Global Dominance Group: 9/11 Pre-Warnings & Election Irregularities...

pages 2-17~~only thing not included, "Resistance to the GDG within HCPE" and appendices
I tried to format for readability, but the best bet is to go to the link on the original post.
--------------------------------------------------

These higher circle decision-makers tended to be more concerned with interorganizational
relationships and the functioning of the economy as a whole rather than
advancing their particular corporate interests respectively. 5

The higher circle policy elites (HCPE) are a segment of the American upper class
and are the principal decision-makers in society. While having a sense of "we-ness", they
tend to have continuing disagreements on specific policies and necessary actions in
various socio-political circumstances.6 These disagreements can block aggressive
reactionary responses to social movements and civil unrest as in the case of the Labor
Movement in the 1930s and the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. During these two
periods the more liberal elements of HCPE tended to dominate the decision making
process and supported passing the National Labor Relations and Social Security Acts in
1935, as well as the Civil Rights and Economic Opportunities Acts in 1964. These pieces
of national legislation were seen as concessions to the ongoing social movements and
civil unrest and were implemented without instituting more repressive policies.
However, during periods of external threats represented by US enemies in World
War I and World War II, HCPE were more consolidated. It is in these periods that more
conservative/reactionary elements of the HCPE where able to push their agendas more
forcefully. During and after World War I the US instituted repressive responses to social
movements through the Palmer Raids and the passage of the Espionage Act of 1917 and
the Sedition Act of 1918. After World War II the McCarthy era attacks on liberals and
radicals as well as the passage in 1947 of the National Security Act and the anti-labor
Taft-Hartley Act were allowed and encouraged by HCPE.

The Cold War led to a continuing arms races and a further consolidation of
military and corporate interests. President Eisenhower warned of this increasing
concentration of power in his 1961 speech to the nation.
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my
predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or
Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments
industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make
swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of
national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and
women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic,
political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of

5 Michael Soref, Social Class and Division of Labor within the Corporate Elite, Sociological Quarterly 17
1976 and Michael Useem, The Social Organization of the American Business Elite and Participation of
Corporation Directors in the Governance of American Institutions, American Sociological Review, Vol. 44,
(1979). Michael Useem, The Inner Circle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).
6 T Koenig and R. Gobel, Interlocking Corporate Directorships as a Social network, American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, Vol. #40, 1981, Peter Phillips, The 1934-35 Red Threat and The Passage of the
National Labor Relations Act, Critical Sociology, Vol. 20 Number 2 (1994).
3

the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development.
Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and
livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist."7

The HCPE support for the continuation of military expansion after WWII was
significantly different than after WWI. In the 1920s HCPE were uncomfortable with war
profits and the power of the arms industry. After WWII with the cold war, Korea and
later Vietnam HCPE supported continued unprecedented levels of military spending. 8
The top100 military contractors from WWII acquired over three billion dollars in
new resources between 1939 and 1945 representing a 62% increase in capital assets. Five
main interest groups: Morgan, Mellon, Rockefeller, Dupont and Cleveland Steel,
controlled two-thirds of the WWII prime contractor firms and were key elements of
HCPE seeking continued high-level military spending.9

Economic incentives, combined with Cold War fears, led the HCPE to support an
unprecedented military readiness, which resulted in a permanent military industrial
complex. From 1952 to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US maintained defense
funding in the 25-40% range of total federal spending, with peaks during Korea, Vietnam
and the Reagan presidency.10

The break-up of the Soviet Union undermined the rationale for continued military
spending at high Cold War levels and some within the HCPE, while celebrating their
victory over communism, saw the possibility of balanced budgets and peace dividends in
the 1990s. In early 1992, Edward Kennedy called for the taking of $210 billion dollars
out of the defense budget over several years and spending $60 billion on universal health
care, public housing, and improved transportation.11 However, by spring of 1992 it was
clear that strong resistance to major cuts in the military budgets had widespread support
in Washington. That year the Senate, in a 50-48 vote, was unable to close Republican and
conservative Democrat debates against a proposal to shift defense spending to domestic
programs.12 In 1995 Defense Secretary Les Aspin — who during his tenure under Clinton

