media coverage of the Iraq propaganda has a “chilling effect” on U.S. troops' “innovation” to win hearts and minds. [23]

[edit]Hiring Sunni Religious Scholars, Working with AEI’s Michael Rubin
The New York Times reported January 2, 2006, that the Lincoln Group “has been compensating Sunni religious scholars in Iraq in return for assistance with its propaganda works ... [T]he company’s ties to religious leaders and dozens of other prominent Iraqis is aimed also at enabling it to exercise influence in Iraqi communities on behalf of clients, including the military. ... Lincoln has also turned to American scholars and political consultants for advice on the content of the propaganda campaign in Iraq, records indicate. Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute ... said he had reviewed materials produced by the company." [24] Rubin was political adviser for the Coalition Provisional Authority (Baghdad), 2003-2004, following two years (2002-2004) as staff assistant on Iran and Iraq in the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

[edit]Personnel
From their website and elsewhere (as of March 23, 2006): [25]

Paige Craig - Executive Vice President, Strategic Solutions
Christian Bailey - Executive Vice President, Capital Markets
Tony Berkant - Vice President Finance
Andrew Garfield - Director, Strategic Solutions (“Senior Director of Insight and Influence”)
Mark F. Gillespie - Vice President, Business Development
Andrea Jackson - Director of Research
Nicholas McDowell - Director of New Media
Suzanne McKoy - Director of Human Resources
Bill Dixon [26]
[edit]Other Personnel Cited on Lincoln Group Website
Laurie Adler - Spokesperson and director of marketing, communications and government relations
Andrea Jackson - Director of Research
Robert Kelley - no title stated
Although identified as such previously, as of December 1, 2005, the following names are no longer listed as Lincoln Group personnel:

Huy Kameron Hoang - Director, Lincoln Innovation Lab
James Sutton - Country Manager, Iraq
Brian Swift - Project Manager, IBC
[edit]Advisors
The following list of Lincoln Group advisors is current as of March 23, 2006:

Vincent J. Breglio
Bill V. Cowan
Devon Gaffney Cross
Douglas H. Dearth
Ronald H. Hinckley
Colonel (Ret.) Charles Dennison Lane, PhD
Colin Rees Mason
I. William Zartman
[edit]Previously Listed
The following individuals were previously listed as advisors for the Lincoln Group (no longer listed as of March 23, 2006):

Larisa Breton
Jerry Della Femina
Michael J. Jeary
Michael Rubin
Michael Vlahos, PhD, National Security Analysis Department
Amy Zalman
[edit]Lincoln Group Partners
On its website the Lincoln Group states that it has partnerships with a range of other companies in the US, UK and in the countries they work in. It lists its partner companies as including (updated March 23, 2006):

Close-Up Productions
Davinci Select Work
DJA & Associates
Global Risk
InFocusAsia [27]
InterMedia
Mission Media
WVC3 Group, Inc.
[edit]Previously Listed Partners
The following companies are no longer listed on the Lincoln Group website as “partners”.

AdFactory
Oryx Communications
[edit]Subcontractors
BKSH & Associates
[edit]Lincoln’s Lobbyists
“The Lincoln Group, that helps translate and place stories for the Pentagon in Bagdad media outlets utilized two lobby firms in 2005. Charles Black and Gardner Peckham of BKSH & Associates lobbied on Defense and Foreign Affairs issues. Buzz Hefti, Andre Hollis, Jason Rossbach and David Drass of Van Scoyoc Associates lobbied on 'Appropriations regarding information Operations.' Joseph Devlin and Laurie Adler of the Lincoln Group also registered to lobby on Defense, Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs issues." — FEC Info.com, March 31, 2006.

