I can be most easily reached through the following email address for suggesting new additions to the subscription list or to cancel your subscription to the Bi-Weekly:
The Blog Address for the Bi-Weekly is: http://jvlbiweekly.blogspot.com
Please forward the Blog address for the Bi-Weekly to any who might be interested
Sunday, June 15th, 2008
Volume 7, No. 10
6 Articles, 17 Pages
1.Attention Geeks and Hackers Uncle Sam's Cyber Force Wants You!
2. Harvard Medics 'Concealed Drug Firm Cash'
5. UK Army 'Influencing' Universities
1. ATTENTION GEEKS AND HACKERS UNCLE SAM'S CYBER FORCE WANTS YOU!
BY
WILLIAM J. ASTORE
Recently, while I was on a visit to Salon.com, my computer screen momentarily went black. A glitch? A power surge? No, it was a pop-up ad for the U.S. Air Force, warning me that an enemy cyber-attack could come at any moment – with dire consequences for my ability to connect to the Internet. It was an Outer Limits moment. Remember that eerie sci-fi show from the early 1960s? The one that began in a blur with the message, "There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission"? It felt a little like that.
And speaking of Air Force ads, there's one currently running on TV and on the Internet that starts with a bird's eye view of the Pentagon as a narrator intones, "This building will be attacked three million times today. Who's going to protect it?" Two Army colleagues of mine nearly died on September 11, 2001, when the third hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon, so I can't say I appreciated the none-too-subtle reminder of that day's carnage. Leaving that aside, it turns out that the ad is referring to cyber-attacks and that the cyber protector it has in mind is a new breed of "air" warrior, part of an entirely new Cyber Command run by the Air Force. Using the latest technology, our cyber elite will "shoot down" enemy hackers and saboteurs, both foreign and domestic, thereby dominating the realm of cyberspace, just as the Air Force is currently seeking to dominate the planet's air space – and then space itself "to the shining stars and beyond."
Part of the Air Force's new "above all" vision of full-spectrum dominance, America's emerging cyber force has control fantasies that would impress George Orwell. Working with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Department of Homeland Security, and other governmental agencies, the Air Force's stated goal is to gain access to, and control over, any and all networked computers, anywhere on Earth, at a proposed cost to you, the American taxpayer, of $30 billion over the first five years.
Here, the Air Force is advancing the now familiar Bush-era idea that the only effective defense is a dominating offense. According to Lani Kass, previously the head of the Air Force's Cyberspace Task Force and now a special assistant to the Air Force Chief of Staff, "If you're defending in cyber [space], you're already too late. Cyber delivers on the original promise of air power. If you don't dominate in cyber, you cannot dominate in other domains."
Such logic is commonplace in today's Air Force (as it has been for Bush administration foreign policy). A threat is identified, our vulnerability to it is trumpeted, and then our response is to spend tens of billions of dollars launching a quest for total domination. Thus, on May 12th of this year, the Air Force Research Laboratory posted an official "request for proposal" seeking contractor bids to begin the push to achieve "dominant cyber offensive engagement." The desired capabilities constitute a disturbing militarization of cyberspace:
"Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root access to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms. Robust methodologies to enable access to any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware. Technology to maintain an active presence within the adversaries' information infrastructure completely undetected. Any and all techniques to enable stealth and persistence capabilities. Capability to stealthily exfiltrate information from any remotely-located open or closed computer information systems."
Stealthily infiltrating, stealing, and exfiltrating: Sounds like cyber-cat burglars, or perhaps invisible cyber-SEALS, as in that U.S. Navy "empty beach at night" commercial. This is consistent with an Air Force-sponsored concept paper on "network-centric warfare," which posits the deployment of so-called "cyber-craft" in cyberspace to "disable terminals, nodes or the entire network as well as send commands to 'fry' their hard drives." Somebody clever with acronyms came up with D5, an all-encompassing term that embraces the ability to deceive, deny, disrupt, degrade, and destroy an enemy's computer information systems.
No one, it seems, is the least bit worried that a single-minded pursuit of cyber-"destruction" – analogous to that "crush, kill, destroy" android on the 1960s TV series "Lost in Space" – could create a new arena for that old Cold War nuclear acronym MAD (mutually assured destruction), as America's enemies and rivals seek to D5 our terminals, nodes, and networks.
Here's another less-than-comforting thought: America's new Cyber Force will most likely be widely distributed in basing terms. In fact, the Air Force prefers a "headquarters" spread across several bases here in the U.S., thereby cleverly tapping the political support of more than a few members of Congress.
