The SPECTACLE IS PERMANENT (Formerly a Gary Webb thread)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

The SPECTACLE IS PERMANENT (Formerly a Gary Webb thread)

Postby brownzeroed » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:29 pm

Gary Webb's Enduring Legacy
LINK

By Robert Parry
December 11, 2007

Three years ago, I walked into my home in Arlington, Virginia, and checked my phone messages. One was from a Los Angeles Times reporter who was looking for a comment from me about Gary Webb’s suicide on the night of Dec. 9, 2004. It was the first I had heard of the news.

After I recovered from the shock, I called the reporter back to get more details. I also told him he would have a hard time writing a decent obituary on Webb because the L.A. Times had never acknowledged that Webb was substantially correct in his reporting about the Nicaraguan contras' role in smuggling cocaine into the United States in the 1980s.

Though Los Angeles had been hit hard by the “crack epidemic” and the L.A. Times had devoted front-page space to trash Webb’s contra-cocaine reporting in 1996, the newspaper never ran a story detailing the CIA inspector general’s 1998 findings, which confirmed much of what Webb had alleged – and more.

The CIA inspector general found that not only had the contras helped the cocaine cartels get their goods into the United States, but that the CIA and the Reagan administration had helped cover up the evidence.

However, to have written that story in 1998, the L.A. Times editors would have had to admit they had wronged Webb two years earlier when they bought into the ongoing government cover stories about the innocence of the Reagan administration and the CIA.

It was much easier for the L.A. Times to ignore the findings of the CIA's own inspector general and to maintain the fiction that Webb was just a reckless reporter who had gotten the contra-cocaine story all wrong.

That decision by the L.A. Times – when combined with the abusive treatment Webb received from other major news outlets and his betrayal by his own editors at the San Jose Mercury News – had sent Webb’s life into a downward spiral that ended with him shooting himself with his father’s handgun.

On Dec. 10, 2004, I told the L.A. Times reporter that since his newspaper had never reported on the CIA’s admissions, he could not put Webb’s death in any honest context. So, I was not surprised the next day when the L.A. Times published a nasty obituary that treated Webb as if he had been a common criminal rather than a fellow journalist.

The Washington Post republished the graceless L.A. Times obit – and it quickly hardened into the official judgment on Gary Webb.

Yet, today, when trying to understand how the United States ended up with a national press corps that so eagerly passed on government propaganda about Iraq’s WMD and other lies, it is worth recalling the story of Gary Webb and the contra-cocaine scandal.

Dark Alliance

Webb’s death in 2004 had its roots in his fateful decision eight years earlier to write a three-part series for the San Jose Mercury News that challenged a potent conventional wisdom shared by the elite U.S. news organizations – that one of the most shocking scandals of the 1980s just couldn’t be true.

Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series, published in August 1996, revived the decade-old allegations that the Reagan administration in the 1980s had tolerated and protected cocaine smuggling by its client army of Nicaraguan rebels known as the contras.

Though substantial evidence of the contra crimes had surfaced in the mid-1980s (initially in an article that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985 and later at hearings conducted by Sen. John Kerry), the major news outlets had bent to pressure from the Reagan administration and refused to take the disclosures seriously.

Reflecting the dominant attitude toward Kerry and his work on the contra-cocaine scandal, Newsweek even dubbed the Massachusetts senator a “randy conspiracy buff.” [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Kerry’s Contra-Cocaine Chapter” or Robert Parry’s Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & Project Truth.]

Thus, the ugly reality of the contra-cocaine scandal was left in that netherworld of uncertainty, largely proven with documents and testimony but never accepted by Official Washington, including its premier news organizations, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

But Webb’s series thrust the scandal back into prominence by connecting the contra-cocaine trafficking to the spread of crack that ravaged Los Angeles and other American urban centers in the 1980s. For that reason, African-American communities were up in arms as were their elected representatives in the Congressional Black Caucus.

So, Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series offered a unique opportunity for the major news outlets to finally give the contra-cocaine scandal the attention it deserved.

But that would have required some painful self-criticism among Washington journalists whose careers had advanced in part because they had not offended Reagan supporters who had made an art out of punishing out-of-step reporters for pursuing controversies like the contra-cocaine scandal.

Also, by the mid-1990s, a powerful right-wing news media had taken shape and was in no mood to accept the notion that many of President Reagan’s beloved contras were drug traffickers. That recognition would have cast a shadow over the Reagan Legacy, which the Right was busy elevating into mythic status.

There was the turf issue, too. Since Webb’s stories coincided with the emergence of the Internet as an alternate source for news and the San Jose Mercury News was at the center of Silicon Valley, the big newspapers saw a threat to their historic dominance as the nation’s gatekeepers for what information should be taken seriously.

Plus, the major media’s focus in the mid-1990s was on scandals swirling around Bill Clinton, such as some firings at the White House Travel Office and convoluted questions about his old Whitewater real-estate deal.