7 Public Papers of the Presidents, Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, p.
1035-1040
8 For an understanding of the anti-military sentiment of the 1930s see: Smedley D. Butler, Major General
U.S. Marines, War is a Racket, (New York: Round Table Press, 1935) and The Washington Arms Inquiry,
Currrent History, November (1934).
9 Economic Concentration and World War II, A report of the Smaller War Plants Corporation to the Special
Committee to Study Problems of American Small Business, US Senate, US Government Printing Office,
Washington DC, 1946.
10 US Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables,
Fiscal Year 1995 (Washington Printing office, 1994). Page 36-43, 82-87.
11 Michael Putzel, "Battle Joined in Peace Dividend," The Boston Globe, Jan.12, 1992, p. 1.
12 Eric Pianin, "Peace Dividend Efforts Dealt Blow," Washington Post, March 27, 1992, p. A4.
4

made minor cuts to Pentagon budgets — argued that spending needed to remain high
especially for intelligence on "targeting terrorism and narcotics"13 By 1999 editorials
bemoaning the loss of the peace dividend were all that was left of major cuts to military
spending.14

At the same time as liberal elements of the HCPE were pushing for a peace
dividend, a neo-conservative group was arguing for using the decline of the Soviet Union
as an opportunity for US military world dominance.

Foundations of the Global Dominance Group
Leo Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter and others at the University of Chicago working
in the Committee on Social Thought have been widely credited for promoting the neoconservative
agenda through their students, Paul Wolfowitz, Allan Bloom and Bloom's
student Richard Perle. Adbuster summed up neo-conservatism as:
"The belief that Democracy, however flawed, was best defended
by an ignorant public pumped on nationalism and religion. Only a
militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression ... Such
nationalism requires an external threat and if one cannot be found it must
be manufactured."15

The neo-conservative philosophy emerged from the 1960's era of social
revolutions and political correctness, as a counter force to expanding liberalism and
cultural relativism. Numerous officials and associates in the Reagan and George H.W.
Bush Presidencies were strongly influenced by the neo-conservative philosophy
including: John Ashcroft, Charles Fairbanks, Dick Cheney, Kenneth Adelman, Elliot
Abrams, William Kristol and Douglas Feith.16

Within the Ford administration there was a split between cold war traditionalists
seeking to minimize confrontations through diplomacy and détente and neo-conservatives
advocating stronger confrontations with the Soviet "Evil Empire." The latter group
became more entrenched when George H.W. Bush became director of the CIA. Bush
allowed the formation of "Team B" headed by Richard Pipes along with Paul Wolfowitz,
Lewis Libby, Paul Nitxe and others, who formed the Committee on the Present Danger to
raise awareness of the Soviet threat and the continuing need for a strong aggressive
defense policy. Their efforts lead to strong anti-soviet positioning during the Reagan
administraton. 17

13 Sam Meddis, "Peace Dividend is no Guarantee, Aspin Says," USA Today, December 6, 1994.
14 Margaret Tauxe, "About that Peace Dividend: The Berlin Wall Fell, But a Wall of Denial Stands,"
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, November 12, 1999, p. A-27.
15 Guy Caron, "Anatomy of a Neo-Conservative White House," Canadian Dimension, May 1, 2005.
16 Alain Frachon and Daniel Vernet, "The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert
Wlhlestetter," Le Monde, April 16, 2003, English translation: Counterpunch 6/2/03.
17 Anne Hessing Cahn, Team B; The Trillion-dollar Experiment, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April
1993, Volume 49, No. 03
5

Journalist John Pilger recalled how he interviewed neo-conservative Richard
Perle during the Regain administration.

"I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he
spoke about 'total war,' I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently
used the term again in describing America's 'war on terror'. 'No stages,' he
said. 'This is total war.' We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are
lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do
Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go
about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it
entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage
a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from
now."18

The election of George H.W. Bush to the Presidency and the appointment of Dick
Cheney as Secretary of Defense expanded the presence of neo-conservatives within the
government and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 allowed for the formal initiation
of a global dominance policy.

