23 August 2007

Pakistan: "The Taliban's Godfather"


Washington D.C., August 14, 2007 - A collection of newly-declassified documents published today detail U.S. concern over Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban during the seven-year period leading up to 9-11. This new release comes just days after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, acknowledged that, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil." While Musharraf admitted the Taliban were being sheltered in the lawless frontier border regions, the declassified U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself.

Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan. [Doc 17] The records released today represent the most complete and comprehensive collection of declassified documentation to date on Pakistan's aid programs to the Taliban, illustrating Islamabad's firm commitment to a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. [Doc 34].

These new documents also support and inform the findings of a recently-released CIA intelligence estimate characterizing Pakistan's tribal areas as a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists, and provide new details about the close relationship between Islamabad and the Taliban in the years prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Declassified State Department cables and U.S. intelligence reports describe the use of Taliban terrorist training areas in Afghanistan by Pakistani-supported militants in Kashmir, as well as Pakistan's covert effort to supply Pashtun troops from its tribal regions to the Taliban cause in Afghanistan-effectively forging and reinforcing Pashtun bonds across the border and consolidating the Taliban's severe form of Islam throughout Pakistan's frontier region.

Also published today are documents linking Harakat ul-Ansar, a militant Kashmiri group funded directly by the government of Pakistan, [Doc 10] to terrorist training camps shared by Osama bin Laden in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. [Doc 16]

Of particular concern was the potential for Islamabad-Taliban links to strengthen Taliban influence in Pakistan's tribal regions along the border. A January 1997 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan observed that "for Pakistan, a Taliban-based government in Kabul would be as good as it can get in Afghanistan," adding that worries that the "Taliban brand of Islam…might infect Pakistan," was "apparently a problem for another day." [Doc 20] Now ten years later, Islamabad seems to be acknowledging the domestic complications that the Taliban movement has created within Pakistan. A report produced by Pakistan's Interior Ministry and obtained by the International Herald Tribune in June 2007 warned President Pervez Musharraf that Taliban-inspired Islamic militancy has spread throughout Pakistan's tribal regions and could potentially threaten the rest of the country. The document is "an accurate description of the dagger pointed at the country's heart," according to one Pakistani official quoted in the article. "It's tragic it's taken so long to recognize it."

Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban , but the newly-released documents report that in the weeks following the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 1996, Pakistan's intelligence agency was "supplying the Taliban forces with munitions, fuel, and food." Pakistan's Interservice Intelligence Directorate was "using a private sector transportation company to funnel supplies into Afghanistan and to the Taliban forces." [Doc 15] Other documents also conclude that there has been an extensive and consistent history of "both military and financial assistance to the Taliban." [Doc 8]

The newly-released documents also shed light on the complexity of U.S. diplomacy with Pakistan as the State Department has struggled to maintain the U.S.-Pakistan alliance amid concerns over the rise of the Taliban regime. In one August 1997 cable, U.S. Ambassador Thomas W. Simons advises, "Our good relations with Pakistan associate us willy-nilly, so we need to be extremely careful about Pakistani proposals that draw us even closer," adding that, "Pakistan is a party rather than just a mediator [in Afghanistan]." [Doc 24] In another 1997 cable, the Embassy asserts that "the best policy for the U.S. is to steer clear of direct involvement in the disputes between the two countries [Pakistan and Iran], and to continue to work for peace in Afghanistan." [Doc 22]

As to Pakistan's end-game in supporting the Taliban, several documents suggest that in the interest of its own security, Pakistan would try to moderate some of the Taliban's more extreme policies. [Doc 8] But the Taliban have a long history of resistance to external interests, and the actual extent of Pakistani influence over the Taliban during this period remains largely speculative. As the State Department commented in a cable from late-1995, "Although Pakistan has reportedly assured Tehran and Tashkent that it can control the Taliban, we remain unconvinced. Pakistan surely has some influence on the Taliban, but it falls short of being able to call the shots." [Doc 7]

Highlights

August 1996: Pakistan Intelligence (ISID) "provides at least $30,000 - and possibly as much as $60,000 - per month" to the militant Kashmiri group Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA). Despite this aid, the group is reaching out to sponsors of international terrorism including Osama bin Laden for additional support, and may in the near future become a threat to Islamabad itself as well as U.S. interests. HUA contacts have hinted they "might undertake terrorist actions against civilian airliners." [Doc 10]
October 1996: A Canadian intelligence document released by the National Security Agency and originally classified Top Secret SI, Umbra comments on recent Taliban military successes noting that even Pakistan "must harbour some concern" regarding the Taliban's impressive capture of Kabul, as such victory may diminish Pakistan's influence over the movement and produce a Taliban regime in Kabul with strong links to Pakistan's own Pashtuns. [Doc 14]
October 1996: Although food supplies from Pakistan to the Taliban are conducted openly through Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISID, "the munitions convoys depart Pakistan late in the evening hours and are concealed to reveal their true contents." [Doc 15]
November 1996: Pakistan's Pashtun-based "Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat" alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. [Doc 17]
March 1998: Al-Qaeda and Pakistan government-funded Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA) have been sharing terrorist training camps in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan for years [Link Doc 16], and HUA has increasingly been moving ideologically closer to al-Qaeda. The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad is growing increasingly concerned as Fazlur Rahman Khalil, a leader in Pakistan's Harakat ul-Ansar has signed Osama bin Laden's most recent fatwa promoting terrorist activities against U.S. interests. [Doc 26]
September 1998 [Doc 31] and March 1999 [Doc 33]: The U.S. Department of State voices concern that Pakistan is not doing all it can to pressure the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden. "Pakistan has not been responsive to our requests that it use its full influence on the Taliban surrender of Bin Ladin." [Doc 33]
September 2000: A cable cited in The 9/11 Commission Report notes that Pakistan's aid to the Taliban has reached "unprecedented" levels, including recent reports that Islamabad has possibly allowed the Taliban to use territory in Pakistan for military operations. Furthermore the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors." [Doc 34]
Read the Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.
Document 1 - [Excised] to Ron McMullen (Afghanistan Desk), "Developments in Afghanistan," December 5, 1994, Unknown Classification, 1 p. [Excised]

Just as the Taliban are emerging as a major player in Afghanistan, a source [name excised] is troubled over Pakistan's deep involvement in Afghan politics and Pakistan's evident role in the Taliban's recent military successes. His concerns include, "that the GOP [Government of Pakistan] ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] is deeply involved in the Taleban take over in Kandahar and Qalat," and that Pakistan's efforts to further its agenda in Afghanistan will sabotage U.N. peace efforts currently being led by Mahmoud Mesteri, Special Envoy for Afghanistan for the U.N. Secretary General.

22 August 2007

EXCLUSIVE: AT&T neuters the BlackBerry 8820 in favor of the iPhone


August 16, 2007 | Posted at 10:55 am by Douglas Soltys in Rumors, News |
Wow. I must say, this is probably the biggest piece of news we’ve ever broken here at BlackBerry Cool — and possibly the one that’s made us the angriest. We’ve just received word from one of our friends inside AT&T that the US carrier has been successful in their attempts to lockdown the GPS functionality in their upcoming BlackBerry 8820 so that the only functioning 3rd party software will be TeleNav.

First, this is a major piss off to AT&T customers looking to get their hands on the BlackBerry 8820 mid-September, but what’s more important is why AT&T chose to do this. Apparently - and remember, this is coming from someone inside AT&T - the carrier didn’t want to launch a device that would seem superior (or be competitive) to the iPhone. Sounds a little crazy, until you realize that a GPS/Wi-Fi’d device with push email and no funny-texting touch screen that’s subsidized in price sounds a bit more appealing than a $500 device that enterprise customers can’t use.

We’ve been told that RIM was apparently livid over the decision (and with good reason), but AT&T basically said “do it or we won’t buy the 8820 or any future devices from you” and RIM backed down. Our AT&T informant also said that this was a call made by top RIM/AT&T brass, which sheds new light on Jim Balsillie’s statement that the carriers are one of RIM’s three masters.
So, to recap:
– The AT&T BlackBerry will have neutered GPS capabilities
– The T-Mobile 8820 will be better than the AT&T version
– Apple has won the first round against RIM

Let’s check that last statement for a second. Our informant was unsure if Steve Jobs called the hit, or if this decision was made solely by AT&T to protect their serious investment in the iPhone. The fact of the matter, however, is that RIM’s biggest North American customer just crippled one of their enterprise devices in favor of a consumer device that supposedly doesn’t compete with the BlackBerry.

Post a comment and let us know what you think about this crazy news. Personally, we never liked AT&T that much in the first place, but we like them even less for screwing over the BlackBerry faithful so they can make more money.

21 August 2007

Intellipedia

I would strongly recommend clicking on the link above int he title. This overview will not only inform you about Intellipedia, but also migh give you some insights on how to utilize current technology in yoru own business systems.