In other words, there was little appetite to revisit scandals from the Reagan years and there was strong motive to disparage what Webb had written.

Rev. Moon’s Newspaper

It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack. The Washington Times turned to some ex-CIA officials, who had participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

Then – in a pattern that would repeat itself over the next decade – the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the right-wing press. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb’s story, although acknowledging that some contra operatives did help the cocaine cartels.

The Post’s approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news – “even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers,” the Post sniffed – and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted – that it had not “played a major role in the emergence of crack.”

A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to “conspiracy fears.”

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on against Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA’s internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 – almost a decade earlier – that supposedly had cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA’s decade-old cover-up began to weaken on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Nevertheless, Webb was becoming the target of media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants.

“Oliver Stone, check your voice mail,” Kurtz smirked. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb’s suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North’s chief contra emissary Rob Owen had made the same point in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership.

“Few of the so-called leaders of the movement … really care about the boys in the field,” Owen wrote. “THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM.” [Capitalization in the original.]

Mercury News Retreat

Kurtz and other big-name journalists may have been ignorant of key facts about the contra war, but that didn’t stop them from pillorying Gary Webb. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.

On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series “fell short of my standards.” He criticized the stories because they “strongly implied CIA knowledge” of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. “We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship,” Ceppos wrote.

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos’s retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury News’ continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and other Mercury News reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national “Ethics in Journalism Award” by the Society of Professional Journalists.

While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.

Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan administration had conducted the contra war.

The CIA published the first part of Inspector General Hitz’s findings on Jan. 29, 1998. Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz’s Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb’s allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA’s knowledge.

Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras, the so-called “Frogman Case.”

On May 7, 1998, another disclosure shook the earlier presumptions of the Reagan administration’s innocence. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department.

The letter, which had been requested by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan and who were implicated in heroin trafficking.

Justice Report

The next break in the cover-up was a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb’s series, Bromwich’s report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA’s Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by Bromwich, the Reagan administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the crimes.

Bromwich’s report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb’s series.
The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb’s series.

Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses’s operation and his financial assistance to the contras.
For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds.

Pena, who was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into contra-cocaine shipments moving through the international airport in El Salvador.

Inspector General Bromwich said secrecy trumped all. “We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport,” he wrote.

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases.

Cocaine Crimes & Monica

By fall 1998, Official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning contra-cocaine disclosures in the CIA’s Volume Two.

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations throughout the 1980s.

According to Volume Two, the CIA knew the criminal nature of its contra clients from the start of the war against Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.
The earliest contra force, called ADREN or the 15th of September Legion, had chosen “to stoop to criminal activities in order to feed and clothe their cadre,” according to a June 1981 draft CIA field report.

ADREN also employed terrorist methods, including the bombing of Nicaraguan civilian planes and hijackings, to disrupt the Sandinista government, the CIA knew. Cocaine smuggling was also in the picture.

According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981.

ADREN's leaders included Enrique Bermudez and other early contras who would later direct the major contra army, the CIA-organized FDN. Throughout the war, Bermudez remained the top contra military commander.

The CIA later corroborated the allegations about ADREN’s cocaine trafficking, but insisted that Bermudez had opposed the drug shipments to the United States which went ahead nonetheless.

Ends and Means

The truth about Bermudez’s supposed objections to drug trafficking, however, was less clear. According to Volume One, Bermudez enlisted Norwin Meneses, a large-scale Nicaraguan cocaine smuggler, to raise money and buy supplies for the contras.

Volume One had quoted a Meneses associate, another Nicaraguan trafficker named Danilo Blandon, who told Hitz’s investigators that he and Meneses flew to Honduras to meet with Bermudez in 1982.

At the time, Meneses’s criminal activities were well known in the Nicaraguan exile community. But Bermudez told the cocaine smugglers that “the ends justify the means” in raising money for the contras.

After the Bermudez meeting, contra soldiers helped Meneses and Blandon get past Honduran police who briefly arrested them on drug-trafficking suspicions. After their release, Blandon and Meneses traveled on to Bolivia to complete a cocaine transaction.

There were other indications of Bermudez’s drug-smuggling tolerance. In February 1988, another Nicaraguan exile linked to the drug trade accused Bermudez of narcotics trafficking, according to Hitz’s report.

After the contra war ended, Bermudez returned to Managua, where he was shot to death on Feb. 16, 1991. The murder has never been solved.

Along the Southern Front, in Costa Rica, the drug evidence centered on the forces of Eden Pastora, another leading contra commander. But Hitz discovered that the U.S. government may have made matters worse.

Hitz revealed that the CIA put an admitted drug operative – known by his CIA pseudonym “Ivan Gomez” – in a supervisory position over Pastora. Hitz reported that the CIA discovered Gomez’s drug history in 1987 when Gomez failed a security review on drug-trafficking questions.