In 1992 Dick Cheney supported Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz in producing
the "Defense Planning Guidance" report, which advocated US military dominance
around the globe in a "new order." The report called for the United States to grow in
military superiority and to prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge us on the world
stage. Using words like "unilateral action" and military "forward presence," the report
advocated that the US dominate friends and foes alike. It concluded with the assertion
that the US can best attain this position by making itself "absolutely powerful."19
The Defense Policy Guidance report was leaked to the press and came under
heavy criticism from many members of the HCPE. The New York Times reported on
March 11, 1992 that, "Senior White House and State Department officials have harshly
criticized a draft Pentagon policy statement that asserts that America's
mission in the post-cold-war era will be to prevent any collection of
friendly or unfriendly nations from competing with the United States for
superpower status."20

18 John Pilger, "The World Will Know The Truth," New Statesman (London) (December 16 2002).
19 Peter Phillips, The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance, in Censored 2006, (New York: Seven
Stories Press), ( http://www.projectcensored.orgl).
Excerpts from the 1992 Draft "Defense Planning Guidance" can be accessed at
( link to www.pbs.org).
20 Patrick E. Tyler, "Senior U.S. Officials Assail Lone-Superpower Policy," New York Times, March 11,
1992P. A6.
6

One Administration official, familiar with the reaction of senior staff at the White
House and State Department, characterized the document as a "dumb report" that "in no
way or shape represents US policy. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia,
called the draft Pentagon document "myopic, shallow and disappointing."21 Many HCPE
were not yet ready for a unilateral global-dominance agenda. So with Bill Clinton's
election to the White House in 1992 most neo-conservatives HCPE were out of direct
power during the next eight years.

The HCPE within both major political parties tend to seek to maintain US world
military power. Both political parties cooperate by encouraging Congress to protect US
business interests abroad and corporate profits at home. To better maintain defense
contractors' profits, Clinton's Defense Science Board called for a globalized defense
industry obtained through mergers of defense contractors with transnational companies
that would became partners in the maintenance of US military readiness. 22
James Woolsey, Clinton's Director of the CIA from 1993 to 1995, described as a
hard-liner on foreign policy, wanted to have a continued strong defense policy. 23
However the Clinton administration stayed away from promoting global dominance as an
ideological justification for continuing high defense budgets. Instead, to offset profit
declines for defense contractors after the fall of the Berlin Wall the Clinton
administration aggressively promoted international arms sales raising the US share of
arms exports from 16% in 1988 to 63% in 1997. 24

Additionally under Clinton the US Space Command's 1996 report Vision for 2020
called for "Full Spectrum Dominance" by linking land, sea and air superiority to satellite
supremacy along with the weaponization of space.25

Outside the Clinton administration neo-conservative HCPE continued to promote
a global dominance agenda. On June 4 1994, a neo-conservative 'Lakeside Chat' was
given at the San Francisco Bohemian Club's summer encampment to some 2,000 regional
and national elites. The talk, entitled "Violent Weakness," was presented by a political
science professor from U.C. Berkeley. The speaker focussed on how increasing violence
in society was weakening our social institutions. Contributing to this violence and decay
of our institutions is bi-sexualism, entertainment politics, multi-culturalism, Afro-
Centrism and a loss of family boundaries. The professor claimed to avert further
deterioration, we need to recognize that, "elites, based on merit and skill, are important to
society and any elite that fails to define itself will fail to survive... We need boundaries
and values set and clear! We need an American-centered foreign policy... and a President
who understands foreign policy." He went on to conclude that we cannot allow the

21 Ibid
22 Anna Rich & Tamar Gabelnick, "Arms Company of the Future: BoeingBAELockheedEADS, Inc," Arms
Sales Monitor, January 2000.
23 Guy Caron, "Anatomy of a Neo-Conservative White House," Canadian Dimension, May 1, 2005.
24 Martha Honey, "Guns 'R' Us," In These Times, August 1997.
25 See Carl Grossman, "US Violates World Law to Militarize Space," Earth Island Journal, Winter 1999,
and Bruce Gagnon, "Pyramids to the Heavens," Towards Freedom, September 1999. The Original
Document, Vision for 2020 can be read at: ( http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/lrp/ch02.htm).
7

"unqualified" masses to carry out policy, but that elites must set values that can be
translated into "standards of authority." The speech was forcefully given and was
received with an enthusiastic standing ovation by the members.26
During the Clinton administration neo-conservatives within the HCPE were still
active in advocating for military global dominance. Many of the Neo-conservatives and
their global dominance allies found various positions in conservative think tanks and with
Department of Defense contractors. They continued close affiliations with each other
through the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprises Institute, Hoover Institute,
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Center for Security Policy, and
several other conservative policy groups. Some became active with right-wing
publications such as the National Review and the Weekly Standard. In 1997, they
received funding from conservative foundations to create the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC).