Senate Lobbying Registration for the Lincoln Group:
Effective Date of Registration: August 4, 2005
Client: Lincoln Group (In-house Lobby)
Lobbyists: Joseph Devlin and Laurie Adler
Senate Lobbying Registration for BKSH & Associates:
Effective Date of Registration: July 11, 2005
Client: Lincoln Group
Lobbyists: Charles R. Black, Jr. and Gardner Peckham
Senate Lobbying Registration for Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc.
Effective Date of Registration: August 1, 2005
Client: Lincoln Group
Lobbyists: Marlin L. 'Buzz' Hefti, André D. Hollis, Jason A. Rossbach, David Drass, H. Stewart Van Scoyoc
Lobbyists.info (sub req’d) listing for Kaye Scholer LLP:
Client: Lincoln Group
Lobbyist: Jason Shrinsky
[edit]Case Studies
See Lincoln Group Case Studies
[edit]Contact Details
North America Headquarters
Lincoln Group
1420 K Street NW
10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: +1 (202) 595-1330 (office)
Fax: +1 (202) 595-0208
URL: http://www.lincolngroup.com/
Communications: Projects
Economic Investment: Manufacturing


[edit]Related SourceWatch Resources
Brian Swift
Covert propaganda
Defense contractors
Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program
Fake news
Federal contractors
Jonathan Blessing
Outsourcing
U.S. Military and the Iraqi Media
[edit]External Links
Please click on External Links to get to the listing of articles on the Lincoln Group.

Retrieved from “http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lincoln_Group”
Categories: Public relations firms | Fake News | Iraq-US relations | Iraqi media


This page was last modified 18:34, 2 November 2006. This page has been accessed 35,346 times. Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. Privacy policy About SourceWatch Disclaimers
SourceWatch is an encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda. It is a project of the Center for Media & Democracy; email bob AT sourcewatch.org

Antispam note: To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on the SourceWatch are written with AT in place of the usual symbol, and we have removed “mail to” links. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address. We regret the inconvenience this entails. Lobby your government for more effective antispam regulations.

CMD Home
SourceWatch
Congresspedia
PR Watch
Spin of the Day
Volunteer
News Feeds
Donate

Quick Links
Recent changes
Random page
Help
Center for Media and Democracy
About CMD
Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin
Search

Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
If you find SourceWatch useful, please consider making a donation to its sponsor, the Center for Media and Democracy.
Views
Article Discussion Edit this page History Personal tools
Log in Create New Account

Unregistered;26597:
reports the News?

a project of the
Center for Media & Democracy

And just WHAT are you trying to show us or prove to us?

Yea it helps to know the source of your thinking.

Knowing the source of what inspires your posts helps us understand from what direction you come from.
A little on your source from another source I see a huge amount of petro investments not so sure you should take your source as honest.
Try researching IBM some during World war 2 these people are in bed with all the people you claim to dislike.

UNDUE INFLUENCE
The Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, Inc.


formerly The Florence and John Schumann Foundation



The Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, Inc., formerly The Florence and John Schumann Foundation
33 Park Street
Montclair, NJ 07042
Telephone: (973) 783-6660
Fax: (973) 783-7553
email: not published
Website: no website
Type of foundation: Private
2001 Assets: $60,963,043
EIN: 22-6044214
Exempt since May 1966
EGA Member
Description: Rabidly anti-capitalist donor led by media icon Bill Moyers.

Seed money provider for the Florence Fund and the TomPaine.com campaign.

In their own words: “renewing the democratic process through cooperative acts of citizenship, particularly as they apply to governance and the environment."

Assets Amount: $60,963,043 AM
Expenditures: $5,096,495


The Schumann Foundation’s investment portfolio contains:

2000 shares of British Petroleum;

5,000 shares Columbia Gas Systems;

4,200 shares Conoco, Inc.;

3,900 shares Keyspan Energy (natural gas distribution);

10,000 shares Noble Affiliates (oil & gas exploration and development);

10,200 shares Pioneer Natural Resource Company (oil & gas exploration and development);

10,000 shares Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Royal Dutch / Shell Oil holding company);

10,000 shares Shell Transportation and Trading Company (another Royal Dutch / Shell Oil holding company); plus

12,500 shares of Ford Motor Company.