Finally, if, after all this talk of the need for "information dominance" and the five D's, you still remain skeptical, the Air Force has prepared an online "What Do You Think?" survey and quiz (paid for, again, by you, the taxpayer, of course) to silence naysayers and cyberspace appeasers. It will disabuse you of the notion that the Internet is a somewhat benign realm where cooperation of all sorts, including the international sort, is possible. You'll learn, instead, that we face nothing but ceaseless hostility from cyber-thugs seeking to terrorize all of us everywhere all the time.
Of Ugly Babies, Icebergs, and Air Force Computer Systems
Computers and their various networks are unquestionably vital to our national defense – indeed, to our very way of life – and we do need to be able to protect them from cyber attacks. In addition, striking at an enemy's ability to command and control its forces has always been part of warfare. But spending $6 billion a year for five years on a mini-Manhattan Project to atomize our opponents' computer networks is an escalatory boondoggle of the worst sort.
Leaving aside the striking potential for the abuse of privacy, or the potentially destabilizing responses of rivals to such aggressive online plans, the Air Force's militarization of cyberspace is likely to yield uncertain technical benefits at inflated prices, if my experience working on two big Air Force computer projects counts for anything. Admittedly, that experience is a bit dated, but keep in mind that the wheels of procurement reform at the Department of Defense (DoD) do turn slowly, when they turn at all.
Two decades ago, while I was at the Space Surveillance Center in Cheyenne Mountain, the Air Force awarded a contract to update our computer system. The new system, known as SPADOC 4, was, as one Air Force tester put it, the "ugly baby." Years later, and no prettier, the baby finally came on-line, part of a Cheyenne Mountain upgrade that was hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. One Air Force captain described it in the following way:
"The SPADOC system was designed very poorly in terms of its human machine interface [leading to] a lot of work arounds(?) that make learning the system difficult. [Fortunately,] people are adaptable and they can learn to operate a poorly designed machine, like SPADOC, [but the result is] increased training time, increased stress for the operators, increased human errors under stress and unused machine capabilities."
My second experience came a decade ago, when I worked on the Air Force Mission Support System or AFMSS. The idea was to enable pilots to plan their missions using the latest tools of technology, rather than paper charts, rulers, and calculators. A sound idea, but again botched in execution.
The Air Force tried to design a mission planner for every platform and mission, from tankers to bombers. To meet such disparate needs took time, money, and massive computing power, so the Air Force went with Unix-based SPARC platforms, which occupied a small room. The software itself was difficult to learn, even counter-intuitive. While the Air Force struggled, year after year, to get AFMSS to work, competitors came along with PC-based flight planners, which provided 80% of AFMSS's functionality at a fraction of the cost. Naturally, pilots began clamoring for the portable, easy-to-learn PC system.
Fundamentally, the whole DOD procurement cycle had gone wrong – and there lies a lesson for the present cyber-moment. The Pentagon is fairly good at producing decent ships, tanks, and planes (never mind the typical cost overruns, the gold-plating, and so on). After all, an advanced ship or tank, even deployed a few years late, is normally still an effective weapon. But a computer system a few years late? That's a paperweight or a doorstop. That's your basic disaster. Hence the push for the DOD to rely, whenever possible, on COTS, or commercial-off-the-shelf, software and hardware.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying it's only the Pentagon that has trouble designing, acquiring, and fielding new computer systems. Think of it as a problem of large, by-the-book bureaucracies. Just look at the FBI's computer debacle attempting (for years) to install new systems that failed disastrously, or for that matter the ever more imperial Microsoft's struggles with Vista.
Judging by my past experience with large-scale Air Force computer projects, that $30 billion will turn out to be just the tip of the cyber-war procurement iceberg and, while you're at it, call those "five years" of development 10. Shackled to a multi-year procurement cycle of great regulatory rigidity and complexity, the Air Force is likely to struggle but fail to keep up with the far more flexible and creative cyber world, which almost daily sees the fielding of new machines and applications.
Loving Big "Cyber" Brother
Our military is the ultimate centralized, bureaucratic, hierarchical organization. Its tolerance for errors and risky or "deviant" behavior is low. Its culture is designed to foster obedience, loyalty, regularity, and predictability, all usually necessary in handling frantic life-or-death combat situations. It is difficult to imagine a culture more antithetical to the world of computer developers, programmers, and hackers.