In internal CIA interviews, Gomez admitted that in March or April 1982, he helped family members who were engaged in drug trafficking and money laundering. In one case, Gomez said he assisted his brother and brother-in-law in transporting cash from New York City to Miami. He admitted that he “knew this act was illegal.”

Later, Gomez expanded on his admission, describing how his family members had fallen $2 million into debt and had gone to Miami to run a money-laundering center for drug traffickers. Gomez said “his brother had many visitors whom [Gomez] assumed to be in the drug trafficking business.”

Gomez’s brother was arrested on drug charges in June 1982. Three months later, in September 1982, Gomez started his CIA assignment in Costa Rica.
Years later, convicted drug trafficker Carlos Cabezas alleged that in the early 1980s, Ivan Gomez was the CIA agent in Costa Rica who was overseeing drug-money donations to the contras.

Gomez “was to make sure the money was given to the right people [the contras] and nobody was taking ... profit they weren’t supposed to,” Cabezas stated publicly.

But the CIA sought to discredit Cabezas at the time because he had trouble identifying Gomez’s picture and put Gomez at one meeting in early 1982 before Gomez started his CIA assignment.

While the CIA was able to fend off Cabezas’s allegations by pointing to these discrepancies, Hitz’s report revealed that the CIA was nevertheless aware of Gomez’s direct role in drug-money laundering, a fact the agency hid from Sen. Kerry’s investigation in 1987.

The Bolivian Connection

There also was more about Gomez. In November 1985, the FBI learned from an informant that Gomez’s two brothers had been large-scale cocaine importers, with one brother arranging shipments from Bolivia’s infamous drug kingpin Roberto Suarez.

Suarez already was known as a financier of right-wing causes. In 1980, with the support of Argentine’s hard-line anti-communist military regime, Suarez bankrolled a coup in Bolivia that ousted the elected left-of-center government.

The violent putsch became known as the Cocaine Coup because it made Bolivia the region's first narco-state. Bolivia’s government-protected cocaine shipments helped transform the Medellin cartel from a struggling local operation into a giant corporate-style business for delivering cocaine to the U.S. market.

Some of those profits allegedly found their way into contra coffers.
Flush with cash in the early 1980s, Suarez invested more than $30 million in various right-wing paramilitary operations, including the contra forces in Central America, according to U.S. Senate testimony by an Argentine intelligence officer, Leonardo Sanchez-Reisse.

In 1987, Sanchez-Reisse said the Suarez drug money was laundered through front companies in Miami before going to Central America. There, other Argentine intelligence officers – veterans of the Bolivian coup – trained the contras.

CIA Inspector General Hitz added another piece to the mystery of the Bolivian-contra connection. One contra fund-raiser, Jose Orlando Bolanos, boasted that the Argentine government was supporting his anti-Sandinista activities, according to a May 1982 cable to CIA headquarters.

Bolanos made the statement during a meeting with undercover DEA agents in Florida. He even offered to introduce them to his Bolivian cocaine supplier.

Containing the Scandal

Despite all this suspicious drug activity around Ivan Gomez and the contras, the CIA insisted that it did not unmask Gomez until 1987, when he failed a security check and confessed his role in his family’s drug business.

The CIA official who interviewed Gomez concluded that “Gomez directly participated in illegal drug transactions, concealed participation in illegal drug transactions, and concealed information about involvement in illegal drug activity," Hitz wrote.

But senior CIA officials still protected Gomez. They refused to refer the Gomez case to the Justice Department, citing the 1982 DOJ-CIA agreement that spared the CIA from a legal obligation to report narcotics crimes by non-employees.

Instead, the CIA eased Gomez, an independent contractor, out of the agency in February 1988, without alerting law enforcement or the congressional oversight committees.

When questioned about the case nearly a decade later, one senior CIA official who had supported the gentle treatment of Gomez had second thoughts.

“It is a striking commentary on me and everyone that this guy’s involvement in narcotics didn’t weigh more heavily on me or the system,” the official acknowledged.

A Medellin drug connection arose in another section of Hitz’s report, when he revealed evidence suggesting that some contra trafficking may have been sanctioned by Reagan's National Security Council.

The protagonist for this part of the contra-cocaine mystery was Moises Nunez, a Cuban-American who worked for Oliver North’s NSC contra-support operation and for two drug-connected seafood importers, Ocean Hunter in Miami and Frigorificos de Puntarenas in Costa Rica.

Frigorificos de Puntarenas was created in the early 1980s as a cover for drug-money laundering, according to sworn testimony by two of the firm’s principals – Carlos Soto and Medellin cartel accountant Ramon Milian Rodriguez.

Drug allegations were swirling around Moises Nunez by the mid-1980s. At the AP, his operation was one of the targets of our investigation.