Briefing on "The Intellipedians"™ The social software movement within the U.S. Intelligence Community
A cadre of U.S. intelligence analysts is working to shake-up the ways that national security intelligence has been customarily shared, sifted, and presented to policymakers. Using simple collaborative software tools and instituting "new rules" for mashing the data, the "Intellipedians"are slowly changing a mindset molded by years of stove-pipes and intelligence hoarding.

In this Web audio-slide presentation, Chris Rasmussen, Knowledge Management Officer, Intellipedia, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, talks about what it's like to work as an Intellipedian, the rules they live by, and how the new tools are helping transform the ways of the intelligence-processing for good. Rasmussen made this presentation at FCW's recent Spring Government CIO Summit, in Ft. Myers, Fla.

Pentagon ditches Wolfowitz's baby--TALON threat database

Pentagon ditches Wolfowitz's baby--threat database

by Frank James

The nation may be having difficulty figuring out how to extricate itself from the Iraq War which Paul Wolfowitz, the one-time Deputy Defense Secretary, played a role in helping get the nation into.

But the Pentagon had a far easier time ditching another Wolfowitz legacy, the controversial terrorism threat database with the aptly fierce name: TALON.

The Pentagon said today it was declawing TALON, basically pulling the plug on the database of threats against U.S. military servicemembers and civilian workers at the agency as well as defense facilities because it had outlived its usefulness.

The database drew protests because the Pentagon was collecting data on regular run-of-the-mill protesters and organizations, similar to what the federal government did during the Vietnam War era.

In a move rare in Washington where turf is usually zealously defended, the Defense Department said that while it works on a better system, all reports will go to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Guardian system.

That says a lot since if there were decent information coming through TALON, there's no way the Defense Department would allow the FBI to essentially take control of it.

Here's the Pentagon's bare bones press release:

DoD to Implement Interim Threat Reporting Procedures
DoD’s Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) will close the TALON Reporting System effective Sept. 17, 2007, and maintain a record copy of the collected data in accordance with intelligence oversight requirements.

To ensure there is a mechanism in place to document and assess potential threats to DoD resources, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs will propose a system to streamline such threat reporting and better meet the Defense department’s needs.

In the interim, until this new reporting program is adopted, DoD components will send information concerning force protection threats to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Guardian reporting system.


Evidently, reports from the field were drying up, making the database less than useful. It must've really turned into a waste of time since one would think if it had any utility Robert Gates, the former Central Intelligence Agency director who knows the value of good intelligence and now heads the Pentagon, would've held on to it.

Likewise, the Defense Deputy Secretary Gordon England who approved ending the program, was at the Homeland Security Department, and also would've held onto the program if intelligence of any real value was coming out of it.

Here's how the Associated Press reported on the announcment.

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Defense Department said Tuesday that it will shut down an anti-terror database that has been criticized for improperly storing information on peace activists and others whose actions posed no threat.

It will be closed on Sept. 17 and information collected subsequently on potential terror or security threats to Defense Department facilities or personnel will be sent by Pentagon officials to an FBI database known as Guardian, according to Army Col. Gary Keck, a Pentagon spokesman.


Keck said the Pentagon database is being shut down because "the analytical value had declined," but not because of public criticism of how it was used. Eventually the Pentagon hopes to create a new system - not necessarily a database - to "streamline such threat reporting," according to a brief statement issued Tuesday.
Keck said that after the TALON database is shut down in September, a copy of the data it contains will be maintained at the Pentagon for record-keeping purposes but not for further analytical use.

The decision to end the program, which had been recommended in April by the Pentagon's new intelligence chief, James R. Clapper, Jr., was approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, Keck said.

The program, known as TALON, was created after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and was designed to maintain a base of information on reported potential threats to military facilities and personnel.

In December 2005 it was disclosed that the system included data on anti-military protests and other peaceful demonstrations.

Anti-war groups and other organizations, including a Quaker group — the American Friends Service Committee — protested after it was revealed that the military had monitored anti-war activities, organizations and individuals who attended peace rallies.

Pentagon officials have said the program was productive and had detected international terrorist interests in specific military bases. But they also acknowledged that some officials may not have been using the system properly.

The TALON reports — collected by an array of Defense Department agencies including law enforcement, intelligence, counterintelligence and security — are kept in a large database and analyzed by an obscure Pentagon agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity. CIFA is a three-year-old outfit whose size and budget are secret.

Keck said that after the TALON database is shut down in September, a copy of the data it contains will be maintained at the Pentagon "in accordance with intelligence oversight requirements."

Last year, a Pentagon review found that as many as 260 reports in the database were improperly collected or kept there. At the time, the Pentagon said there were about 13,000 entries in the database, and that less than 2 percent either were wrongly added or were not purged later when they were determined not to involve real threats.


The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the announcement:

ACLU Applauds Decision to Shut Down Pentagon Database of Secret Information on Peaceful Groups
Group Says Congressional Review and Future Vigilance Still Needed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 21, 2007

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded the decision of the U.S. Department of Defense to shut down its TALON anti-terrorism database.

Though the Defense Department began the program in 2003 to house intelligence reports about possible threats to military bases in the U.S., the DoD strayed from its intended mission and expanded the database to include reports by local law enforcement agencies and military security personnel about nonviolent demonstrations and anti-war rallies.

“It was high time for this program to be shut down,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “There should have been no place in a free democratic society for the military to be accumulating secret data on peaceful demonstrators exercising their First Amendment rights.”

In December 2005, major media outlets began reporting that the DoD was storing and maintaining information on peaceful groups, many of which were protesting the war in Iraq and holding anti-recruitment events and protests. In February 2006, in the face of congressional inaction, the ACLU and some of its affiliates filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests seeking records relating to Pentagon surveillance under the TALON program. When the Pentagon failed to respond, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania resulting in the release of hundreds of pages of documents revealing in far greater detail the extent to which the U.S. military improperly kept tabs on lawful, non-violent, First Amendment activities.

“There is still too much that remains unanswered about the Pentagon’s surveillance activities in this country,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The TALON program could be just the tip of the iceberg. It remains critical that Congress investigate how the abuse of the TALON database happened in the first place and conduct proper oversight of other intrusive surveillance by the executive branch.”

A copy of the ACLU’s report on the TALON database, No Real Threat: The Pentagon’s Secret Database on Peaceful Protest, is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/27988pub20070117.html

More information on the ACLU’s FOIA requests regarding the TALON database is available online at:

www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/24010res20060201.html

‘FBI, CIA changed Wikipedia entries’

‘FBI, CIA changed Wikipedia entries’

WASHINGTON: A new scanning program has revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have been editing Wikipedia entries on topics ranging from the Iraq war to Guantanamo, a Russian news agency Novosti reported.

WikiScanner has traced editorial changes made to the online encyclopaedia to FBI and CIA computers, including the removal of satellite imagery of the Guantanamo prison camp on the island of Cuba, and redactions of articles on the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The program revealed that the CIA edited entries about its former director, William Colby, altering details of his career, and that a graphic on casualties in Iraq was manipulated to downplay the figures, it reported. A number of commercial companies were also found to have edited entries related to them, in clear violation of Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines that disqualify people or organisations from editing articles that concern them directly. However, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia’s parent company Wikimedia, said the online encyclopaedia was in any event self-correcting. daily times monitor

Spies For Hire: CTC International Group

Spies For Hire: CTC International Group
Security World (English edition)
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA
August 21, 2007

The heat is oppressive in the Southeast Asian jungle. Belligerent Cambodians under orders to locate and kill all traitors have invaded Angkor Wat. The spy, evading capture, hides out in the control tower of an old airport. In a moment of misguided heroism, he steps outside to study the action in the trenches. Suddenly, an enemy bullet slices the air a few inches above his head. In a barrage of gunfire, the spy manages to escape unharmed.

It sounds like a scene from a James Bond movie, but it was an all-too-real experience for former CIA officer and West Palm Beach resident Fred Rustmann. After 24 years of “living in a womb” of clandestine operations that took him from Addis Ababa to Saigon, Rustmann retired from the agency with such high-profile accomplishments as helping deflect an Arab hijack operation and rescuing a fellow spy from captivity - and torture - in Ethiopia.

But what’s a spy to do when he comes in from the cold? The retired lifestyle seemed a tad tame after his heart-in-mouth capers so, recognizing his information gathering expertise was a valuable commodity, Rustmann started CTC International Group, a business-intelligence company based on Clematis Street.

“Corporations that want to compete better overseas need introductions to key people and access to hard-to-get information,” Rustmann says, explaining that getting information from rival firms is no different than getting it from enemy governments. “We obtain that information through the same techniques the CIA uses.”