So expect a culture clash in militarized cyberspace – and more taxpayers' money wasted – as the Internet and the civilian computing world continue to outpace anything the DoD can muster. If, however, the Air Force should somehow manage to defy the odds and succeed, the future might be even scarier.
After all, do we really want the military to dominate cyberspace? Let's say we answer "yes" because we love our big "Above All" cyber brother. Now, imagine you're Chinese or Indian or Russian. Would you really cede total cyber dominance to the United States without a fight? Not likely. You would simply launch – or intensify – your own cyber war efforts.
Interestingly, a few people have surmised that the Air Force's cyber war plans are so outlandish they must be bluster – a sort of warning shot to competitors not to dare risk a cyber attack on the U.S., because they'd then face cyber obliteration.
Yet it's more likely that the Air Force is quite sincere in promoting its $30 billion "mini-Manhattan" cyber-war project. It has its own private reasons for attempting to expand into a new realm (and so create new budget authority as well). After all, as a service, it's been somewhat marginalized in the War on Terror. Today's Air Force is in a flat spin, its new planes so expensive that relatively few can be purchased, its pilots increasingly diverted to "fly" Predators and Reapers – unmanned aerial vehicles – its top command eager to ward off the threat of future irrelevancy.
But even in cyberspace, irrelevancy may prove the name of the game.
Judging by the results of previous U.S. military-run computer projects, future Air Force "cyber-craft" may prove more than a day late and billions of dollars short.
2. HARVARD MEDICS 'CONCEALED DRUG FIRM CASH'
BY
GUY ADAMS
WASHINGTON - Harvard University is at the centre of an academic and political scandal after three prominent members of its psychiatry department were accused of breaking conflict-of-interest rules by failing to declare millions of dollars in consulting fees from drugs manufacturers.
An investigation by Senator Charles E Grassley uncovered evidence that Dr Joseph Biederman, a world-renowned child psychiatrist who helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines, neglected to tell university officials that he had earned at least $1.6m (£810,000) from pharmaceutical companies that make them.
Two of Dr Biederman’s colleagues, Dr Timothy E Wilens and Dr Thomas Spencer, also allegedly violated federal and academic rules by concealing outside income from the drugs industry of $1.6m and $1m respectively. Senator Grassley, a Republican, had discovered that data about consulting fees disclosed by the academics differed sharply from payment information held by drugs companies.
In one example, Dr Biederman, whose work is held responsible for a 40-fold increase in the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, claimed in an annual report to the university that he received no income from Johnson & Johnson in 2001. When Senator Grassley queried this figure, he confessed to receiving $3,500. The company says Dr Biederman was paid $58,169 that year, a discrepancy that remained unexplained last night.
The relationship between the Harvard academics and drug companies is highly controversial because their research has advocated the use of previously unapproved psychiatric medicines in children. The university began a formal investigation yesterday into their outside earnings.
“The information released by Senator Grassley suggests that, in certain instances, each doctor may have failed to disclose outside information … that should have been referred,” read a statement by the university published by The New York Times, which revealed details of the affair.
Dr Biederman said he took conflict of interest policies very seriously, adding: “My interests are solely in the advancement of medical treatment through rigorous and objective study.” Dr Wilens and Dr Spencer said they thought they had complied with the rules.
BY
SCOTT RITTER
“I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us in the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that. … The right questions were asked. I think there’s a lot of critics-and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one-who think that, if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, ‘This is bogus,’ and ‘You’re a liar,’ and ‘Why are you doing this?’ that we didn’t do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role.”
That was NBC correspondent David Gregory, appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews.” He was responding to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s new book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” McClellan has challenged the role of the U.S. media in investigating and reporting U.S. policy in times of conflict, especially when it comes to covering the government itself.
As a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, especially when unsubstantiated allegations of weapons of mass destruction are used to sell a war, I am no stranger to the concept of questioning authority, especially in times of war. I am from the Teddy Roosevelt school of American citizenship, adhering to the principle that “to announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Some may point out that Roosevelt made that statement in criticism of Woodrow Wilson’s foot dragging when it came to getting America into World War I, and that it is odd for one opposed to American involvement in Iraq to quote a former president who so enthusiastically embraced military intervention. But principle can cut both ways on any given issue. The principle inherent in the concept of the moral responsibility of the American people to question their leadership at all times, but especially when matters of war are at stake, is as valid for the pro as it is the con.