HCPE advocates for a US led "New World Order," along with Reagan/Bush hardliners,
and other military expansionists, founded the PNAC in June of 1997. Their
Statement of Principles called for the need to guide principles for American foreign
policy and the creation of a strategic vision for America's role in the world. PNAC set
forth their aims with the following statement:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out
our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the
future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving
and extending an international order friendly to our security, our
prosperity, and our principles.
• Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not
be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on
the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our
greatness in the next."27

The statement was signed by Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb
Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes,
Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan,
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman,
Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, and

26 Peter Phillips, A Relative Advantage: Sociology of the San Francisco Bohemian Club, 1994,
( link to libweb.sonoma.edu), p. 104, Note: While I heard this
speech myself, a pre-agreement with my host required that the name of the speakers and others participants
be kept confidential.
27Project for a New American Century, Statement of Principles, June 3, 1997
( http://www.newamericancentury.org).
8

Paul Wolfowitz. Of the twenty-five founders of PNAC twelve were later appointed to
high level positions in the George W. Bush administration.28

Since its founding, the PNAC has attracted numerous others who have signed
policy letters or participated in the group. Within the PNAC, eight have been affiliated
with the number one defense contractor Lockheed-Martin, and seven were associated
with the number three defense contractor Northrop Grumman. 29 PNAC is one of several
institutions that connect global dominance HCPE and large US military contractors.30
In September 2,000, PNAC produced a 76-page report entitled Rebuilding
America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.31 The report was
similar to the Defense Policy Guidance document written by Lewis Libby and Paul
Wolfowitz in 1992. This is not surprising in that Libby and Wolfowitz were participants
in the production of the 2000 PNAC report. Steven Cambone, Doc Zakheim, Mark
Lagan, and David Epstein were also heavily involved. Each of these individuals would go
on to hold high-level positions in the George W. Bush administration. 32
Rebuilding America's Defenses called for the protection of the American
Homeland, the ability to wage simultaneous theater wars, perform global constabulary
roles, and the control of space and cyberspace. It claimed that the 1990s was a decade of
defense neglect and that the US must increase military spending to preserve American
geopolitical leadership as the world's superpower. The report claimed that in order to
maintain a Pax Americana, potential rivals — such as China, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea
— needed to be held in check. The report also recognized that: "the process of
transformation ... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event such as a new Pearl Harbor." 33 The events of September 11, 2001 were exactly the
kind of catastrophe that the authors of Rebuilding America' Defenses theorized was
needed to accelerate a global dominance agenda.

28 Positions held by PNAC founders in the George W. Bush administration: Elliot Abrams, National
Security Council, Dick Cheney, Vice-President, Paula Dobriansky, Dept. of State, Under Sec. of Global
Affairs, Aaron Friedberg, Vice President's Deputy National Security Advisor, Francis Fukuyama,
Presidents Council on Bioethics, Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Lewis Libby, Chief of
Staff for the Vice President, Peter Rodman, DOD, Assist. Sec. Of Defense for International Security, Henry
S. Rowen, Defense Policy Board, Comm. On Intelligence Capabilities of US regarding WMDs, Donald
Rumsfled, Secretary of Defense, Vin Weber, National Commission Public Service, Paul Wolfowitz, Dep.
Sec. Of Defense, Pres. World Bank.
29 Ted Nace, Gangs of America, (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2003) P. 186.
30 For a full review of the Global Dominance Group listing key advocates for military expansion and
affiliates of the major defense contractors see appendix A.
31 The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses, Project for a New American
Century: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, September 2000
(www.newamericancentury.org).
32 David Epstein, Office of Sec. Of Defense, Steve Cambone, NSA, Dov Zakheim, CFO Dept. of Defense,
Mark Lagan, Dep. Assist. Sec. Of State.
33 The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and
Resources for a New Century, (www.newamericancentury.org).
9