Finally reacting to these suspicions, the CIA questioned Nunez on March 25, 1987, about his alleged cocaine trafficking. He responded by pointing the finger at his NSC superiors.

“Nunez revealed that since 1985, he had engaged in a clandestine relationship with the National Security Council,” Hitz reported, adding:

“Nunez refused to elaborate on the nature of these actions, but indicated it was difficult to answer questions relating to his involvement in narcotics trafficking because of the specific tasks he had performed at the direction of the NSC. Nunez refused to identify the NSC officials with whom he had been involved.”

After this first round of questioning, CIA headquarters authorized an additional session, but then senior CIA officials reversed the decision. There would be no further efforts at “debriefing Nunez.”

Hitz noted that “the cable [from headquarters] offered no explanation for the decision” to stop the Nunez interrogation.

But the CIA’s Central American task force chief Alan Fiers said the Nunez-NSC drug lead was not pursued “because of the NSC connection and the possibility that this could be somehow connected to the Private Benefactor program [the contra money handled by North]. A decision was made not to pursue this matter.”

Joseph Fernandez, who had been the CIA’s station chief in Costa Rica, later confirmed to congressional Iran-Contra investigators that Nunez “was involved in a very sensitive operation” for North’s “Enterprise.” The exact nature of that NSC-authorized activity has never been divulged.

At the time of the Nunez-NSC drug admissions and his truncated interrogation, the CIA’s acting director was Robert M. Gates, who is now President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense.

Miami Vice

The CIA also worked directly with other drug-connected Cuban-Americans on the contra project, Hitz found.

One of Nunez’s Cuban-American associates, Felipe Vidal, had a criminal record as a narcotics trafficker in the 1970s. But the CIA still hired him to serve as a logistics coordinator for the contras, Hitz reported.

The CIA also learned that Vidal’s drug connections were not only in the past.
A December 1984 cable to CIA headquarters revealed Vidal’s ties to Rene Corvo, another Cuban-American suspected of drug trafficking. Corvo was working with anti-communist Cuban Frank Castro, who was viewed as a Medellin cartel representative within the contra movement.

There were other narcotics links to Vidal. In January 1986, the DEA in Miami seized 414 pounds of cocaine concealed in a shipment of yucca that was going from a contra operative in Costa Rica to Ocean Hunter, the company where Vidal worked.

Despite the evidence, Vidal remained a CIA employee as he collaborated with Frank Castro’s assistant, Rene Corvo, in raising money for the contras, according to a CIA memo in June 1986.

By fall 1986, Sen. Kerry had heard enough rumors about Vidal to demand information about him as part of a congressional inquiry into contra drugs. But the CIA withheld the derogatory information.

On Oct. 15, 1986, Kerry received a briefing from Alan Fiers, who didn’t mention Vidal’s drug arrests and conviction in the 1970s.

But Vidal was not yet in the clear. In 1987, the U.S. attorney in Miami began investigating Vidal, Ocean Hunter and other contra-connected entities.

This prosecutorial attention worried the CIA. The CIA’s Latin American division felt it was time for a security review of Vidal. But on Aug. 5, 1987, the CIA’s security office blocked the review for fear that the Vidal drug information “could be exposed during any future litigation.”

As expected, the U.S. Attorney did request documents about “contra-related activities” by Vidal, Ocean Hunter and 16 other entities. The CIA advised the prosecutor that “no information had been found regarding Ocean Hunter,” a statement that was clearly false.

The CIA continued Vidal’s employment as an adviser to the contra movement until 1990, virtually the end of the contra war.

Honduras Trafficking

Hitz revealed that drugs also tainted the highest levels of the Honduran-based FDN, the largest contra army.

Hitz found that Juan Rivas, a contra commander who rose to be chief of staff, admitted that he had been a cocaine trafficker in Colombia before the war. The CIA asked Rivas, known as El Quiche, about his background after the DEA began suspecting that Rivas might be an escaped convict from a Colombian prison.

In interviews with CIA officers, Rivas acknowledged that he had been arrested and convicted of packaging and transporting cocaine for the drug trade in Barranquilla, Colombia. After several months in prison, Rivas said, he escaped and moved to Central America where he joined the contras.

Defending Rivas, CIA officials insisted that there was no evidence that Rivas engaged in trafficking while with the contras. But one CIA cable noted that he lived an expensive lifestyle, even keeping a $100,000 thoroughbred horse at the contra camp.

Contra military commander Bermudez later attributed Rivas’s wealth to his ex-girlfriend’s rich family. But a CIA cable in March 1989 added that “some in the FDN may have suspected at the time that the father-in-law was engaged in drug trafficking.”

Still, the CIA moved quickly to protect Rivas from exposure and possible extradition to Colombia. In February 1989, CIA headquarters asked that DEA take no action “in view of the serious political damage to the U.S. Government that could occur should the information about Rivas become public.”