The validity of this principle is not judged on the level of militancy of the presidential action in question, but rather its viability as judged by the values and ideals of the American people. While the diversity of the United States dictates that there will be a divergence of consensus when it comes to individual values and ideals, the collective ought to agree that the foundation upon which all American values and ideals should be judged is the U.S. Constitution, setting forth as it does a framework of law which unites us all. To hold the Constitution up as a basis upon which to criticize the actions of any given president is perhaps the most patriotic act an American can engage in. As Theodore Roosevelt himself noted, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.”
Now David Gregory, and others who populate that curious slice of Americana known as “the media,” may hold that they, as journalists, operate on a different level than the average American citizen. As Mr. Gregory notes, it is not their “role” to question or debate policy set forth by the president. This is curious, coming from a leading member of a news team that prides itself on the “investigative” quality of its reporting. If we take Gregory at face value, it seems his only job (or “role”) is to simply parrot the policy formulations put forward by administration officials, that the integrity of journalism precludes the reporter from taking sides, and that any aggressive questioning concerning the veracity, or morality, or legality of any given policy would, in its own right, constitute opposition to said policy, and as such would be “taking sides.”
This, of course, is journalism in its most puritanical form, the ideal that the reporter simply reports, and keeps his or her personal opinion segregated from the “facts” as they are being presented. While it would be a farcical stretch for David Gregory, or any other mainstream reporter or correspondent, to realistically claim ownership of such a noble mantle, it appears that is exactly what Gregory did when he set forth the parameters of what his “role” was, and is, in reporting on stories such as the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration’s case for war. For this to be valid, however, the issue of journalistic integrity would need to apply not only to the individual reporter or correspondent, but also to the entire system to which the given reporter or correspondent belonged. In the case of Gregory, therefore, we must not only bring into the mix his own individual performance, but also that of NBC News and its parent organization, General Electric.
As a weapons inspector, I was very much driven by what the facts said, not what the rhetoric implied. I maintain this standard to this day in assessing and evaluating American policy in the Middle East. It was the core approach which governed my own personal questioning of the Bush administration’s case for confronting Iraq in the lead-up to the war in 2002 and 2003. I am saddened at the vindication of my position in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not because of what I did, but rather what the transcripts of every media interview I conducted at the time demonstrates: The media were not interested in reporting the facts, but rather furthering a fiction. Time after time, I backed my opposition to the Bush administration’s “case” for war on Iraq with hard facts, citing evidence that could be readily checked by these erstwhile journalists had they been so inclined. Instead, my integrity and character were impugned by these simple recorders of “fact”, further enabling the fiction pushed by the administration into the mainstream, unchallenged and unquestioned, to be digested by the American public as truth.
Scott McClellan is correct to point out the complicity of the media in facilitating the rush to war. David Gregory is disingenuous in his denial that this was indeed the case. Jeff Cohen, a former producer at MSNBC, has written about the pressures placed on him and Phil Donahue leading to the cancellation of the latter’s top-rated television show just before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Katie Couric, the former co-host of NBC’s “Today Show” (and current news anchor for CBS News), has tacitly acknowledged “pressure” from above when it came to framing interviews in a manner that was detrimental to the Bush administration’s case for war. Jessica Yellin, who before the war in Iraq worked for MSNBC, put it best: “I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning,” she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings.”
Now, one would think that a journalist with the self-proclaimed integrity of Gregory would jump at the opportunity to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and focus on this story line, if for no other reason than to prove it wrong and thereby clear his name (guilty by association, at the very least) and the name of the organization he represents. The matter is simple, on the surface: NBC network executives either did, or didn’t, pressure their producers and reporters when it came to covering and framing stories. Surely an investigative reporter of Gregory’s talent can get to the bottom of this one?
While Gregory certainly does not need help from someone of such humble journalistic credentials as myself, perhaps my experience as a former weapons inspector in tracking down the lies and inconsistencies of the Iraqi government could be of some assistance. The first thing I would do is to frame the scope of the problem. The issue of Iraq as a target worthy of war really didn’t hit the mainstream until the summer of 2002, so I would start there. I would be interested in defining the potential sources of “pressure” that could be placed on NBC as an organization when it came to reporting on Iraq.