That means using a network of ex-CIA and KGB officers around the world, all of whom have access to top decision makers. The spies themselves don’t get their hands dirty. The recruit locals to work undercover, enticing them with such motivators as money, recognition or revenge. “Every problem on earth can be solved with information,” he says. “Our job is to figure out who has that information and target that individual.”

Though it’s tempting to label this work as “industrial espionage,” it isn’t that at all. “The difference is a legal one,” Rustmann says. “Industrial espionage employs techniques that are illegal, like bugging or bribing. We draw the line there. We trick people a lot into giving us the information, but we don’t break any laws. I won’t go to jail for anybody.”

Since CTC’s inception in 1992, Rustmann and his spy-net have provided sophisticated intelligence guidance on environmental issues, international law, risk analysis and internal leak identification.

CTC International Group was founded in 1992 to fill the need for high quality, affordable business intelligence. Its executives are mostly former officers of the Central Intelligence Agency, with unique training, experience, and contacts. All the personnel and associates are hand-picked because of their exceptional qualifications, and they are licensed investigators and members of several international investigative organizations. To ensure the highest quality product possible, it uses the same basic organizational structure as the CIA; it has an operational component that collects information from a wide variety of sources and an analytic component that synthesizes, analyzes, and reports the information to the client. The analysts also identify any existing gaps and task the operation department to collect the information to fill those gaps. They also work closely with the client to ensure that the investigation is answering their specific questions. Additionally, because they use clandestine collection methods, CTC International Group is able to maintain complete confidentiality for the client. It uses the same methodology whether they are undertaking an international or domestic investigation.

CTC takes its name from the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center (Rustmann commanded the center’s overseas station prior to his retirement). The company maintains a low profile and runs just like what it is: a miniature CIA with representatives in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Bangkok, Addis Ababa, Cyprus, Mexico and elsewhere. All dealings with CTC are conducted through the firm’s corporate headquarters in Florida.

The “can-do” attitude of the CIA, from which its employees are drawn, is readily apparent. While it can do, and has done, about everything possible in the world of business intelligence, its principal activities fall into five main areas:

Providing risk analysis for basic corporate decisions.
Finding international partners for American businesses.
Conducting targeted intelligence collection to obtain specific information needed by clients.
Conducting counterintelligence to protect clients from the loss of proprietary information and ensuring the safety of corporate personnel.
Conducting special operations such as exfiltration of threatened executives, the release of hostages or the return of children kidnapped and taken out of the country by a parent without legal custody.
Each type of assignment requires skills CTC operatives developed at the CIA such as computer research, hostile area operations, contact interviews and information extraction and evaluation. Clients receive periodic progress reports and an end-of-assignment wrap-up written by operatives who are highly educated and experienced in producing intelligence packages for American and foreign leaders.

“Providing risk analysis information is usually the mundane part of our business, although it occasionally gets exciting,” Rustmann said, “but without this type of information a business can’t be effective internationally.” Risk analysis information is a collection of basic information about a country’s economic, political and cultural data - a rundown on local business practices and the interplay between government and business. It also includes advice on criminal and, if applicable, insurgent/terrorist activities and how to deal with them.

“Risk analysis is the foundation that any business must lay prior to getting involved overseas,” Rustmann insists. “It gives a company the information it needs to determine whether or not to expand into a given country and, if so, how to do it effectively.”

Far too many businesses fail to address this area in their planning and pay a price for their neglect. According to Rustmann, a U.S. truck-exporting company expanded operations into a Middle East country without doing its homework. Once it had gotten in too far to gracefully back out, it discovered its major competitor was the brother-in-law of the ruler of the country. No one would buy a truck from any company that the brother-in-law did not control. The result was a costly failure for an American company and several “former” company executives. CTC could have easily alerted the company to the situation prior to investing in its expansion effort.

The term “business intelligence” is used to cover a wide-range of information needs by the business community. The aim of CTC International Group is to provide information to allow a client to solve whatever problem they may have. These needs range from conducting confidential investigations of prospective employees and joint-venture partners to risk assessments, market analysis and company/market viability studies. Competitor intelligence helps companies make important strategic and tactical decisions.

CTC’s extensive web of high level international contacts and knowledge of cultures and business climates allows them to provide clients with important information on how to accomplish business goals in foreign countries and to introduce clients to the important members in government and business circles.

The Truth About Denial

This article contains some very interesting backgound on the debate about climate change. You can click on the link in the title for more information. Lots of stuff in the body of the article that is not posted here. Worth checking out.


By Sharon Begley
Newsweek
Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

f you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the "Live Earth" concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts, "green" magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore's best-selling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies—are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today.

As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk about addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action. Yes, last September Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a landmark law committing California to reduce statewide emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent more by 2050. And this year both Minnesota and New Jersey passed laws requiring their states to reduce greenhouse emissions 80 percent below recent levels by 2050. In January, nine leading corporations—including Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Du Pont and General Electric—called on Congress to "enact strong national legislation" to reduce greenhouse gases. But although at least eight bills to require reductions in greenhouse gases have been introduced in Congress, their fate is decidedly murky. The Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided last week not even to bring to a vote a requirement that automakers improve vehicle mileage, an obvious step toward reducing greenhouse emissions. Nor has there been much public pressure to do so. Instead, every time the scientific case got stronger, "the American public yawned and bought bigger cars," Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey congressman and physicist, recently wrote in the journal Science; politicians "shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing."

It was 98 degrees in Washington on Thursday, June 23, 1988, and climate change was bursting into public consciousness. The Amazon was burning, wildfires raged in the United States, crops in the Midwest were scorched and it was shaping up to be the hottest year on record worldwide. A Senate committee, including Gore, had invited NASA climatologist James Hansen to testify about the greenhouse effect, and the members were not above a little stagecraft. The night before, staffers had opened windows in the hearing room. When Hansen began his testimony, the air conditioning was struggling, and sweat dotted his brow. It was the perfect image for the revelation to come. He was 99 percent sure, Hansen told the panel, that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now."

The reaction from industries most responsible for greenhouse emissions was immediate. "As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," says historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research. ICE ads asked, "If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis [or Kentucky, or some other site] getting colder?" This sounded what would become a recurring theme for naysayers: that global temperature data are flat-out wrong. For one thing, they argued, the data reflect urbanization (many temperature stations are in or near cities), not true global warming.

Shaping public opinion was only one goal of the industry groups, for soon after Hansen's sweat-drenched testimony they faced a more tangible threat: international proposals to address global warming. The United Nations had scheduled an "Earth Summit" for 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, and climate change was high on an agenda that included saving endangered species and rain forests. ICE and the Global Climate Coalition lobbied hard against a global treaty to curb greenhouse gases, and were joined by a central cog in the denial machine: the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank. Barely two months before Rio, it released a study concluding that models of the greenhouse effect had "substantially exaggerated its importance." The small amount of global warming that might be occurring, it argued, actually reflected a simple fact: the Sun is putting out more energy. The idea of a "variable Sun" has remained a constant in the naysayers' arsenal to this day, even though the tiny increase in solar output over recent decades falls far short of explaining the extent or details of the observed warming.

In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers—the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler's Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you're in the minority, opts to be with you. "I thought it was important to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism," he told Scientific American magazine. "I did feel a moral obligation."

Bush was torn. The head of his Environmental Protection Agency, William Reilly, supported binding cuts in greenhouse emissions. Political advisers insisted on nothing more than voluntary cuts. Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu, had a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT and "knew computers," recalls Reilly. Sununu frequently logged on to a computer model of climate, Reilly says, and "vigorously critiqued" its assumptions and projections.

Sununu's side won. The Rio treaty called for countries to voluntarily stabilize their greenhouse emissions by returning them to 1990 levels by 2000. (As it turned out, U.S. emissions in 2000 were 14 percent higher than in 1990.) Avoiding mandatory cuts was a huge victory for industry. But Rio was also a setback for climate contrarians, says UCSD's Oreskes: "It was one thing when Al Gore said there's global warming, but quite another when George Bush signed a convention saying so." And the doubters faced a newly powerful nemesis. Just months after he signed the Rio pact, Bush lost to Bill Clinton—whose vice president, Gore, had made climate change his signature issue.

Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs ramped up. They "settled on the 'science isn't there' argument because they didn't believe they'd be able to convince the public to do nothing if climate change were real," says David Goldston, who served as Republican chief of staff for the House of Representatives science committee until 2006. Industry found a friend in Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who keeps a small farm where he raises prize-winning pumpkins and whose favorite weather, he once told a reporter, is "anything severe." Michaels had written several popular articles on climate change, including an op-ed in The Washington Post in 1989 warning of "apocalyptic environmentalism," which he called "the most popular new religion to come along since Marxism." The coal industry's Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a newsletter called World Climate Report, which has regularly trashed mainstream climate science. (At a 1995 hearing in Minnesota on coal-fired power plants, Michaels admitted that he received more than $165,000 from industry; he now declines to comment on his industry funding, asking, "What is this, a hatchet job?")