Rivas was eased out of the contra leadership with an explanation of poor health. With U.S. government help, he was allowed to resettle in Miami. Colombia was not informed about his fugitive status.

Another senior FDN official implicated in the drug trade was its chief spokesman in Honduras, Arnoldo Jose “Frank” Arana.

The drug allegations against Arana dated back to 1983 when a federal narcotics task force put him under criminal investigation because of plans “to smuggle 100 kilograms of cocaine into the United States from South America.”

On Jan. 23, 1986, the FBI reported that Arana and his brothers were involved in a drug-smuggling enterprise, although Arana was not charged.

Arana sought to clear up another set of drug suspicions in 1989 by visiting the DEA in Honduras with a business associate, Jose Perez. Arana’s association with Perez, however, only raised new alarms.

If “Arana is mixed up with the Perez brothers, he is probably dirty,” the DEA responded.

Through their ownership of an air services company called SETCO, the Perez brothers were associated with Juan Matta Ballesteros, a major cocaine kingpin connected to the murder of a DEA agent, according to reports by the DEA and U.S. Customs.

Hitz reported that someone at the CIA scribbled a note on the DEA cable about Arana stating: “Arnold Arana ... still active and working, we [CIA] may have a problem.”

Despite its drug ties to Matta Ballesteros, SETCO emerged as the principal company for ferrying supplies to the contras in Honduras.

During congressional Iran-Contra hearings, FDN political leader Adolfo Calero testified that SETCO was paid from bank accounts controlled by Oliver North. SETCO also received $185,924 from the State Department for ferrying supplies to the contras in 1986.

Drug Flights

Hitz found that other air transport companies, which were used by the contras, also were implicated in the cocaine trade. Even FDN leaders suspected that they were shipping supplies to Central America aboard planes that might be returning with drugs.

Mario Calero, Adolfo Calero’s brother and the chief of contra logistics, grew so uneasy about one air-freight company that he notified U.S. law enforcement that the FDN only chartered the planes for the flights south, not the return flights north.

Hitz found that some drug pilots simply rotated from one sector of the contra operation to another. Donaldo Frixone, who had a drug record in the Dominican Republic, was hired by the CIA to fly contra missions from 1983-85.

In September 1986, however, Frixone was implicated in smuggling 19,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States. In late 1986 or early 1987, he went to work for Vortex, another U.S.-paid contra supply company linked to the drug trade.

By the time that Hitz’s Volume Two was published in fall 1998, the CIA’s defense against Webb’s series had shrunk to a fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking.

But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA’s own analytical division.

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn’t want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had “one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. … [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program.”

One CIA field officer explained, “The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war.”

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contras hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA’s analysts.

Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that “only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking.” That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations – serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

See No Evil

Although Hitz’s report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big American newspapers. [For more details on the report, see Parry’s Lost History.]

On Oct. 10, 1998, two days after Hitz’s Volume Two was posted at the CIA’s Internet site, the New York Times published a brief article that continued to deride Webb but acknowledged the contra-drug problem may have been worse than earlier understood.

Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of Volume Two.

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-cocaine story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, some of them rose to become top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb’s career never recovered.

Unable to find decent-paying work in a profession where his past awards included a Pulitzer Prize, Webb grew despondent. His marriage broke up. By December 2004, he found himself forced to move out of his rented house near Sacramento.

Instead, Webb decided to end his life.

On the night of Dec. 9, 2004, Webb typed out four suicide notes for his family, laid out a certificate for his cremation, put a note on the door suggesting a call to 911, and removed his father’s handgun from a box.

The 49-year-old Webb, a father of three, then raised the gun and shot himself in the head. The first shot was not lethal, so he fired once more.

His body was found the next day after movers, who were scheduled to clear out Webb’s rental house, arrived and followed the instructions from the note on the door.

A Last Chance

Webb’s suicide offered the New York Times, the Washington Post and the L.A. Times one more chance to set matters right, to revisit the CIA’s admissions in 1998 and to exact some accountability from the Reagan-era officials implicated in the contra crimes.

But all that followed Gary Webb’s death was more trashing of Gary Webb.

The L.A. Times ran its mean-spirited obituary that made no mention of the admissions in the CIA’s Volume Two. The Times obituary was republished in other newspapers, including the Washington Post.

No one reading this obit would understand the profound debt that American history owed to Gary Webb, who deserved the lion’s share of the credit for forcing the CIA to make its extraordinary admissions.

Though a personal tragedy, the destruction of Gary Webb had a larger meaning, too. Gary Webb was a kind of canary in the mine shaft, whose fate represented a warning about the dangers that can befall a nation whose journalists care more about their salaries and status than the truth and the public’s right to know.