We do know, courtesy of the Pentagon, that throughout the summer and fall of 2002, NBC News, via its Pentagon bureau chief and other contacts, worked closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs, on the issue of media access in any potential future conflict with Iraq. We also know that these meetings were an outgrowth of a meeting held on Sept. 28, 2001, when the Pentagon and bureau chiefs, including representatives from NBC News, discussed how to balance the needs of the media to do their job while protecting national security and the safety of military personnel. The issue of embedding media personnel with the military was raised, with the Pentagon emphasizing that “security at the source” was the principle means for which to ensure no security breach occurred. This meant that if journalists were so embedded, they would have to be responsible about what they reported.
This concept of self-censorship is not a new one, nor is it particularly controversial. Ernie Pyle and Joe Rosenthal, two famous journalists from World War II, were able to establish stellar reputations while operating under the conditions of wartime censorship. So were thousands of other journalists, in several wars. In this manner, journalists covering D-Day knew of the invasion long before the American public, or even members of Congress. Were they bad journalists for not reporting what they knew beforehand? Were their parent organizations corrupted by agreeing to censorship as a prerequisite for access? The answer in both cases is clearly “no.”
However, in the interest of establishing a foundation of fact upon which to further any investigation into the possibility of pressure being exerted on NBC reporters and/or correspondents covering a war between the United States and Iraq, an intrepid investigator would want access to documents and records from those early meetings between the Pentagon and NBC News. What were the specific terms spelled out in those meetings? What derivative internal documents were generated inside NBC News, and its corporate master, General Electric, based upon those meetings, and what did those documents discuss? Unlike the situation faced by journalists during World War II, America and Iraq were not yet at war, so did NBC News establish policies on how to balance the operational security needs of the military while reporting on a war which, in the summer and fall of 2002, the Bush administration said wasn’t being planned?
Formal planning for “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (only later renamed “Operation Iraqi Freedom”) commenced early on in 2002. The U.S. Army began working on a public affairs plan early in 2002 and, in June of that year, briefed U.S. Central Command on a concept for large-scale media embedding for ground forces. U.S. Central Command expanded the Army’s plan to include the other services, and by September 2002 had prepared a draft public affairs annex to the overall war plan. Formal public affairs planning for U.S. Central Command was initiated in October 2002, when a planning cell was established. In its first meeting, from Oct. 2-7, the Pentagon reviewed past media operations in time of war, and recommended a break with the past practice of a media pool, and instead suggested a formal embedded media program. These and other media-related issues were consolidated into Annex F (Public Affairs) of the formal “Operation Iraqi Liberation” war plan. It is curious that the Pentagon acknowledges a formal war plan in existence at a time when senior Bush administration officials were telling members of Congress that there were no plans to attack Iraq and that the Bush administration was focusing its efforts on diplomacy.
The embedded media program was formally endorsed by the Pentagon in November 2002. On Nov. 14, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, together with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a message to all military commanders discussing public affairs, and in particular the embedded media program. In it, Rumsfeld addressed how potential future operations [i.e., war with Iraq] could shape public perception of the national security environment, and recognized the need to facilitate access to national and international media to “tell the factual story-good or bad-before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions as they most certainly will continue to do. Our people in the field need to tell the story.”
When did NBC News become aware of this Rumsfeld memo? Were there any reactions to the concept of embedded journalists being targeted by the military as being facilitators for disseminating a pro-Pentagon point of view?
The Pentagon states that while no formal meetings about draft public affairs annex content were conducted with bureau chiefs, “informal discussions were held with some key individuals in the media, who provided input for consideration.” The Pentagon also acknowledges that changes to the public affairs annex were made “based on a bureau chief’s recommendation.” Was NBC News part of the “informal discussions” with the Pentagon? Did NBC News provide any recommendations to the Pentagon’s public affairs office based on such meetings? If so, what were the recommendations, who made them, and how was this staffed within the NBC/GE corporate structure?
These are important questions, since balancing the need to maintain secrecy of potential military operations would appear to conflict with any effort undertaken by NBC News to probe Bush administration claims on not only the justification for confronting Iraq, but whether or not there was any plan to attack Iraq to begin with. How did NBC News compartmentalize its knowledge of the Bush administration’s plans to attack Iraq? Was there any crossover in terms of management? Did the same personnel who managed Pentagon relations also manage the reporters whose task it was to press the Bush administration on the veracity of its case for war against Iraq? Did such crossover ever manifest itself in a case of conflict of interest? What is the documentary record of internal discussions within NBC in this regard? Were any policies established on the control of information that touched upon sensitive military activities?