The road from Rio led to an international meeting in Kyoto, Japan, where more than 100 nations would negotiate a treaty on making Rio's voluntary—and largely ignored—greenhouse curbs mandatory. The coal and oil industries, worried that Kyoto could lead to binding greenhouse cuts that would imperil their profits, ramped up their message that there was too much scientific uncertainty to justify any such cuts. There was just one little problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC—the international body that periodically assesses climate research—had just issued its second report, and the conclusion of its 2,500 scientists looked devastating for greenhouse doubters. Although both natural swings and changes in the Sun's output might be contributing to climate change, it concluded, "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate."


more on the newsweek site....

25 June 2007

>>> 5GW <<<<<

Sometimes you happen accross some great information, observations about the state of change we are in.... sometimes you just have to click the link....


http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/hammes_5gw.pdf

it is worth the time you will spend reading it.

an excerpt...

FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE EVELOVES, FIFTH EMERGES
Colonel T. X. Hammes, USMC, Retired

Seventeen years ago, a small group of authors introduced the concept of “Four generations of War.” Frankly, the concept did not get much traction for the first dozen years. Then came 9/11. Some of the fourth-generation warfare (4GW) proponents claimed that the Al-Qaeda attacks were a fulfillment of what they had predicted. However, most military thinkers, for a variety of reasons, continued to dismiss the 4GW concept. In fact, about the only place 4GW was carefully discussed was on an Al-Qaeda website. In January 2002, one ‘Ubed al-Qurashi quoted extensively from two Marine
Corps Gazette articles about 4GW.1 He then stated, “The fourth generation of wars [has] already taken place and revealed the superiority of the theoretically weak side. In many instances, these wars have resulted in the defeat of ethnic states [duwal qawmiyah] at the hands of ethnic groups with no states.” Essentially, one of Al-Qaeda’s leading strategists stated categorically that the group was using 4GW against the United States—and expected to win. Even this did not stimulate extensive discussion in the West, where the 9-11 attacks were seen as an anomaly, and the apparent rapid victories in
Afghanistan and Iraq appeared to vindicate the Pentagon’s vision of high-technology warfare. It was not until the Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies began growing and the continuing campaign against Al-Qaeda faltered that serious discussion of 4GW commenced in the United States. Yet today, even within the small community of writers exploring 4GW, there remains a range of opinions on how to define the concept and what its implications are. This is a healthy process and essential to the development of a sound concept because 4GW, like all previous forms of war, continues to evolve even as discussions continue. That brings me to the purpose of this article: to widen the discussion on what forms 4gW may take and to
offer a possible model for the next generation of war: 5GW.

Into the Abyss

Into the Abyss
By
Martin van Creveld

Martin van Creveld lives and teaches in Jerusalem. He has written several books that have influenced modern military theory, including Fighting Power, Command in War, and most significantly, The Transformation of War.

Copyright 2004, Martin van Creveld Published with permission of the author.

As some people predicted even before it all started, the American War against Iraq proved so easy as to make one wonder why it had to be fought at all. As other people also predicted before it all started, the really hard part only got under way after President Bush declared “major combat operations” at an end. Since that day Iraqi resistance has only become stiffer as terrorism picked up. As a result, more American soldiers have died trying to safeguard the “victory” than were killed in achieving it in the first place; nor does it look as if there is anything the U.S. can do to change the trend.

The fact that Saddam has been captured makes no difference. The U.S. will lose, in fact already has lost, the War. The Americans will leave the country in the same way as the Soviets left Afghanistan; that, is, with the Iraqi guerrillas jeering at them. The only question is how long it will take and how much prestige can still be saved from the ruins. That, and that alone, is the issue that still faces Mr. Bush who is up for re-election and must somehow put this issue behind him before Americans go to the polls.

What will happen to Iraq once the Americans have left is anybody’s guess. That an American-appointed government can sustain itself seems unlikely—at the moment, any member of the so-called Governing Council who so much as shows his or her nose outside the compound where they are cooped up will be killed on the spot. Iraq will probably disintegrate into three parts, i.e. a Shi`ite South, a Sunni Center, and a Kurdish North. Judging by the fact that the last-named has never been able to overcome its tribal divisions, none of the three is likely to develop into a proper, centrally-ruled, state. The most likely outcome is three mini-Afghanistans that will serve as havens for terrorist activities throughout the Middle East.

Around Iraq, the States that have most to fear from an American collapse are Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Each in its own way, all three depend on American support. All suffer under severe social strain, whether against an ethnic background—as in Jordan where Bedouin and Palestinians clash—or a religious one as is mainly the case in the other two. As unrest spreads from Iraq probably not all three will see their regimes overthrown, but one or two might well undergo this fate. Jordan being a small and weak country, its fate will be of concern mainly to its immediate neighbors such as Syria—which, if it tries to intervene, will have Israel to reckon with—Israel, and Saudi Arabia. By contrast, the collapse of Saudi Arabia, or a situation whereby Egypt turns into an Islamic republic and abrogates its peace treaty with Israel, would have world-wide economic and strategic implications that are hard to foresee.

In the short run, the greatest beneficiary of the war is Israel. The destruction of Iraq has created a situation where, for the first time since the State was founded in 1948, it has no real conventional enemy left within about 600 miles of its borders. If Sharon had any sense he would use this window of opportunity to come to some kind of arrangement with the Palestinians. Whether he will do so, though, remains to be seen.

In the longer run, the greatest beneficiary is likely to be Iran which, without having to lift a finger, has seen its most dangerous enemy ground into the dust. Even before President Bush launched his war against Iraq, the Iranians, feeling surrounded by nuclear-capable American forces on three sides (Afghanistan, the Central Asian Republics, the Persian Gulf), were working as hard as they could to acquire nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to match. Now that the U.S. has proved it is prepared to fight anybody for no reason at all, they should be forgiven if they redouble their efforts.

Even if the Islamic Republic is overthrown, as some hope, the new government in Tehran will surely follow the same nationalist line as its predecessor did. A nuclear Iran is likely to be followed by a nuclear Turkey. Next will come a nuclear Greece, a nuclear Saudi Arabia (assuming the country can survive as a single political unit), and a nuclear Egypt. Welcome to the Brave New World, Mr. Bush."

http://www.d-n-i.net/creveld/into_the_abyss.htm

19 June 2007

Mr Fix -it

June 10, 2007
Mr Fix -it
Who is Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi prince at the centre of alleged bribery by BAE, the British arms giant? Our correspondent tells the story of the best connected man in the world
By Bob Woodward

In the autumn of 1997, former President George HW Bush, then aged 73 and five years out of the White House, phoned one of his closest friends, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the longtime Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States.

“Bandar,” Bush said, “W would like to talk to you, if you have time. Can you come by and talk to him?”

His eldest son and namesake, George W Bush, who had been governor of Texas for nearly three years, was consulting a handful of people about an important decision and wanted to have a private talk.

Bandar’s life was built around such private talks. He had been the Saudi ambassador for 15 years, and had an extraordinary position in Washington. His intensity and networking were probably matched only by former President Bush.

They had built a bond in the 1980s. Bush, the vice-president living in the shadow of President Ronald Reagan, was widely dismissed as a wimp; but Bandar treated him with the respect due a future president. He gave a big party for Bush at his palatial estate overlooking the Potomac river and went fishing with him at Bush’s vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine – Bandar’s least favourite pastime but something Bush loved. The essence of their relationship was constant contact.

Like good intelligence officers – Bush had been CIA director and Bandar had close ties to the world’s important spy services – they had recruited each other. The friendship was useful and genuine. During Bush’s 1991 Gulf war to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and prevent him from invading neighbouring Saudi Arabia, Bandar had been virtually a member of the Bush war cabinet.

At about 4am on election day 1992, when – up against Bill Clinton – it looked as if Bush was going to fail in his bid for a second term, Bandar had dispatched a private letter to him saying, You’re my friend for life. You saved our country. I feel like one of your family, you are like one of our own. And you know what, Mr President? You win either way. You should win. You deserve to. But if you lose, you are in good company with Winston Churchill, who won the war and lost the election.

Bush called Bandar later that day and said, “Buddy, all day the only good news I’ve had was your letter.” Early next day, Bush called again and said, “It’s over.”

Bandar became Bush’s case officer, rescuing him from his cocoon of near depression. He visited Bush three times at Kennebunkport and flew friends in from England to see him. He took Bush to his 32-room mansion in Aspen, Colorado, where there was a “Desert Storm Corner” with the former president’s picture in the middle. Bandar played tennis and other sports with Bush, anything to keep him engaged.