Before 9/11, the development of strategic global dominance policies were likely
to be challenged by members of Congress and liberal HCPE, who continued to hold a
détente foreign policy frame of understanding that had been traditionally advocated by
the Council of Foreign Relations and the State Department. Liberal and moderate HCPE
in various think tanks, policy councils, and universities still hoped for a peace dividend
resulting in lower taxes and the stabilization of social programs, and the maintenance of a
foreign policy based more on a balance of power instead of unilateral US military global
domination. Additionally, many HCPE were worried that the costs of rapidly expanding
the military would lead to deficit spending. These liberal/moderate HCPE were so
shocked by 9/11 that they became immediately united in their fear of terrorism and in full
support of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and legislation to support military action
in Afghanistan and later Iraq. The resulting permanent war on terror led to massive
government spending and the rapid acceleration of the neo-conservative HCPE plans for
military control of the world.34

Who Profits from GDG Policies?
Lockheed Martin has benefited significantly from the post-9/11 military
expansion promoted by the GDG. The Pentagon's budget for buying new weapons rose
from $61 billion in 2001 to over $80 billion in 2004. Lockheed Martin's sales rose by
over 30% at the same time, with tens of billions of dollars on the books for future
purchases. From 2000 to 2004, Lockheed Martins stock value rose 300%.
New York Times reporter Tim Weiner wrote in 2004: "No contractor is in a better
position than Lockheed Martin to do business in Washington. Nearly 80% of its revenue
comes from the US Government. Most of the rest comes from foreign military sales,
many financed with tax dollars."36

As of August 2005 Lockheed Martin stockholders had made 18% on their stock in
the prior twelve months.37 Northrup-Grumann has seen similar growth in the last three
years with DoD contracts rising from $3.2 billion in 2001 to $11.1 billion in 2004. 38
Halliburton, with Vice-President Dick Cheney as former CEO, has seen
phenomenal growth since 2001. Halliburton had defense contracts totaling $427 million
in 2001. By 2003, they had $4.3 billion in defense contracts, of which approximately a
36 Tim Weiner, "Lockheed and the Future of Warfare," New York Times, November 28, 2004, Sunday
Business p. 1.

37 Jerry Knight, "Lockheed Rules Roost on Electronic Surveillance," The Washington Post, August 29,
2005, p. D-1.
38 See: The Center for Public Integrity, "Pentagon Contractors: Top Contractors by Dollar,"
(www.publicintegrity.org)
11

third were sole source agreements.39 Cheney, not incidentally, continues to receive a
deferred salary from Halliburton. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid
$205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004 and his
433,333 Halliburton stock options rose in value from $241,498 in 2004 to $8 million in
2005.40


The Carlyle Group, established in 1987, is a private global investment firm that
manages some $30 billion in assets. Numerous high-level members of the GDG have
been involved in The Carlyle Group including: Frank Carlucci, George H. W. Bush,
James Baker III, William Kennard and Richard Darman. The Carlyle Group purchased
United Defense in 1997. They sold their shares in the company after 9/11, making a $1
billion dollar profit.41 Carlyle continues to invest in defense contractors and is moving
into the homeland security industry.42

GDG advocacy continues into the present. Tom Donnelly — a PNAC participant,
American Enterprise Institute resident scholar, and former director of communications
for Lockheed-Martin — published a book in May of 2005 advocating increasing the DoD
budget by a third to $600 billion and adding 150,000 active duty military personnel.
Donnelly calls for the continuation of today's "Pax Americana," a GDG euphemism for
US global military domination of the world."43

Public-Private Partnerships
While it is important not to underestimate the profit motive within the top military
defense contractors, the promotion of a global dominance agenda includes both neoconservative
ideological beliefs, and the formation of extremely powerful permanent
public-private partnerships at the highest levels of government to create interlocking
networks of global control. The continuing privatization of military services is but one
example of this trend.44

Another example is the recent appointment of Paul Wolfowitz, formerly Deputy
Secretary of Defense, to head the World Bank. His appointment gives the GDG strong
control of another major institutional asset in the drive for full global dominance.