It might appear as if I am on a fishing expedition, so to speak, probing for documents for which there is no evidence that they even exist. Again, I’ll do my best to help focus David Gregory on his investigation. Much has been made of the fact that parent company GE makes a great deal of money from the machinery of war. It is useful, however, to examine a specific case, an instance where the news operation, the corporate parent and the military were all too intertwined.
In November 2002, the Pentagon established formal rules that specifically forbade any journalist to “self-embed” with a given military unit, noting that all requests for embedding would be handled via the Pentagon’s public affairs office. At the same time, in Kuwait, the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division brigade and battalion commanders were experimenting with embedding journalists during short (three to five days) training exercises. The 2nd Brigade Combat Team in particular pushed the embedding concept, getting journalists embedded at the battalion level. From this experience, the 2nd Brigade was able to establish embedding tactics, techniques and procedures that worked for both the media and the commanders. According to the U.S. Army, “The embeds realized they needed to work with their equipment and develop procedures for filing reports. They identified problems with the durability of their equipment and its ability to withstand the elements and a need for power sources for extended periods.”
One of these embeds was NBC News correspondent David Bloom. It should be noted that Bloom tragically died while covering the Iraq war. Bloom was a rising star at NBC, with an eye for a developing story. “Early on,” NBC News President Neal Shapiro said shortly after Bloom’s death, “he said, ‘I want a piece of this war.’ ” Shapiro isn’t specific about the date Bloom made that statement, but since Bloom was dispatched to Kuwait in November 2002, we can assume it was on or about that time. Bloom was one of the embeds who worked closely with the U.S. Army during that time, developing the “tactics, techniques and procedures” for embedded media. In December 2002, Bloom called NBC News from Kuwait, where he had just covered the largest U.S. military live-fire exercise since the first Gulf War. Bloom told his NBC News bosses that he had been given permission to embed with the 3rd Infantry Division, even though official Pentagon policy in place at the time specifically forbade any such action. Bloom already exhibited a familiarity with the war plans of the 3rd Infantry Division, bragging that they were the “tip of the spear.” Not only would Bloom and his cameraman be able to ride with the 3rd Infantry Division, they would be able to broadcast live while doing so. Clearly, Bloom and his 3rd Infantry Division colleagues had perfected their embed “tactics, techniques and procedures.”
The 2nd Brigade Combat Team had offered Bloom the use of a large M-88A1 tank recovery vehicle. Bloom had worked with the Army to mount a camera and a mobile satellite transmission unit on the M-88. The images taken from the camera would be sent back, while the M-88 was traveling at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour, to a radically modified Ford F-450 SuperDuty truck that carried specialized satellite communication equipment built by Maritime Telecommunications Network, and a gyro-stabilizing transmission dish mounted underneath a protective dome on the rear body. This truck would trail the leading elements of the 3rd Infantry’s spearhead at distances of up to two miles. The M-88 carrying Bloom broadcast microwave signals back to the Ford F-450 truck, which in turn transmitted these signals via satellite uplink back to NBC News headquarters.
Bloom was able to provide the specifications of his idea to his NBC bosses, and in just 40 days, engineers from Maritime Telecommunications Network and NBC were able to modify a Ford F-450 to not only withstand the rigors of the Iraqi desert, but also to accommodate the electronics and satellite dish. Four weeks before the start of the war, the vehicle was tested, only to have the signal drop every time the vehicle turned. The engineers worked frantically to fix the problem, and the modified F-450, nicknamed the “Bloommobile,” was airlifted to Kuwait, arriving just days before the start of the invasion.
The cost of the Bloommobile has not been formally revealed, but is thought to run into seven figures. This vehicle would never have been made without the support of GE, which underwrote the cost of its construction. GE also fronted for NBC in negotiating special clearances with the Pentagon and State Department on exceptions to policy and import-export control. The Pentagon’s official policy while the Bloommobile was being built was for embeds to ride in vehicles provided by their respective unit, and that the media were not to provide their own transportation. Clearly, the Bloommobile represented a stark exception to that rule.