Today, when Americans look at the mounting death toll in Iraq, the collapse of the U.S. dollar on international markets, and their nation’s loss of prestige around the world, they should recall what happened to Gary Webb when he tried to shed some light amid the shadows of corrupt and covert government actions.

Webb’s career destruction in the 1990s and his desperate act of suicide in 2004 were warnings to the American people that they must demand much more from their existing news outlets – or they must build honest new ones.
That understanding may be Gary Webb's enduring legacy.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

Last edited by brownzeroed on Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
brownzeroed
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Robert Parry's no-go zone.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:19 pm

After I talked to Parry at a Project Censored conference I wrote an analysis of Parry's written treatment of CIA which I then decided not to post here. But in his much-needed archiving of Gary Webb's exposure of CIA drug smuggling, Parry has repeated a form of untruth it is important to note.

I was shocked to hear him as an expert panelist twice tell the conference that perception management began with the 'Team B' fear-mongerers in the Reagan administration.

So I will point out that Robert Parry works hard to bend his narrative spotlight around CIA-controlled media. And he does this while getting credit from us on outing other CIA transgressions.

But the CIA infiltration and control of media is Parry's 'no-go zone' along with 9/11.
So be warned of this while learning other important things from him.

That said, he does provide evidence for us, if we care to notice, of Operation Mockingbird's symptoms while he avoids mentioning the source disease.

I decided to mention this on this board instead of letting this pass in favor of Gary Webb's saga with no 'discouraging word' when I remembered his old 1990s article where he cited the 'media' as having more vested interest in covering up CIA crimes than the actual CIA itself (!) and saw that he did it again in his new article. This is outright deception on Parry's part and reveals the illogical lengths Parry has taken to avoid admitting that the CIA and media overlap personnel.

Note that he will always ascribe momentary socio-economic reasons for NYTimes, LATimes, WPost lies and omissions, never Operation Mockingbird.

Parry also denies there is any evidence of anything that contradicts the cover story of 9/11, a remarkable 'blind spot' shared by Norman Solomon.

Criminy, even Thom Hartmann, who dishes disinfo on Dealey Plaza, gives more 9/11 truth more daylight on a radio network named after a CIA drug-smuggling airline...than Parry does! Now that gives me an irony deficiency.

Parry offers plenty of info we should all have under our belts but he intentionally remains silent on things he knows about and we need to know, like the psy-ops culture of false-flag attacks and state-controlled press.

You can dismiss this criticism as counter-productive 'circular firing squad' divisiveness over whether we should expect people to 'tell us everything' but it must be noted when someone withholds information from us. That is information we need to know, too.

Because people trust 'experts,' especially respected investigative journalists, to tell us if there is something we should know, right? That's what makes gatekeeping a more insidious problem than outright Fox TV-style lying. That's what allows Naval Intelligence officer, Bob Woodward, to ride on the myth of Watergate and create the 'liberal watchdog press' cover for Operation Mockingbird.

Parry lives in Arlington, Virginia and is, I suspect, too close to the enforcement of psy-ops culture and too reliant on his contacts in it to treat it in an adversarial way...by telling the most dangerous truths to power.

This places him in the same power-dependent position as the psy-ops culture carefully managed by Operation Mockingbird's CIA-State Department management.

In this way, he's exactly like the mainstream media he cites as "negligent."

I'm grateful for his work but I also encourage him to tell the whole story, not just the safe part.
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brownzeroed » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:55 pm

I understand your frustration, Hugh, but I think it's wrong to expect to get the whole story from a single personality.

His interest is clear: the Reagan-Bush years,what has grown from it and what immediately preceded it. Nothing more.

It would be a mistake to throw out all of his findings because you have a differing opinion on the end result.

I can easily say I disagree with %90 of the "big ideas" on the RI board. But I would be a fool not to listen to bright, thoughtful people just because I disagree w/ their grand thesis. They usually dig up stuff I wouldn't have remotely considered.

Hope this makes sense. Bad flu, right now.
brownzeroed
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Addition, not subtraction.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:13 pm

brownzeroed wrote:.....

It would be a mistake to throw out all of his findings because you have a differing opinion on the end result.
.....
Hope this makes sense. Bad flu, right now.


Sure, my intent is to add information, not subtract it by negating all Parry's excellent work.

Added:
>analysis of a source by noting what Parry won't say
>how he 'doesn't say it' which is journo savvy for all of us
>the value of noting this to recognize it in others for the long haul
>throwing some focus on those things he won't say- 9/11 truth and Operation Mockingbird.

(Tea and honey, lots of fluids... :wink:)
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:25 pm

Parry offers plenty of info we should all have under our belts but he intentionally remains silent on things he knows about and we need to know, like the psy-ops culture of false-flag attacks and state-controlled press.


Sigh.

Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is disingenuous -- i.e. intentionally hiding information or lying.