Profane, ruthless, smooth, Bandar was almost a fifth estate in Washington, working the political and media circles attentively and obsessively. But as ambassador his chief focus was the presidency, whoever held it, ensuring the door was open for Saudi Arabia, which had the world’s largest oil reserves but did not have a powerful military. When Michael Deaver, one of President Reagan’s top White House aides, left to become a lobbyist, Nancy Reagan, another close Bandar friend, called and asked him to help Deaver. Bandar gave Deaver a $500,000 consulting contract and never saw him again.

He planned his 1997 visit to Governor George W Bush around a trip to a home football game of his beloved Dallas Cowboys. That would give him “cover”, as he called it. He wanted the meeting to be discreet, and ordered his private jet to stop in Austin.

“Hi, how are you?” greeted George W, standing at the door before Bandar could even get off the plane. He was eager to talk.

Bandar, 49, had been a Saudi fighter pilot for 17 years and was a favourite of King Fahd; his father was the Saudi defence minister, Prince Sultan. Bush, then 51, had been a jet pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. They had met, but to Bandar, George W was just another of the former president’s four sons, and not the most distinguished one.

“I’m thinking of running for president,” said Bush. He told Bandar he had clear ideas of what needed to be done with national domestic policy. But, he added, “I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy.

“My dad told me before I make up my mind, go and talk to Bandar. One, he’s our friend. Our means America, not just the Bush family. Number two, he knows everyone around the world who counts. And number three, he will give you his view on what he sees happening in the world.”

Bush said Bandar should pick what was important, so Bandar provided a tour of the world. As the oil-rich Saudi kingdom’s ambassador to the United States, he had access to world leaders and was regularly dispatched by King Fahd on secret missions, an international Mr Fix-It, often on Mission Impossible tasks. He had personal relationships with the leaders of Russia, China, Syria, Britain, even Israel.

Bandar spoke candidly about leaders in the Middle East, the Far East, Russia, China and Europe. He recounted some of his personal meetings, such as his contacts with Mikhail Gorbachev working on the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. He spoke of Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair. Bandar described the Saudi role working with the Pope and Reagan to keep the communists in check.

“There are people who are your enemies in this country,” Bush said, “who also think my dad is your friend.”

“So?” asked Bandar, not asking who, though the reference was obviously to supporters of Israel, among others. “Can I give you one advice?”

“What?”

“Mr Governor, tell me you really want to be president of the United States.”

Bush said yes. “And if you tell me that, I want to tell you one thing: to hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn’t, who likes Bandar or doesn’t. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understood that, and that will make sure they help you.”

Bush recognised the Godfather’s advice: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. But he seemed uncomfortable and remarked that that wasn’t particularly honest.

“Never mind if you really want to be honest,” Bandar said. “In the big boys’ game, it’s cutthroat, it’s bloody and it’s not pleasant.”

As Bush locked up the Republican presidential nomination, Bandar kept in touch. Over the weekend of June 10, 2000, he attended a surprise party for Barbara Bush’s 75th birthday at the family retreat in Kennebunkport. Bandar thought it was quaint and old-fashioned, complete with the Bush family members putting on a 45-minute variety show with comic skits.

George W pulled Bandar aside.

“Bandar, I guess you’re the best asshole who knows about the world. Explain to me one thing.”

“Governor, what is it?”

“Why should I care about North Korea?”

Bandar said he didn’t know. It was one of the few countries he did not work on for King Fahd.

“I get these briefings on all parts of the world,” Bush said, “and everybody is talking to me about North Korea.”

“I’ll tell you what, Governor,” Bandar said. “One reason should make you care about North Korea.”

“All right, smart aleck,” Bush said, “tell me.”

“The 38,000 American troops right on the border.”

Most of the US 2nd Infantry Division was deployed there, with thousands of other army, navy and air force personnel. “One shot across the border and you lose half these people immediately. You lose 15,000 Americans in a chemical or biological or even regular attack. The United States of America is at war instantly.”

“Hmmm,” Bush said. “I wish those assholes would put things just point-blank to me. I get half a book telling me about the history of North Korea.”

BANDAR followed W’s 2000 campaign like a full-time political reporter and news junkie. The candidate’s father promised to come to Bandar’s estate outside London for pheasant shooting after the election. Bush Sr told Bandar, “By the time I come to shoot with you, either we will be celebrating my boy is in the White House, or we’ll be commiserating together because my boy lost.”

After the election, Bandar visited the new President Bush in the White House regularly, and kept in touch with Bush Sr. On occasion he saw the father and son together. There was a bonding, an apparent emotional connection; and yet there was a standoffishness, a distance that was not explainable. Many times Bush Sr commented to him about policies being pursued by his son.

“Why don’t you call him about it?” Bandar asked.

“I had my turn,” Bush Sr replied. “It is his turn now. I just have to stay off the stage. For eight years I did not make one comment about Clinton. I will not make any comment vis-à-vis this president, not only out of principle but to let him be himself.”

On Thursday, March 15, 2001, the 53rd day of the Bush presidency, Bandar went to the Oval Office. It was highly unusual for an ambassador to have Bandar’s kind of direct access to the president. They discussed Israel, the Palestinians, Iraq and world oil prices. Bush said he would like to see Bandar at least once a month. He wanted honest talk.

Bandar was elated. He sent a secret message to Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler under the ailing King Fahd: “Many positive signs as far as relations and issues that are of concern to both countries. Loyalty and honesty are sensitive issues for this president. It is important that we invest in this man, in a very positive way.”

On April 1, China forced down a US navy spy plane and took its 24 crew hostage, the first big foreign policy crisis of the new Bush administration. Colin Powell, the secretary of state, was given the assignment of negotiating a settlement. He enlisted Bandar, who had special relations with the Chinese through various deals to purchase arms. China was also beginning to rely on Saudi oil.

Bandar eventually got the Chinese to release the hostages. Never modest about his influence, Bandar considered it almost a personal favour to him. The Chinese wanted a letter from the US expressing regret. It was the kind of diplomatic gobbledy-gook that was Bandar’s speciality. The US would say it was “very sorry” the spy plane had entered Chinese airspace to make an emergency landing but it would not apologise for what it considered a legitimate intelligence-gathering mission.

The National Security Agency was monitoring Bandar’s calls with the Chinese and sending reports to Powell about negotiations, including the final deal Bandar arranged. Powell called Bandar with congratulations.

“Hey, it’s great!” he said.

“How the hell do you know?” Bandar asked.

Having jumped the gun, Powell sheepishly tried to get out of explaining. Bandar knew his calls were monitored, but he and Powell couldn’t really talk about one of the most sensitive and classified intelligence-gathering operations of the US government involving communications among foreign governments. So for a year Powell and Bandar laughed and half joked about it without ever really defining it.

There was friction over the Palestinians, however. On June 1, 2001, a suicide bomber killed 21 in a Tel Aviv nightclub. Bush condemned the attack as “heinous” and unjustifiable. Two days later Bandar had dinner in the White House residence with Bush, Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser.

He brought a lengthy outline of a paper on how the Arab world viewed the US. It was all part of Bush’s education on the ways of the world – as seen through Saudi eyes – a remarkable five-hour session that started at 7pm and kept Bush up well past his bedtime.

Bandar cited examples of the US condemning violence when Israelis were killed – as Bush had just done – “and at the same time, silence when something similar happens that caused the killing of Palestinians”. This jeopardised the “work of the countries that are too close to the United States, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan”. Even in Saudi Arabia, “for the first time in 30 years we are facing a very questionable internal situation”.

Bandar was imploring. “Mr President, you’ve got to do something. You’ve got to do something. I mean, you’re killing us basically. We are being slaughtered right and left, and you’re not doing anything.”

The president vehemently criticised the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, as “a liar”. Bush would not negotiate with him.

“Fine,” Bandar said, “he’s a liar. We know that. You know that. He’s a schmuck. But he is the only schmuck we have to deal with.” The problem was larger than one man.

Two months later Bandar brought Bush a message from the crown prince accusing the US of taking a strategic decision to adopt Israeli policy in the Middle East. Henceforth, the crown prince said, he was going to cut off communications with the White House and Saudi Arabia would pursue its own interests without taking America’s into account.

Bush seemed shocked, and Powell cornered Bandar later. “What the f*** are you doing?” he demanded. “You’re putting the fear of God in everybody here. You scared the s*** out of everybody.”

The Saudi threat worked. Two days later, August 29, Bush sent the crown prince a two-page letter stating: “I firmly believe the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and to live peacefully and securely in their own state, in their own homeland, just as the Israelis have the right to live peacefully and safely in their own state.”

It was a much bigger step than Clinton had taken. At Saudi prompting, Bush agreed to come out publicly for a Palestinian state. A big roll-out was planned for the week beginning Monday, September 10.

That Tuesday, September 11, Al-Qaeda attacked America. Next day the elder George Bush called Bandar. The president was having a bad time, he said. “Help him out.”