Keep in mind that the entire time GE/NBC was investing millions of dollars into building the Bloommobile so they could get crystal-clear live video transmitted from the “tip of the spear,” the Bush administration was playing coy on the subject of war with Iraq. With GE/NBC News so heavily invested in exploiting a war, was there any pressure placed on NBC reporters/correspondents concerning how they dealt with the Bush administration’s case for war? It is a fair question, and one that could best be dealt with through an examination of the internal GE/NBC documents concerning the Bloommobile. Who in GE/NBC served as the project manager for the Bloommobile? Certainly Bloom, the brain trust, was away in Kuwait. Who oversaw the project back in the United States? What did the Bloommobile cost? What was the internal debate within GE/NBC concerning the merits/faults of the Bloommobile? An organization like GE/NBC does not allocate millions of dollars on a whim. There had to be some sort of oversight that was documented. Who in GE/NBC fronted for the Bloommobile with the U.S. government? What is the record of communication between GE/NBC and the U.S. government concerning the vehicle? Did GE/NBC have to provide the U.S. government with any guarantees concerning the use of the Bloommobile?
In investing in the vehicle, GE/NBC News was investing in the war. There are quid pro quo arrangements made every day, and the link between the U.S. government granting NBC News so many exceptions in the creation and fielding of the Bloommobile, and the crackdown within the GE-controlled NBC/MSNBC family on anti-war and anti-administration sentiment, cannot be dismissed as simply circumstantial. But a review of the available documents would clarify this issue.
David Gregory has vociferously defended the role he and NBC News played in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Scott McClellan’s new book, combined with testimony from other sources, including those from within the NBC News family, has called into question the integrity of the operation Gregory serves. An allegation from a credible source has been made, and any denial must therefore be backed with verifiable, documented information. To paraphrase former Secretary of State Colin Powell when talking about Iraq before the invasion, the burden is on NBC to prove that it wasn’t complicit with the Bush administration concerning its reporting on Iraq and administration policies, and not on NBC’s critics to prove that it was.
The old proverb notes that “a fish stinks from its head,” something that aptly describes the GE/NBC News team when discussing the issue of Iraq. I challenge David Gregory to demonstrate otherwise.
BY
JOHN BUELL
Watching “Jeopardy” recently on ABC’s Bangor affiliate, I was stunned by a visually powerful and virulently anti-labor ad. The ad asked rhetorically “what would happen if labor bosses controlled class elections?” It portrayed a mafia like teen peering over elementary school children about to vote for their class officers.
Produced by “Union Facts,” the ad cites an impending threat to workers’ freedoms. That threat is the proposed card check legislation under which a union would be recognized if a majority of workers sign a card in support of union representation. The ad suggests that harassment by union bosses would soon replace the long established democratic traditions of the secret ballot in American workplaces.
Union Facts, however, leaves out and distorts many facts not lost on most American workers. Corporate workplaces are hardly models of American democracy. When workers seek to unionize, their efforts are often met with fierce and illegal resistance. Even when employers obey existing labor law, they can engage in practices that violate minimal democratic norms.
Charges of coercion by union bosses make strange reading when one examines the recent National Labor Relations Board reports. Even the most pro-corporate labor board in our nation’s history documents an extraordinary run of management abuses. University of Oregon Professor Gordon Lafer points out: “Over the period of 2000-05, there were an average of … over 19,000 charges filed per year alleging employer violations of federal labor law; of these, 40 percent — or 8, 500 cases per year — presented sufficiently strong evidence that the Labor Board either issued a complaint or oversaw an informal settlement … While both unions and employers violate the law, the vast majority of charges stem from employer behavior. In 2004, for example, 88.5 percent of all complaints issued by the Board, and over 90 percent of all cases tried [by] the full Board, addressed illegal behavior by employers.” (www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications)
The anti-union campaign touts corporate commitment to workers’ voting rights. Yet many corporations are dedicated to insuring that workers’ desires to form union never become the subject of elections. Lafer also points out: “Much of this employer behavior remains hidden.” In 2004, a South Carolina manufacturer sued by one of the country’s preeminent labor law firms for advising illegal tactics in a campaign to oust the union. These included “spying on workers, firing union activists, organizing a bogus ‘employee’ anti-union committee, writing supposedly employee-authored fliers calling union activists ‘trailer trash’ and ‘dog woman,’ and supplying cash-filled envelopes to anti-union employees.”
Even when they follow the law, corporate practice in so-called secret ballot labor representation elections falls short of minimal democratic standards. Workers do not enjoy free speech within their workplaces, may be forced to attend workshops where unions are denounced, and face unlimited expenditures by employers to advance their own interests.
Lafer points out that anti-union managers “can force individual employees into repeated, intimidating one-on-one conversations with their personal supervisors to make employees reveal their political leanings. Local supervisors are trained to read employees verbal and nonverbal reactions, and to ask indirect questions without explicitly asking employees how they will vote.”