Might you even consider the possibility that Parry (and others who disagree with you about x or y) actually harbor honest beliefs that don't match yours? Or that you might be wrong about something, and they might be right?

Nah, probably not. But at least I have to try.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:30 pm

professorpan wrote:Might you even consider the possibility that Parry (and others who disagree with you about x or y) actually harbor honest beliefs that don't match yours? Or that you might be wrong about something, and they might be right?


Or even that someone's focus and interest might reasonably be ever so slightly different than your own?
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

My personal contact with the subject.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:24 pm

professorpan wrote:.....
Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is disingenuous -- i.e. intentionally hiding information or lying.

Might you even consider the possibility that Parry (and others who disagree with you about x or y) actually harbor honest beliefs that don't match yours? Or that you might be wrong about something, and they might be right?
......


Nice try at trying to portray me as paranoid, your usual tactic.
This ain't about "agreements" and "beliefs." It's is about empirical evidence.

Your are ignoring that I personally talked to Robert Parry.
I didn't give all (or any of) the details on this here because I wanted to see what he would publish on his website after this Project Censored conference and his experience there.
He published an article about media by gatekeeper, Norman Solomon.

So I did just give my summary analysis of what I found out. I'm even leaving lots out because I only want Parry to do better, not be dismissed totally.
I gave you info on a silver platter for anyone who cares to look into it.

Crikey, Pan, seems every other topic we discuss you weigh in with how you personally talked to that person or know that group or know how that industry "really works."

You might acknowledge that I said I am basing my analysis on both group interaction with Parry and a personal encounter, AND follow up analysis of his writing, ok?

http://projectcensored.org/conference/07Confsite.htm

Project Censored's 2nd Annual
Media Accountability Conference

Each year, publishers, researchers and students of journalism gather at Sonoma State in California's North Bay to present and discuss their reports and to critique the choices made among mainstream news outlets over the previous year.

This year's Best of the Censored list honors the work of such journalistic notables as Robert Parry, Thom Hartmann, Jeremy Scahill and Greg Palast. Just as often though, it includes the work of the dedicated but unsung investigative researchers who simply have, as last-year's honoree Jason Leopold tells us, "a passion for uncovering the truth."


I went to this and did "honest" research, Pan. :roll:

Gary Webb's book, 'Dark Alliance,' is a must read. Pages 164-165 describe the domestic psy-ops carried out by the CIA and NSC. You know, the stuff you dismiss as being impossible, Pan.

On page 456 Webb writes about a missed opportunity to expose the big papers attacking him. His editors declined to take the offensive and a chance to expose Operation Mockingbird was missed-

The unprecedented attacks by three major newspapers alarmed the (San Jose) Mercury's editors. I was called to a meeting with Ceppos and the other editors and told that I should quit trying to advance the story. We needed to start working on a written response to the other newspapers, he said. I vehemently disagreed. "The best way to shut them up is to put the rest of what we know in the paper and keep plowing ahead," I argued. "Let's run a story about Walter Pincus's CIA connections. Let's write about how the L.A. Times has been booting this story since 1987." I told them of my discovery that the L.A. Times Washington bureau had been sent a copy of the notes found in Ronald Lister's house in 1990 and had thrown them away. Ceppos disagreed.
"I don't want to get into a war with them," he said.


Page 151 describes CIA Director William Casey's use of Newsweek to sow psy-ops.

Page 149 describes how much the movie, 'Scarface,' influenced the cocaine dealers the CIA relied on for Contra profits.

Page 114 showed me the source for another keyword hijacking.

From another source which excerpted a 1994 expose of CIA cocaine smuggling-
http://www.infocollective.org/reedabstract.html
William Cooper, a long time CIA asset and colleague of Reed's at the Nella flight school, was the pilot of the plane that was shot down over Nicaragua and sparked the Iran-Contra affair.
.....
Luis Posada Carriles, code-named Ramon Medina, worked as the camp commander of the flight school in Nella, AK. He was later transferred to El Salvador to manage the day-to-day operations at the Ilopongo air force base. (p.94)


Gary Webb describes how in 1994 a Washington Post reporter wrote a dismissive disinfo article on Terry Reed's claims in his book, 'Compromised,' to have been training "would-be Contra pilots at a clandestine airstrip near Nella, Arkansas."

1994-
Image
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Psy-Ops Versus The Money Factor

Postby CouldBe » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:45 pm

A lot of people try to make it seem that money is the deciding factor in what gets published and what doesn't. I think that angle is overplayed.

There should be a law against social engineering. I agree with Hugh that it is all over the place.
CouldBe
 

Postby brownzeroed » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:14 pm

Jeff:
Or even that someone's focus and interest might reasonably be ever so slightly different than your own?


Yeah, like Gary Webb.