On September 13, Bandar met the president at the White House. The Saudis had arrested and detained some key Al-Qaeda suspects immediately before and after 9/11. The president told Bandar: “If we get somebody and we can’t get them to cooperate, we’ll hand them over to you.”

With those words, the president casually expressed what became the US government’s rendition policy – the shifting of terrorist suspects from country to country for interrogation. Though the Saudis denied it, the CIA believed the Saudis tortured terrorist suspects to make them talk. In the immediate wake of 9/11 Bush wanted answers from those who had been detained.

The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, but this seems not to have affected Bandar’s relationship with the president. Instead, history now repeated itself – with Bandar at the centre of the action.

IN August 1990, after Saddam had invaded Kuwait and was threatening to move into Saudi Arabia, Bush Sr had directed Dick Cheney, his secretary of defence, to brief the ambassador on the US war plan.

In his Pentagon office Cheney produced top secret photographs showing Iraqi divisions pointing at Saudi Arabia. Colin Powell, who was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (JCS), summarised the US plan, which would include more than four divisions, three aircraft carriers, plus many air force attack squadrons.

More than 12 years later, on January 11, 2003, Cheney again invited Bandar to review a top secret plan of attack on Saddam. Cheney was now vice-president, and the aim was to overthrow the Iraqi dictator.

Sitting on the edge of the table, the JCS chairman General Richard Myers took out a large map labelled “Top Secret Noforn” and explained the battle plan. Noforn meant “no foreign” – classified material not to be seen by any foreign national.

Bandar stared intently at the 2ft x 3ft top secret map. Could he have a copy so he could brief the crown prince?

“Above my pay grade,” Myers said.

“We’ll give you all the information you want,” said Don Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. But as for the map, “I would rather not give it to you, but you take notes if you want.”

“No, no. It’s not important. Just let me look at it,” Bandar said, trying to take it all in.

The Europeans and their “obstruction” at the United Nations were very much on his mind. France, Germany and Russia were urging that Hans Blix, the UN’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, be given more time.

Rumsfeld looked Bandar in the eye. “You can count on this,” he said, pointing to the map. “You can take that to the bank. It’s going to happen.”

“What is the chance of Saddam surviving this?” Bandar asked. He believed Saddam was intent on killing everyone involved at a high level in the 1991 Gulf war, including himself.

Cheney, who had been quiet as usual, replied: “Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.”

Bandar had heard big promises before that didn’t materialise. He wanted to hear it directly from Bush.

After he had left, Rumsfeld voiced some concern about the vice-presi-dent’s “toast” remark. “Jesus Christ, what was that all about, Dick?”

“I didn’t want to leave any doubt in his mind what we’re planning to do,” Cheney said. He wanted Bandar to know it was for real, but he didn’t plan to be quite as direct with anyone else. After all, he had known Bandar a long time.

When he got home, Bandar took a large blank map of the region that had been supplied by the CIA and began reconstructing the plan piece-by-piece. The next day Rice invited him to meet the president.

“You got the briefing from Dick, Rummy and General Myers?” the president asked.

“Yes.”

“That is the message I want you to carry for me to the crown prince,” Bush said. “The message you’re taking is mine, Bandar.” Bandar believed it was exactly what Cheney had told Bush to say.

Four months later, after the fall of Baghdad, Bandar went again to the White House. He expressed concern about stability in Iraq to Bush. The US military had occupied the country, but Rumsfeld was talking about a fast withdrawal. There would be a power vacuum in Iraq for sure.

Chaos in Iraq or an extremist, pro-Iranian Shi’ite regime would be a nightmare for the Saudis, conceiva-bly worse than the relative stability provided by Saddam.

Bandar advised the president: “What you should do, announce all of the military report back to their barracks and keep, let’s say, the colonels on down. Somebody has to run things.” And do the same thing with the Iraqi intelligence and security services. “Look, their intel service was the most efficient. Take off the top echelon and keep the second line and let them find those bad guys, because those bad guys will know how to find bad guys.” They could find Saddam.

“That’s too Machiavellian,” someone said. The Saudi notes of the meeting indicate it was either Bush or Rice.

“Let bad people find bad people, and then after that you get rid of them,” Bandar said. “What’s the big deal? Double-cross them. I mean, for God’s sake, who said that we owe them anything?”

No one responded.

The Saudis estimated that there were some 3m pensioners in Iraq, sitting at home, getting the equivalent of $6 a month. “Go and pay them for six months, for God’s sake,” Bandar advised. “Each of them supports a family, mind you. So from 3m you could get the support of literally 10m people. Suddenly you have a major constituency for you because you have paid them off.”

It was the Saudi way. Paying 3m pensioners would amount to about $100m. Bandar proposed doing the same with the Iraqi military. Chop off the top echelon, and then pay the rest for three to six months. That might be another $100m. The total cost of the buyout programme would be about $200m. It might be the best $200m the US ever spent, he said.

Bush indicated it was up to Rumsfeld.

BANDAR had half a dozen meetings with Bush in 2004 and into 2005. The president’s deep religious convictions came up time and time again, as he talked about his faith and his relationship with God. He made it clear he felt no doubt that a higher authority was looking after him and guiding him.

But Bandar’s role was coming to an end. After a serious illness he left for home in September 2005. He had been ambassador for nearly 22 years. During a farewell call on the president there was no real discussion of politics or policy. In a photo with Bush, Bandar looks worn and distant.

© Bob Woodward 2004, 2006 Extracted from State of Denial and Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, published by Simon & Schuster. The paperback edition of State of Denial will be published on July 2 at £9.99

Saddam’s wit and murderous wisdom

Bandar met Saddam Hussein four times and he once shared his memories – along with those of King Fahd, who had met Saddam many times – with George W Bush.

He recalled a conversation Fahd had with Saddam after the takeover of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by hundreds of militants who claimed the Saudi government was becoming too liberal and friendly to the West.

“Kill those people,” Saddam advised Fahd.

Fahd said their leaders would be executed and the others would go to jail.

“Oh my, I’m worried,” Saddam said. “I’m embarrassed by your comments.”

Fahd asked what he meant.

Saddam replied: “In my mind there is no question you are going to kill all 500. That’s a given. Listen to me carefully, Fahd. Every man in this group who has a brother or father – kill them. If they have a cousin who you think is man enough to go for revenge, kill him. Those 500 people is a given. But you must spread the fear of God in everything that belongs to them, and that’s the only way you can sleep at night.”

According to Bandar, Saddam required his bodyguards to do two things to prove themselves: kill somebody else from within their own tribe and kill somebody from another tribe. So there would be a double vendetta.

Bandar explained: “This is smart evil, because if you take the evil out of it, it makes sense. If I want to trust you with my life, I want to make sure nowhere else you are safe except with me.”

At another time Saddam pointed to the people around him – high and low – and told Fahd: “They are the most loyal to me.”

“It is nice to be surrounded by the most loyal people,” Fahd replied.

“Oh, no, no, I didn’t say that, Your Majesty,” Saddam corrected. “I told you they are very loyal to me because every one of them, his hand is bloody. Every one of them knows that when I die, you will never find a piece this big from my body.” Saddam indicated the smallest piece of flesh between his fingers. “I’ll be cut to pieces, and if that happens to me, they’re all finished.”

From his personal meetings with the Iraqi dictator, Bandar said, “The most amazing thing about Saddam is how confident he looks, how relaxed he looks, and how charming he is – and how deadly. And each of these attributes are clear and at the same time.”

Saddam could make his most senior generals shake, Bandar said. Once, while Bandar met Saddam in the 1980s when trying to broker an end to the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam told him: “Bandar, all those people are loyal to me. I know a man by looking into his eyes. I can tell you if he is loyal or not. And if his eyes start blinking, I know he is a traitor and then I exterminate him.”

Bandar said that Saddam was excited to show his power, and said it in such a gentle voice and in such a genteel manner that it took five seconds to realise he was serious.

“You are a man with presence,” Bandar told the Iraqi dictator. “I would not be surprised that some poor young officer or minister might panic, which is natural. Are you going to tell me you are going to kill somebody because he panicked only because he is in awe of you?”

“Ha, ha, ha, ha, HA!” Saddam replied with the most deadly laugh. He then tapped Bandar on the shoulder.

“I’d rather kill somebody, not sure if he is a traitor, than let one traitor get by.”
______________________________________
For an interview with Bandar bin Sultan:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terrorism/interviews/bandar.html

$2B in Bribes to Bush Family Friend

This story seems to be breaking a multitude of locations and more and more networks and connections are being implied. I've put the Guardian article below and that is the link in the title.
However, you can also find articles at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6728773.stm
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9312370

Perhaps the thing to keep in mind for those of you who read Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial" you will recall that President Bush recommended that his son, George, meet with Prince Bandar first before talking to anyone else about running for President in 2000. Prince Bandar is a close family friend of the Bush's.