ORIGIN OF THE WEALTH: Florence Ford and John Schumann settled in Montclair, New Jersey soon after they married in 1917. During their forty-seven year marriage, they amassed a considerable fortune, combining inherited wealth from Florence Ford’s father, one of the founders of the IBM Corporation, with John Schumann’s business success, which culminated with his presidency of the General Motors Acceptance Corporation. In 1961, they set up the Florence and John Schumann Foundation .

Officers and Trustees:
Robert F. Schumann, Chairman; Bill D. Moyers, President; Lynn C. Welhorsky, V.P. Administration; W. Ford Schumann, V.P.; David S. Bate, Secretary-Treasurer.; Michael J. Johnston; Joan Konner; Patricia A. McCarthy; William McKibben


UNDUE INFLUENCE The
Moyers Mafia
“True believers in the god of the market would leave us to the ruthless cruelty of unfettered monopolistic capital where even the law of the jungle breaks down."

— Bill Moyers, Keynote speech to the Environmental Grantmakers Association, October 16, 2001



Bill Moyers, his son John, and their moneyed sidekicks, the Schumann brothers, hate the free market with intemperate ferocity, as the quote above suggests. They spend millions inherited from an IBM founder and a president of the General Motors Acceptance Corporation to tear down America’s free market economy. They have their hands in many pies. Here are some.

Triple roles: journalist, advocate, financier
Bill Moyers:
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), The money, the message, and the messenger. Conflict of interest?
The Florence and John Schumann Foundation, President (part time, 1998 salary $100,043, benefits $4,626)

Bill’s background: was Deputy Director of the Peace Corps in the Kennedy Administration and Special Assistant to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1963-1967. He was a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation for 12 years, and currently serves as president of The Florence and John Schumann Foundation.

Bill’s tactics: Bill Moyers pays advocates to come up with an anti-corporate, anti-capitalist message, then reports the totally biased outcome on PBS television.
For example:

Bill’s message: On March 26, 2001, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) stations across the country aired a 90-minute investigative report on the chemical industry titled “Trade Secrets: A Moyers Report."
It came with a 30-minute panel discussion afterward. The report hit the chemical industry. It portrayed them as having engaged decades ago in a cold, calculated cover-up of deadly health effects linked to certain chemicals, resulting in death and illness for many workers. In other words, the program implied that the chemical industry was guilty of premeditated murder of its own employees.
Bill’s money: For the post-show panel, Moyers chose Kenneth A. Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a rabidly anti-capitalist group funded by big foundations, including Moyers' Florence and John Schumann Foundation. Moyers acknowledged that he had given a “small grant” to EWG (In fact it was four grants, $225,000 in 1989, $35,000 and $50,000 in 1995, and $15,000 in 1999, for a total of $325,000 - a third of a million isn’t “small” to most of us).
Moyers also had Dr. Phil Landrigan, a pediatrician and chairman of preventive medicine from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. In his on-air introduction of Landrigan, Moyers failed to mention that the doctor is also a long-time activist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, an anti-corporate advocacy group.
Both Cook and Landrigan had advance knowledge of the show’s subject matter.
The chemical industry was represented by two men who had no advance knowledge of the show’s contents.
Bill the messenger: He let the chemical guys comment on how he beat them up. To Bill, that’s fair.
Totally biased.

Then there’s the Moyers hypocrisy.
For example:
Bill’s talk: “The single most important thing environmentalists can do to ensure America’s national security is to fight to reduce our nation’s dependence on oil, whether imported or domestic." Bill Moyers, EGA Keynote
Bill’s walk: The Schumann Foundation gets the money for its environmental grants in large part from investments in oil and gas companies, according to its most recent available tax returns:

2000 shares of British Petroleum;

5,000 shares Columbia Gas Systems;

4,200 shares Conoco, Inc.;

3,900 shares Keyspan Energy (natural gas distribution);

10,000 shares Noble Affiliates (oil & gas exploration and development);

10,200 shares Pioneer Natural Resource Company (oil & gas exploration and development);

10,000 shares Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Royal Dutch / Shell Oil holding company);

10,000 shares Shell Transportation and Trading Company (another Royal Dutch / Shell Oil holding company); plus

12,500 shares of Ford Motor Company.