39 Ibid.
40 Raw Story, "Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds," October 11, 2005
(www.rawstory.com).
41 M. Asif Ismail, "Investing in War: The Carlyle Group profits from government and conflict," November
18, 2004 (www.publicintegrity.org).
42 M. Asif Ismail, The Sincerest Form of Flattery: Private Equity Firms Follow in Carlyle's Footsteps,
November 18, 2004 (www.publicintegrity.org).
43 Matrin Walker, Walker's World: Neo-con Wants More Troops, UPI, May 31, 2005.
44 Greg Guma, Privatizing War, July 8, 2004, United Press International, Pentagon Increases Private
Military Contracts, Josh Sisco, In Censored 2004, Peter Phillips, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003) p.
98.
12

A global dominance agenda also includes penetration into the boardrooms of the
corporate media in the US. A research team at Sonoma State University recently finished
conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media
organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the
membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. These 118 individuals
in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. Four of
the top 10 media corporations in the US have GDG-DoD contractors on their boards of
directors including::45

William Kennard: New York Times, Carlyle Group
Douglas Warner III, GE (NBC), Bechtel
John Bryson: Disney (ABC), Boeing
Alwyn Lewis: Disney (ABC), Halliburton
Douglas McCorkindale: Gannett, Lockheed-Martin.

Given an interlocked media network, it is safe to say that big media in the United
States effectively represent the interests of corporate America. The media elite, a key
component of the HCPE in the US, are the watchdogs of acceptable ideological
messages, the controllers of news and information content, and the decision makers
regarding media resources. Corporate media elites are subject to the same pressures as the
higher circle policy makers in the US and therefore equally susceptible to reactionary
response to our most recent Pearl Harbor.

An important case of Pentagon influence over the corporate media is CNN's
retraction of the story about US Military use of sarin (a nerve gas) in 1970 in Laos during
the Vietnam War. CNN producers April Oliver and Jack Smith, after an eight-month
investigation, reported on CNN June 7 1998 and later in Time magazine that sarin gas
was used in Operation Tailwind in Laos and that American defectors were targeted. The
story was based on eyewitness accounts and high military command collaboration. Under
tremendous pressure from the Pentagon, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Richard
Helms, CNN and Time retracted the story by saying, "The allegations about the use of
nerve gas and the killing of defectors are not supported by the evidence." Oliver and
Smith were both fired by CNN later that summer. They have steadfastly stood by their
original story as accurate and substantiated. CNN and Time, under intense Pentagon
pressure, quickly reversed their position after having fully approved the release of the
story only weeks earlier. April Oliver feels that CNN and Time capitulated to the
Pentagon's threat to lock them out of future military stories.46

Public Relations Companies and the GDG
A popular and arguably effective means of controlling public support for global
dominance initiatives exists in the use of public relations firms. In recent years, PR
corporations increased their profits through U.S and foreign contracts. While direct
propaganda campaigns are generally illegal in the United States, governments and PR

45 Peter Phillips, Censored 2006, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005) p. 248.
46 Peter Phillips, "The Censored Side of CNN Firings over Tailwing, April Oliver," In Censored 1999,
(New York: Seven Stories Press, 1999) p. 158.
13

firms creatively shape public opinion domestically by planting news in foreign papers
that will instantly reach American readers.47 While the government relies on these firms
to generate a specific, ideological response from the masses, the PR firms focus on
profits. The concentration of power and capital at the top is not unique to the military
defense contractors or to the government. It is also evident in the power public relations
and crisis management agencies hold over public opinion.

The images that have shaped support for a permanent war on terror include the
toppling of the statue of Saddam, Private Jessica Lynch's heroic rescue and dramatic tales
of weapons of mass destruction.48 During the first Gulf War, the world witnessed
testimony to Congress about babies taken from incubators and left on cold hospital floors
and the heartfelt plea by the Kuwaitis to help liberate them from a ruthless Iraqi dictator.
In truth, the CIA, using taxpayer money funded these images, which were fabricated and
disseminated by The Rendon Group, Hill and Knowlton and other private public relations
and crisis management companies.49

The corporations responsible for disseminating and shaping information are so
interconnected that most public relations firms in the United States and Europe fall under
the umbrella of three huge corporations. The big three, WPP, Omnicom Group and
Interpublic, have board members who also sit on the boards of the major media
conglomerates, military contracting companies and government commissions, including
direct relationships in the executive and legislative branches of government.50
The public relations company Rendon Group is one of the firms hired for the PR
management of America's pre-emptive wars. In the 1980's, The Rendon Group helped
form American sentiment regarding the ousting of President Manuel Noriega in
Panama.51 They shaped international support for the first Gulf War, and in the 1990s
created the Iraqi National Congress from image, to marketing, to the handpicking Ahmed
Chalabi..52

Rendon and similar firms follow the money, shaping public opinion to meet the
needs of their clients. The conglomeration and corporatization of the PR industry, in
service to the GDG, hinders public discourse and allows those with the most money to
dominate news and information in the US and increasingly the world.