I suspect that this whole issue will slowly drop off the radar. I placed an abstract from a NYT 2004 article at the end of the Guardian Article that you might recall.
______________________________________________________________
BAE accused of secretly paying £1bn to Saudi prince
· Money moved via US bank
· £30m payments a quarter
David Leigh and Rob Evans
Thursday June 7, 2007
The Guardian

The arms company BAE secretly paid Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia more than £1bn in connection with Britain's biggest ever weapons contract, it is alleged today.
A series of payments from the British firm was allegedly channelled through a US bank in Washington to an account controlled by one of the most colourful members of the Saudi ruling clan, who spent 20 years as their ambassador in the US.

It is claimed that payments of £30m were paid to Prince Bandar every quarter for at least 10 years.
It is alleged by insider legal sources that the money was paid to Prince Bandar with the knowledge and authorisation of Ministry of Defence officials under the Blair government and its predecessors. For more than 20 years, ministers have claimed they knew nothing of secret commissions, which were outlawed by Britain in 2002.
An inquiry by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into the transactions behind the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal, which was signed in 1985, is understood to have uncovered details of the payments to Prince Bandar.

But the investigation was halted last December by the SFO after a review by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

He said it was in Britain's national interest to halt the investigation, and that there was little prospect of achieving convictions.

Tony Blair said he took "full responsibility" for the decision.

However, according to those familiar with the discussions at the time, Lord Goldsmith had warned colleagues that British "government complicity" was in danger of being revealed unless the SFO's corruption inquiries were stopped.

The abandonment of the investigation provoked an outcry from anti-corruption campaigners, and led to the world's official bribery watchdog, the OECD, launching its own investigation.

The fresh allegations may also cause BAE problems in America, where corrupt payments to foreign politicians have been outlawed since 1977.

The allegations of payments to Prince Bandar is bound to ignite fresh controversy over the original deal and the aborted SFO investigation.

The Saudi diplomat is known to have played a key role with Mrs Thatcher in setting up Britain's biggest ever series of weapons deals.

For more than 20 years Al-Yamamah, Arabic for "dove", has involved the sale of 120 Tornado aircraft, Hawk warplanes and other military equipment.

According to legal sources familiar with the records, BAE Systems made cash transfers to Prince Bandar every three months for 10 years or more.

BAE drew the money from a confidential account held at the Bank of England that had been set up to facilitate the Al-Yamamah deal. Up to £2bn a year was deposited in the accounts as part of a complex arrangement allowing Saudi oil to be sold in return for shipments of Tornado aircraft and other arms.

Both BAE and the government's arms sales department, the Defence Export Services Organisation (Deso), allegedly had drawing rights on the funds, which were held in a special Ministry of Defence account run by the government banker, the paymaster general.

Those close to Deso say regular payments were drawn down by BAE and despatched to Prince Bandar's account at Riggs bank in Washington DC.

Under the terms of a previously unknown MoD instruction from the department's permanent secretary, Sir Frank Cooper, the payment deal would have required Deso authorisation.

The money was not characterised as commission, but as quasi-official fees for marketing services. The payments are alleged to have continued for at least 10 years and beyond 2002, when Britain outlawed corrupt payments to overseas officials.

SFO investigators led by assistant director Helen Garlick first stumbled on the alleged payments, according to legal sources, when they unearthed highly classified documents at the MoD during their three-year investigation.

Before the investigation was abandoned, the SFO interviewed Alan Garwood, head of Deso. Sources close to the arms sales unit say that he and Stephen Pollard, the commercial director of the Saudi project, were questioned about the reasons for authorising the payments.

Prince Bandar, currently head of the country's national security council, was asked about the alleged payments by the Guardian this week.

He did not respond.

BAE Systems also would not explain the alleged payments. The company said: "Your approach is in common with that of the least responsible elements of the media - that is to assume BAE Systems' guilt in complete ignorance of the facts."

Its spokesman, John Neilson, added: "We have little doubt that among the reasons the attorney general considered the case was doomed was the fact that we acted in accordance with ... the relevant contracts, with the approval of the government of Saudi Arabia, together with, where relevant, that of the UK MoD."

The attorney general's office would not discuss claims about Lord Goldsmith's concerns of "government complicity" in the payments.

A spokesman said the SFO inquiry had been halted because of the "real and serious threat to national security".

"There were major legal difficulties ... given BAE's claim that the payments were made in accordance with the agreed contractual arrangements". The spokesman added: "None of this is altered by the Guardian story."

The MoD, where minister Paul Drayson runs Britain's government arms sales unit, also refused to elaborate.

"The MoD is unable to respond to the points made ... since to do so would involve disclosing confidential information about Al-Yamamah, and that would cause the damage that ending the investigation was designed to prevent," a spokesman said.

The Liberal Democrat deputy leader, Vince Cable, called for an urgent inquiry into the new disclosures last night.

"This is potentially more significant and damaging than anything previously revealed. It is unforgivable if the British government has been actively conniving in under-the-counter payments to a major figure in the Saudi government.

"There must be a full parliamentary inquiry into whether the government has deceived the public and undermined the anti-corruption legislation which it itself passed through parliament."

He added: "It increasingly looks as if the motives behind the decision to pull the SFO inquiry were less to do with UK national interests but more to do with the personal interests of one of two powerful Saudi ministers ... Tony Blair's claims that the government has been motivated by national security considerations look increasingly hollow."

Last month, Dr Cable raised the issue of BAE in the Commons and accused Prince Bandar of benefiting personally from the Al-Yamamah deal.

The new disclosures may also make BAE's attempted takeover of the US-based Armor Holdings more difficult. The deal requires approval from US regulators.

Separately, the state department has protested to the Foreign Office about the ending of the SFO inquiry, saying it undermines global efforts to stamp out corruption by exporters.

Story of a £43bn deal

1985 Al-Yamamah agreement signed by Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan and the then defence secretary Michael Heseltine. Saudis agree to buy 72 Tornado and 30 Hawk warplanes. The deal - "the dove" in Arabic - will in time be worth £43bn to BAE

1989 National Audit Office (NAO) starts inquiry into allegations that members of Saudi royal family and middlemen were secretly paid huge bribes to land Al-Yamamah contract

1992 MPs and auditor general Sir John Bourn suppress NAO report after government claims it would upset Saudis. Report never published

2001 Whistleblower alleges BAE operates "slush fund" to keep sweet the Saudi prince in charge of country's air force, but MoD covers up allegations

2004 Second whistleblower discloses to Guardian further details of slush fund. Serious Fraud Office starts investigation into alleged BAE corruption

2006 Government halts SFO inquiry; investigators were about to gain access to Swiss accounts thought to have been linked to Saudi royal family

2007 OECD, the world's anti-bribery watchdog, rebukes Blair government for terminating SFO investigation, and launches own inquiry

_____________________________________________
and do you remember this little tidbit:
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATOR; Kerry Accuses Bush of 'Secret Deal' With Saudis on Oil

NY Times
April 20, 2004, Tuesday
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER AND JODI WILGOREN; DAVID M. HALBFINGER REPORTED FROM ATLANTA FOR THIS ARTICLE, AND JODI WILGOREN FROM FLORIDA. (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 16, Column 1, 849 words

ABSTRACT - Sen John Kerry attacks Bush administration for what he calls 'secret deal' with Saudi Arabia to cut oil prices in time to help president win re-election in Nov; Kerry seizes on Bob Woodward book Plan of Attack, which recounts Oval Office discussion during which Bush, Vice Pres Cheney and Defense Sec Rumsfeld made deal with Saudi Arabian Amb Prince Bandar bin Sultan that would deliver lower gas prices; White House spokesman Dan Bartlett says there was 'no secret deal'

11 June 2007

Infernal female CIA affairs

Infernal female CIA affairs
Toby Harnden
Monday, June 11, 2007

The small band of women in the elegant Georgetown drawing room overlooking the Potomac River were once leading lights of the Central Intelligence Agency.
They included Arabic, Farsi and Chinese linguists. Among them were veterans of clandestine operations in Iraq, among Palestinian groups on the West Bank and against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. As spies, they lived under assumed names, lying even to their families about what they did. They recruited human "assets" and have been privy to America's secrets, which they still vow they will take to their graves.

With Iran edging closer to a nuclear bomb, Iraq descending into all-out sectarian slaughter and Beijing's military might building inexorably, their combined expertise would be of immeasurable value a few kilometers further down the Potomac from Washington, at the CIA's Langley headquarters.

But the women, ranging from their twenties to late forties, were not gathered to plot how to undermine Iran's government or prevent Hamas radicalizing another generation of Palestinian youth.

Instead, they were discussing how to sue the same CIA - which they refer to as "the Agency" - on whose behalf they had risked their lives for years.