Message? The single most important thing Bill Moyers can do is get rich from our nation’s dependence on oil, whether imported or domestic.

Son of Bill
John Moyers:
The Florence and John Schumann Foundation, Executive Director (salary $85,000, benefits $22,228)
The Florence Fund, Executive Director
TomPaine.com (website project of Florence Fund)

“TomPaine.com is a project of The Florence Fund, a 501.c.3 non-profit corporation based in Washington, D.C. We are funded by foundations and individual donors, and we take no corporate or union funding. Nor do we accept advertising — that gives us editorial independence, and it gives you, our reader, freedom from annoying banner advertising. Our principle funding comes from the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, a major supporter of other independent media efforts, including National Public Radio, the Columbia Journalism Review, public TV’s “Frontline” and “POV” documentary series, and The American Prospect magazine."

TomPaine.com may be independent from you and me, but it’s not independent from Bill Moyers' money or his opinions.

Friends of Bill
W. Ford Schumann
Robert Schumann
Heirs of the IBM and General Motors Acceptance Corporation money
The Florence and John Schumann Foundation, both brothers are officers
The Florence Fund, both brothers are directors

W. Ford Schumann is principal of the W. Ford Schumann Foundation, trustee of the Aspen Music Festival and School.

Claremont Institute on Tom Paine.com

Bucks for Bill

Bill got bucks from 12 foundations, funneled through 13 recipients.

Bill’s Donors: 1. Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc.; 2. The Kohlberg Foundation, Inc.; 3. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 4. Charles H. Revson Foundation, Inc.; 5. The Nathan Cummings Foundation, Inc.; 6. The Annie E. Casey Foundation; 7. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 8. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; 9. The Joyce Foundation; 10. The California Wellness Foundation; 11. The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation; 12. Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

Recipients That Pass Bucks to Bill: 1. W N E T Channel 13, NYC, NY; 2. Educational Broadcasting Corporation, NYC, NY; 3. American Library Association, Chicago, IL; 4. Genesis Project, NYC, NY; 5. Public Affairs Television, NYC, NY; 6. Jewish Media Fund, NYC, NY; 7. Institute for Christian Jewish Studies, Baltimore, MD; 8. Educational Broadcasting Corporation. WNET Channel 13, NYC, NY; 9. Fetzer Institute, Kalamazoo, MI; 10. Communications Consortium Media Center. Media Center, DC; 11. MDC, Chapel Hill, NC; 12. ETV Endowment of South Carolina, Spartanburg, SC; 13. Chicago Educational Television Association, Chicago, IL.

Grants Bill got:

Record 1
FOUNDATION NAME: Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: W N E T Channel 13, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For teacher’s guide and Web site to accompany PBS series Fooling With Words, with Bill Moyers, based on 1998 Geraldine R. Dodge Poetry Festival
AMOUNT: $150,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1999
Record 2
FOUNDATION NAME: The Kohlberg Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Educational Broadcasting Corporation, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For Bill Moyers-On Our Own Terms
AMOUNT: $500,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1998
Record 3
FOUNDATION NAME: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
RECIPIENT: American Library Association, Chicago, IL
ABSTRACT: For public education programs in conjunction with PBS Series, On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying in America
AMOUNT: $170,313 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1999
DURATION: 1.25-year grant
Record 4
FOUNDATION NAME: The Nathan Cummings Foundation, Inc. (The Sara Lee foods fortune)
RECIPIENT: Educational Broadcasting Corporation, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: To conduct research for television series, Living with Dying, with Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $40,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1997
Record 5
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles H. Revson Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Genesis Project, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For various nonprofit organizations to create educational materials and education programs in conjunction with the series, Genesis: A Living Conversation, with Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $150,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1996
Record 6
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles H. Revson Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Genesis Project, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For various nonprofit organizations to create educational materials and education programs in conjunction with the series, Genesis: A Living Conversation, with Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $34,500 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1996
Record 7
FOUNDATION NAME: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
RECIPIENT: Public Affairs Television, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For research and development of Bill Moyers television special on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission
AMOUNT: $40,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1997
Record 8
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles H. Revson Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Public Affairs Television, NYC, NY
RECIPIENT TYPE: Television (A32); Public affairs (W99)
ABSTRACT: To complete film production and development of educational materials for public television series based on stories in the Book of Genesis, with Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $50,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1995
Record 9
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles H. Revson Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Jewish Media Fund, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For initial development phases of educational and outreach activities for Genesis series with Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $18,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1995
Record 10
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles H. Revson Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Institute for Christian Jewish Studies, Baltimore, MD
ABSTRACT: To develop model for interfaith and interracial discussion groups in conjunction with Genesis series with Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $10,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1995
Record 11
FOUNDATION NAME: The Joyce Foundation
RECIPIENT: Educational Broadcasting Corporation. WNET Channel 13, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For What Can We Do About Violence, program by Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $150,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1994
Record 12
FOUNDATION NAME: The California Wellness Foundation
RECIPIENT: Public Affairs Television, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For Bill Moyers production, Overcoming Youth Violence, four-hour introduction to The National Public Television Campaign to Combat Youth Violence
AMOUNT: $250,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1994
Record 13
FOUNDATION NAME: The Annie E. Casey Foundation
RECIPIENT: Educational Broadcasting Corporation, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For production and promotion of Families First with Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $35,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1992
Record 14
FOUNDATION NAME: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
RECIPIENT: Public Affairs Television, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For cultural and public affairs productions of Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $1,500,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1992
DURATION: 3-year grant
Record 15
FOUNDATION NAME: The Nathan Cummings Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Fetzer Institute, Kalamazoo, MI
ABSTRACT: For Healing and the Mind, with Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $250,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1990
Record 16
FOUNDATION NAME: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
RECIPIENT: Communications Consortium Media Center. Media Center, DC
ABSTRACT: For staff to work with grantees to develop communications strategies in states where family preservation programs are well-established by focusing national media attention on initiatives and by building additional communications activities around Bill Moyers' documentary on family preservation
AMOUNT: $175,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1991
DURATION: 1 1/2-year grant
Record 17
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (General Motors money)
RECIPIENT: MDC, Chapel Hill, NC
ABSTRACT: For outreach work related to documentary All Our Children with Bill Moyers and subsequent teleconferences
AMOUNT: $20,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1991
Record 18
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
RECIPIENT: ETV Endowment of South Carolina, Spartanburg, SC
ABSTRACT: For additional promotional and production costs for Bill Moyers' documentary, All Our Children
AMOUNT: $75,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1991DURATION: 1 1/4-year grant
Record 19
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
RECIPIENT: ETV Endowment of South Carolina, Spartanburg, SC
ABSTRACT: For reprinting and distributing additional promotional materials and technical assistance guides in support of repeat telecasting of Bill Moyers All Our Children documentary
AMOUNT: $35,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1991
Record 20
FOUNDATION NAME: Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Inc.
RECIPIENT: W N E T Channel 13, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: To produce teacher education guide for high schools and colleges to accompany Moyers: The Power of the Word, six-part series on contemporary poetry inspired by Dodge Foundation’s biennial Poetry Festival at Waterloo Village
AMOUNT: $80,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1989
Record 21
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
RECIPIENT: MDC, Chapel Hill, NC
ABSTRACT: For outreach activities related to Mott-funded documentary on at-risk youth being produced by Bill Moyers for airing in early 1991 on national public television network
AMOUNT: $99,221 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1990
Record 22
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
RECIPIENT: ETV Endowment of South Carolina, Spartanburg, SC
ABSTRACT: For outreach programs and activities related to Mott-funded documentary on at-risk youth produced by Bill Moyers for airing in early 991 on national public television network
AMOUNT: $300,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1990
Record 23
FOUNDATION NAME: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
RECIPIENT: Educational Broadcasting Corporation, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For production of programs by Bill Moyers for WNET, Channel 13
AMOUNT: $625,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1989
DURATION: 3-year grant
Record 24
FOUNDATION NAME: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
RECIPIENT: Educational Broadcasting Corporation, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For challenge grant for weekly production of The World of Ideas, under direction of Bill Moyers, for WNET, Channel 13
AMOUNT: $1,875,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1989
DURATION: 3-year grant
Record 25
FOUNDATION NAME: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
RECIPIENT: Chicago Educational Television Association, Chicago, IL
ABSTRACT: For weekly production of The World of Ideas, under direction of Bill Moyers
AMOUNT: $1,875,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1989
DURATION: 3-year grant
Record 26
FOUNDATION NAME: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
RECIPIENT: Chicago Educational Television Association, Chicago, IL
ABSTRACT: For production of programs produced by Bill Moyers for WTTW, Channel 11
AMOUNT: $625,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1989
DURATION: 3-year grant
Record 27
FOUNDATION NAME: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
RECIPIENT: Educational Broadcasting Corporation, NYC, NY
ABSTRACT: For production costs of 90-minute documentary by Bill Moyers building upon findings of 1988 Mott-sponsored report, America’s Shame, America’s Hope: Twelve Million Youth At Risk
AMOUNT: $850,000 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 1989