The last quarter-century has seen a well-publicized discussion of the difficult fiscal circumstances of U.S. workers. Corporate CEOs, often unaccountable even to stockholders and paid salaries many times that of any union leader, have mismanaged worker pensions and squandered corporate assets. Less noted has been the assault on the quality of workplace life itself.
Most workers here in Maine and nationally are “at will.” They can be dismissed for any reason other than a few protected standards, such as race and gender. Workers who have been fortunate enough to achieve union status and to approve collective bargaining agreements are among the few who enjoy some protection against arbitrary power. Unions are the only worker-controlled organization elected by and accountable to workers. Not surprisingly, most polls over the last decade have shown that large numbers of workers desire an independent voice within their workplaces.
The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers the choice — not the requirement — that they can forego abusive, corporate-controlled election processes by pursuing unionization through a majority card check process. There is no union representation unless a majority signs. If a third prefer an election, they’ll get an election. Unions will not prevail in such a process if “union bosses” harass reluctant workers. Such a strategy is neither likely nor effective in generating majority support.
A healthy union movement in Maine would neither cost jobs nor destroy progress. Research by University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin demonstrates that states with adequate minimum wage standards, public sector bargaining, and full rights to labor organization grow at least as fast as those where labor rights are repressed. In Maine historically many small businesses once depended on the prosperity and free time of their union member consumers. Countering the worst forms of employer attacks and presenting an image of and program for more humane workplaces is a vital task for those committed to a more just and prosperous Maine.
5. UK ARMY 'INFLUENCING' UNIVERSITIES
(The UK is the world's third biggest spender on military research and development)
BY
GALLO/GETTY
There is considerable secrecy surrounding the growing influence of the military on the research agenda in British universities, according to report by a UK-based organisation.
Among the 16 universities investigated by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) were Oxford and Cambridge, and Imperial College and University College in London.
Chris Langley, one of the report's authors, said: "The creeping influence of the military establishment is deeply disturbing... We encountered secrecy and evasiveness while researching this report.
"There must be transparency if public confidence in science is to be maintained.
The report, entitled Behind Closed Doors, claims that the average level of military funding of UK universities is up to five times larger than government figures suggest.
The most recent government figure for military funding of British universities is £44m in 2004.
The report says that since 2002, new military research groups that are supported by publicly-funded research councils, military corporations and the ministry of defence (MoD) have surfaced in many universities.
The report, entitled Behind Closed Doors, claims that the average level of military funding of UK universities is up to five times larger than government figures suggest.
The report says that since 2002, new military research groups that are supported by publicly-funded research councils, military corporations and the ministry of defence (MoD) have surfaced in many universities.
(Credit freeze, housing woes blamed for surge)
More than 12,500 individuals and businesses filed for bankruptcy in Illinois in the first quarter of this year, a 27.2 percent jump over the year-earlier period that mirrors a national trend.
Consumer filings in the state increased 27.5 percent, to 12,248, while business bankruptcies rose 14.5 percent, to 260.
"The increase in business bankruptcies over the past year reflects the turmoil persisting in the credit markets, which makes it far more difficult for businesses to manage through periods of slowed activity that threaten their liquidity," said Stuart Rozen, partner in the restructuring, bankruptcy and insolvency practice for law firm Mayer Brown LLP in Chicago.
Rapidly rising food and commodity prices have increased the cost of doing business for certain industries, particularly restaurant and food services, trucking, airlines and construction and housing related businesses, he said.
"The increase in consumer filings is generally being driven by the same factors and particularly the rapid declines in the housing markets," he said.
Nationally, the total number of bankruptcies filed in the first quarter rose 26.9 percent, to 245,695, compared with the year-ago period, according to data released Tuesday by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
"This ninth consecutive quarterly increase in filings since Congress attempted to restrict access to bankruptcy relief demonstrates again the influence of rising household debt," Samuel Gerdano, executive director of American Bankruptcy Institute, said in a statement. The average American adult is carrying $4,246 in revolving debt and the average American household is carrying $8,218 in revolving debt, according to a study released Tuesday by IndexCreditCards.com, which analyzed government debt and census data. Revolving debt is mainly debt from credit cards.
That's a 19 percent and 13 percent increase, respectively, over the averages calculated by the credit card watcher in January 2006.
Nationally, consumer filings increased 26.5 percent, to 236,982, for the three-month period ended March 31, from the year-earlier period.
Business filings for the three months ended March 31 totaled 8,713, a 38.7 percent increase over the first quarter of 2007.