47 Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government Appropriations Act
of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-58 § 632, 113 Stat. 430, 473 (1999) ("General Government Appropriations Act of
2000"), which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for "publicity or propaganda purposes."
48 Jack Shafer, "The Times Scoops That Melted, Cataloging the wretched reporting of Judith Miller," Slate
Magazine, July 25, 2003.

49 Ian Urbina, "A Grad Student Mimicked Saddam Over the Airwaves Broadcast Ruse," Village Voice,
November 13 - 19, 2002.
50 Bill Berkowitz, "Tapping Karen Hughes," Working for Change, April 18, 2005.
51 James Bamford, "The Man Who Sold the War Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda
war," Rolling Stone, December, 2005.
52 "India/Iraq: Worldspace Bids for Contract to Rebuild Iraqi Media Network," Global News Wire - Asia
Africa Intelligence Wire BBC Monitoring International Reports, December 17, 2003.
14

The ease with which the American population accepted the invasion of Iraq was
the outcome of a concerted effort involving the government, DoD contractors, public
relations firms, and the corporate media. These institutions are the instigators and main
beneficiaries of a permanent war on terror. The importance of these connections lies in
the fact that powerful segments of the GDG have the money and resources to articulate
their propaganda repeatedly to the American people until those messages become selfevident
truths and conventional wisdom.

Election Irregularities
In the fall of 2001, after an eight-month review of 175,000 Florida ballots never
counted in the 2000 election, an analysis by the National Opinion Research Center
confirmed that Al Gore actually won Florida and should have been President. However,
coverage of this report was only a small blip in the corporate media as a much bigger
story dominated the news after September 11, 2001.53

The 2004 election was even more fraudulent. The official vote count in 2004 showed
that George W. Bush won by three million votes. But exit polls projected a victory
margin of five million votes for John Kerry. This eight-million-vote discrepancy is much
greater than any possible margin of error. The overall margin of error should statistically
have been under one percent. But the official result deviated from the poll projections by
more than five percent—a statistical impossibility.54

Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International were the two companies hired to
do the polling for the Nation Election Pool (a consortium of the nation's five major
broadcasters and the Associated Press). They refused to release their polling data until
after the inauguration.

Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Diebold, and Sequoia are the companies
primarily involved in implementing the new electronic voting stations throughout the
country. All three have strong ties to the Bush Administration. The largest investors in
ES&S, Sequoia, and Diebold are government defense contractors Northrup-Grumman,
Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Diebold hired
Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego to develop the
software security in their voting machines. Many of the officials on SAIC's board
(identified in our GDG data) are former members of either the Pentagon or the CIA. They
include: Army General Wayne Downing, formerly on the National Security Council,
Bobby Ray Inman, former CIA Director, Retired Admiral William Owens, former vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert Gates, another former director of the
CIA.55

53The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), University of Chicago, "The Florida Ballot Project:
Frequently Asked Questions" ( http://www.norc.uchicago.edu).
54 Peter Phillips, "Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage, and Dennis Loo's chapter in the same book
"No Paper Trail Left Behind," In Censored 2006, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005) p. 48 & p. 185.
55 Peter Phillips, "The Sale of Electoral Politics," Censored 2005, (New York: Seven stories Press, 2004) p.
57.
15

Black Box Voting has reported repeatedly that the voting machines used by over
30 million voters were easily hacked by relatively unsophisticated programs and that
post-election audits of the computers would not show evidence of tampering.
Irregularities in the vote counts indicate that something beyond chance happened in 2004.
56

Conspiracy theories abound in America and are directly related to the lack of
investigative reporting by the corporate media. Corporate media are principally in the
entertainment business, therefore the public knows more about the 2004 murder case of
California wife-killer Scott Peterson than possibilities of national voter fraud.