uncle toms NEEDS HELP!

Look for the question mark.

Ok so rwn you like the Lincoln Group for 'News'!

They meet your expectations for 'Just News, and no Opinions'. Am I understanding you correctly?

As to the source I used to Identify the Lincoln Group I am refering to, I place no particular stock in them. The purpose was strickly for identification. I made no claims for or against the site or peoples that gathered the information.

I am looking at the Lincoln Group and the 'connection' to Our Government. And the Truth of the News I am getting, and whose 'truth' is substantiated.

So, am I correct in my understanding of your answer “yes” ?

It's not what I believe but what you believe

Unregistered;26609:
They meet your expectations for 'Just News, and no Opinions'. Am I understanding you correctly?

As to the source I used to Identify the Lincoln Group I am refering to, I place no particular stock in them. The purpose was strickly for identification. I made no claims for or against the site or peoples that gathered the information.

I am looking at the Lincoln Group and the 'connection' to Our Government. And the Truth of the News I am getting, and whose 'truth' is substantiated.

So, am I correct in my understanding of your answer “yes” ?

I have not looked into the Lincoln group on the surface they seem to be as they appear, who knows what’s under the hood.
When dealing with conspiracy groups or anti-groups you need to understand they all have skeletons in the closet.
What may seem reasonable and good information is often suspect to the motives behind them.

I suggest you read my last post it explains a good deal of what we are all currently experiencing as humans.
All pawns to those who have since we are the have not’s.

rwn, Sorry you did not comprehend...

the questions asked of you. Maybe your 'news only, no opinions' statement to Sammy was just a flip no meaning statement.

Sorry we wasted our time.

An Observation

The terrorists don’t care if you’re a liberal.

They’ll kill you anyway.

Ah yes I see the thrust of what you where trying to point out.

Unregistered;26622:
the questions asked of you. Maybe your 'news only, no opinions' statement to Sammy was just a flip no meaning statement.

Sorry we wasted our time.

Yes the Lincoln group is definiatly in the business of injecting content.
Control the media and you control the minds.

TouchStone, it seems you are making...

some distinctions about 'terrorists'.

Like there are good terrorists and bad terrorists.

Like there are good killings and bad killings.

Like acts that cause the same terrors, are not bad if they come from 'good' terrorists.

Like the sending sending the man, Luis Posada Carrilies, home to Florida a free man by a US fEDERAL jUDGE, is not a terrorist Act!

RWN...

thank you for posting your understanding.

galljdaj