Their security clearances now revoked, they are banned from contacting former colleagues still working under cover and have been pronounced unfit to serve their country. Their crime? Engaging in "close and continuing" friendships with foreign men. Male spies have long reveled in behavior that James Bond would have been proud of - and, like the fictional MI6 man, received a mixture of indulgence and faint disapproval. But women are still being forced out of the CIA for such transgressions. The group was meeting in the drawing room of Janine Brookner, a Washington lawyer and former spy of 24 years' service, who was the CIA's first station chief in Latin America. Now she is taking on the US government as the attorney for a sexual discrimination class action against the CIA.

Lora Griffith, the only former spy of the several dozen involved in the class action who is prepared to reveal her name, spent 19 years in the CIA's Directorate of Operations serving in the Middle East, South Asia and Europe. A Farsi speaker, she specialized in counterterrorism issues involving Afghanistan and Iran. In 2001, based in a European city (the precise location remains classified), one of her roles was to act as a liaison with an intelligence officer from a country that is a close ally with the United States, attempting to close down al-Qaeda networks.

"It was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and we were working closely together in an emotionally charged situation," she said. "There were sparks between us. It was short-lived but there were feelings." As was required - anything more than a casual contact with a foreigner must be reported in writing by a CIA officer - Griffith told her superiors about every meeting they had. "The only thing I didn't report was our feelings for each other," she said.

In true Bond fashion, she exploited the relationship to benefit her spying. "He went over the line sharing information with me he probably shouldn't have. I would write it all up and report it back to Langley. He wanted more of a permanent thing, for me to remain in the country." After six months, Griffith broke off the relationship. Later she returned to a posting at CIA headquarters. One morning, members of the CIA's Office of Security appeared at her desk. "They invited me into a conference room and began conducting a hostile interrogation. Fundamentally, I was accused of espionage."

She was questioned three times while wired up to a polygraph, or lie-detector, machine but, she insists, no indication of any deception was charted.

After the third session, the polygrapher, who boasted that he had forced the FBI's notorious KGB mole Robert Hanssen to confess, switched off the machine and asked Griffith if she had discussed US staff with the foreign intelligence officer. Griffith, bemused because the foreign officer knew many people at the embassy, answered that she had. The polygrapher abruptly ended the interview.

The next morning, an official demanded she return her badge and she was escorted from the building. Her career was over.

The crux of the class action is that male officers can have relationships with foreigners with virtual impunity.

A spy called "Rusty," a veteran of paramilitary operations, was engaged in a passionate affair with a foreign airline stewardess. While operating secretly in a hostile Middle Eastern country, he suddenly disappeared. He subsequently surfaced in another country, the stewardess on his arm, having revealed his alias to her. He was recalled to Langley and admonished, but his career did not suffer. Today, he is the CIA station chief in a key Arab country - one of the most sensitive intelligence jobs in the world.

Griffith says there are many other examples. But having passed gruelling CIA courses, undergone weapons training, learned how to conduct a dead drop and identify a double play, these women are not likely to give up easily. THE DAILY TELEGRAP

06 June 2007

Museum says dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark

Summary:
A Gallup poll last year showed almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so.
Three of 10 Republican presidential candidates said in a recent debate that they did not believe in evolution.
Creationism: The Science of Faith
“What we want to do is to teach children that you can believe the Bible and through scientific research, support the Bible’s view of history.”
“We need to take our children and teach them the things of truth from when they are a child. This museum is open to all ages: children, adults, everybody. What I’ve found is that when children get this information when they are young, when the evolutionists try to teach them or persuade them, they know the right questions to ask and sort out the problems with it, because they’ve been taught how to think.”
“What we do at our museum, by the way, is that we actually get both sides in one sense, because we teach what evolutionists teach. But we teach [visitors] how to correctly think about science whereas evolutionists only teach one side and teach them incorrectly about science. They are the ones leading children astray, not us.—Ken Ham, the president and CEO of Answers in Genesis and founder of the museum, Interview: Creation Museum Founder on Evolution Clash, By Jeremiah Gregier, Christian Post Correspondent, May 23, 2007
Creation Museum walk-through Explore the wonders of creation. Where surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all! “Click image to enlarge” is highly recommended. God’s Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There’s no room for compromise.
CreationMuseum.org — AnswersInGenesis.org
Over 4000 at Creation Museum first day
Video On Demand: Origin of the Species, part 1—This week, we begin a new series by Dr. Terry Mortenson. [Video Parts 2, 3 & 4 scheduled to be released in the coming weeks]
[Posted By dikweed]
By Andrea Hopkins
Republished from Reuters
The Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah's flood, dinosaurs coexisted with humans and had a place on Noah's Ark, and Cain married his sister to people the earth
PETERSBURG, Ky (Reuters) – Like many modern museums, the newest U.S. tourist attraction includes some awesome exhibits—roaring dinosaurs and a life-sized ship.
But only at the Creation Museum in Kentucky do the dinosaurs sail on the ship—Noah’s Ark, to be precise.
The Christian creators of the sprawling museum, unveiled on Saturday, hope to draw as many as half a million people each year to their state-of-the-art project, which depicts the Bible’s first book, Genesis, as literal truth.
While the $27 million museum near Cincinnati has drawn snickers from media and condemnation from U.S. scientists, those who believe God created the heavens and the Earth in six days about 6,000 years ago say their views are finally being represented.
“What we’ve done here is to give people an opportunity to hear information that is not readily available … to challenge them that really you can believe the Bible’s history,” said Ken Ham, president of the group Answers in Genesis that founded the museum.
Here exhibits show the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah’s flood, dinosaurs coexisted with humans and had a place on Noah’s Ark, and Cain married his sister to people the earth, among other Biblical wonders.

click on the link in the title for the rest of the article

Olympics highlight demise of logo branding


Olympics highlight demise of logo branding
By Naseem Javed

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the new London 2012 Summer Olympics logo, but there is something seriously wrong with the logo-driven branding industry at large.

The new logo clearly proves that as we approach 2012, global society will not respond to conventional logos or graphics, but only to insignificant, dysfunctional and obscure design work, which will eventually become the branding norm throughout the world. This clearly indicates the lingering demise of the logo-branding industry.

The US$800,000 logo for the London Games, a graffiti-style spelling of "2012", in shades of pink, blue, green and orange, has, all the same, been branded by some as "hideous" after being launched on Monday.

Today's global consumers find advertising increasingly numbing. Twisted and contrived hype, often described as logo-driven branding, will eventually desensitize customers.

Let's face it, in this hyper-accelerated society, logos are almost dead. Fifty years ago, customers remembered the logos of IBM or Chevrolet, which presented uniquely mind-grabbing graphical ideas by compressing their images into extremely sharp messages via powerful symbols.

Not today - pick 10 companies and try to remember their logos, and ask yourself if they really have an impact. With a million new logos a month being invented by the computer-savvy, small-business armies of ever-growing nations such as India and China, only the very naive and the ad industry continue to dream in technicolor, convinced that customers are memorizing the identical circles and lines in twisted colors now called fly-by-night and changed-by-the-day logos.

This overly zealous creativity needs to be harnessed as the cut-and-paste culture and the latest libraries of a million logos available for free have shifted the goalposts. This is one of the main reasons where advertising consistently and tragically fails over real marketing of real concepts.

Luckily, the Olympics are the modern world's icon extraordinaire, and having personally marketed the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, I have witnessed the power of their name and what awesome global presence it carries. The London 2012 Games are not at all at the mercy of this new logo, as the ever-unique, powerful and recognizable image of the Five Rings will provide longevity to the Olympics' ever-growing brand.

In reality, you need graphic overload and out-of-control logo treatments when your brand-name identity has no value. What are the logos of Microsoft, Sony or Panasonic? What graphical techniques do they employ? Most smart corporations prefer powerful word marks, as their powerful, recognizable names stand alone in the rough marketplace and are not at the mercy of overblown graphics going through repeated treatments that are commonly labeled as brand positioning.

Clearly, there are two schools of thought: logo-driven and name-identity-driven.

The principal belief of major global logo-branding agencies that any name can become a super-brand is based entirely on bottomless budgets, and if for any reason it doesn't work, so what? Is this the reason agencies are so often changed? Denials about the ultimate power of a global Five-Star Standard of Naming will continue to hurt the global ad industry.

The other school of thought envisages the new-name economy, in which name brands, as mature identities, skate on e-commerce from one region to another, amid a highly mobile society that bears a strong understanding of the potential power behind the successful branding of a powerful name.

As we approach the future, big logo-branding is dying fast while we enter a cyber-geared culture and a new name-driven economy.

Naseem Javed is recognized as a world authority on name identities and global image branding. He introduced The Laws of Corporate Naming in the 1980s and also founded ABC Namebank International in Toronto and New York a quarter-century ago. Naseem can be reached at nj@njabc.com .

(Copyright 2007 Naseem Javed.)