GDG and 9/11
A significant portion of the GDG had every opportunity to know in advance that
the 9/11 attacks were imminent. Many countries warned the US of imminent terrorist
attacks: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany,
Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia. Warnings from within the United States
intelligence community included communications intercepts regarding al-Qaeda's
specific plans. Some of the 9/11 pre-warnings include:
—1993: An expert panel commissioned by the Pentagon raised the concern that an
airplane could be used to bomb national landmarks. [Washington Post, 10/2/01]
—1996-2001: Federal authorities knew that suspected terrorists with ties to bin Laden
received flight training at schools in the US and abroad. An Oklahoma City FBI agent
sent a memo warning that "large numbers of Middle Eastern males" were getting flight
training and could have been planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02] One convicted
terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA
headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01]
—Dec. 1998: A Time magazine cover story entitled "The Hunt for Osama," reported that
bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet — a strike on Washington or possibly
New York City. [Time, 12/21/98]
—June of 2001: German intelligence warned the CIA, Britain's intelligence agency, and
Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft
and use them as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols which stand out."
[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01; Washington Post, 9/14/01; Fox News, 5/17/02]
—June 28, 2001: George Tenet wrote an intelligence summary to Condoleezza Rice
stating, "It is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within
several weeks." [Washington Post, 2/17/02]
—June-July 2001: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and national security aides
were given briefs with headlines such as "Bin Laden Threats Are Real" and "Bin Laden
Planning High Profile Attacks." The exact contents of these briefings remain classified,
but according to the 9/11 Commission, they consistently predicted upcoming attacks that
would occur "on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in

56 www.blackboxvoting.org. For recent updates on voting machine hacking see:
12-13-05: Devastating hack proven,  http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/boardauth.
cgi?file=/1954/15595.html
16

turmoil, consisting of possible multiple—but not necessarily simultaneous—attacks."
[9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04 (B)]
—July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines due to a
threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] The report of this warning was omitted from the 9/11
Commission Report [Griffin 5/22/05]
—Aug 6, 2001: President Bush received a classified intelligence briefing at his Crawford,
Texas ranch, warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners.
The memo was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." The entire memo focused
on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US and specifically mentioned the World
Trade Center. [Newsweek, 5/27/02; New York Times, 5/15/02, Washington Post, 4/11/04,
White House, 4/11/04, Intelligence Briefing, 8/6/01]
—August, 2001: Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the US that suicide pilots were
training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence
also later stated, "We had clearly warned them" on several occasions, but they "did not
pay the necessary attention." [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01]
—September 10, 2001: a group of top Pentagon officials received an urgent warning that
prompted them to cancel their flight plans for the following morning. [Newsweek,
9/17/01] The 9/11 Commission Report omitted this report. [Griffin, 5/22/05]57
Foreknowledge of 9/11 enabled the GDG to act quickly to accelerate their global
dominance agenda. People in the GDG wanted an Invasion of Afghanistan long before 9-
11. The US government Sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific of the International
Relations Committee of the House of Representatives met in February of 1998 to discuss
removing the government of Afghanistan from power. The U.S government told India in
June of 2001 that a planned invasion of Afghanistan was set for October and Janes
Defense News reported in March of 2001 that the US planned to invade Afghanistan later
that year. BBC reported that the U.S told the Pakistani Foreign Secretary prior to 9/11 of
a planned invasion of Afghanistan in October.58

At the beginning of 2006 the Global Dominance Group's agenda is well
established within higher circle policy councils and cunningly operationalized inside the
US Government. They work hand in hand with defense contractors promoting
deployment of US forces in over 700 bases worldwide.

There is an important difference between self-defense from external threats, and
the belief in the total military control of the world. Many people in the US are having
serious doubts about the moral and practical acceptability of financing world domination,
and the dangers to personal freedoms permanent war implies.
Ken Cunningham from Penn State University writes, "... current War-on-Terror
levels [of expenditures] surpass the Cold War averages by 18% ... 9/11 and the War on
Terror have enabled the assertion of an aggressive, preemptive, militarist bloc within the

57 See Jessica Froiland's, 9/11 Pre-warnings in Censored 2006, Peter Phillips, (New York: Seven Stories
Press, 2005) p. 205.
58 Indiareacts.com, India in Anti-Taliban Military Plan, 6/26/01, BBC News, 9/18/01, by George Arney.
Janes Defense News, 3/15/01, India Joins Anti-Taliban Coalition, by Rahul Bedi.
17

government and the National Security State... The gravity of the current militarism is the
nebulous, potentially limitless (permanent war)."59