Speaking of which, I think the New England Patriots are going finally break the Miami Dolphins' single season record. Sadly, my team, the STL Rams aren't doing too well. But I think some key off-season trades and draft pickups will portend for a much more productive defense in '09. As long as Marc Bulger stays healthy (and not to mention, Jackson in the backfield), they'll stay competitive. But what's with the O-LINE?!?

Speaking of "Stonewall" Jackson, Gary Webb broke the Contra-Cocaine story and then Mike Ruppert took it into crazy town...

Does anyone else think Ted Gunderson looks like the Dad from "Gimme a Break"?

Do you ever have a .gif sitting (more like burning) in your arsenal and you can't ever find an opportune time to deploy it?

I give up on this one:
Image

Does my screen name make me seem fat?

Perry has a decent article on Henry Hyde, as well.

We're all going to die.

I kid.

'cept for the dying part.
brownzeroed
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Dark Alliances

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:32 pm

brownzeroed wrote:Jeff:
Or even that someone's focus and interest might reasonably be ever so slightly different than your own?


Yeah, like Gary Webb.

.....
Speaking of "Stonewall" Jackson, Gary Webb broke the Contra-Cocaine story and then Mike Ruppert took it into crazy town...

.....


etc. etc. Yes, you are making a point. But it isn't valid.
You're missing the info because of Professor Pan's trolling crap.

Parry's deliberate blind spots have been identified.

And the legacy of Webb's expose has been contextualized-

Terry Reed and others were exposing the CIA-cocaine connection before Webb.
Including Mike Ruppert.
Including Mike Levine, DEA whistleblower.
Including Peter Dale Scott.

And it is worth noting that efforts were made to cover this up in movie world using Jodie Foster in 'Nell.' She was also used in 'Taxi' to cover-up the big CIA sixties assassinations by hyping a 'lone gunman' meme.

In 'Dark Alliances' Webb writes about the huge impact 'Scarface' had on the drug gangs.
They all wanted to be just like that. The movie helped solidify the gang mechanisms that the CIA relied on for dispersing their drugs. This is social engineering.
Did 'The Sopranos' help disperse the CIA's Afghan heroin?

This is not off-topic.

This also ties to the false-flag bombing in Oklahoma City.
My videotape of Terry Reed's expose called 'The Mena Connection' is dated January, 1995. He was selling it to raise defense funds so he could defend himself against bogus charges.

January, 1995. And when was the OKC bombing which eliminated any IranContra records there? April 19, 1995.

And that started the eliminition of habeus corpus during the Clinton administration as an 'anti-terror' move.

Now the CIA's drug smuggling has been almost so normalized that Daniel Hopsicker can use it to keep attention on the alleged hijackers of 9/11 even when there's nothing to indicate there were any.

Full circle. The crimes get bigger and the older smaller ones get used as attention bait.

Have an aspirin. :)
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brownzeroed » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:10 pm

Ironically enough, Hugh, your using one the oldest tools of influence in the book: Media SATURATION. Seems to be working, so good on yah.

My videotape of Terry Reed's expose called 'The Mena Connection' is dated January, 1995. He was selling it to raise defense funds so he could defend himself against bogus charges.


Ah jeez. You'd rather get your info from an admitted(!) CIA Op making a "plea deal" rather than an investigative journalist who was harassed to death? I honestly don't understand your litmus test.


Parry's deliberate blind spots have been identified.

Really? Do you have a copy of the "hush money" check made out to Robert Perry? A copy of his bank records?
Do you have a taped phone conversation between Perry and his "handlers"?
How is this substantiated?

And it is worth noting that efforts were made to cover this up in movie world using Jodie Foster in 'Nell.'


Say what?

I'm happy to know you'll be scoring clues in a McRib Ad while my testicles are being crushed to the sweet sounds of Toby Keith...

------
Can I interest you a Tuesday Weld Conspiracy? :)
brownzeroed
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: My personal contact with the subject.

Postby Jeff » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:14 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Gary Webb describes how in 1994 a Washington Post reporter wrote a dismissive disinfo article on Terry Reed's claims in his book, 'Compromised,' to have been training "would-be Contra pilots at a clandestine airstrip near Nella, Arkansas."

1994-
Image


Seriously, Hugh. :roll:

bz has earned the right to be pissed for the carnival you brought to his thread.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: My personal contact with the subject.

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:22 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Gary Webb describes how in 1994 a Washington Post reporter wrote a dismissive disinfo article on Terry Reed's claims in his book, 'Compromised,' to have been training "would-be Contra pilots at a clandestine airstrip near Nella, Arkansas."

1994-
Image


Image

1992-

Writing credits for Nell: Mark Handley(play"Idioglossia")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioglossia_(play)

Idioglossia is a play by Mark Handley about a girl who grows up without modern culture to teach her how to speak. It was first preformed in 1992 at the George Street Playhouse in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [1] The title comes from the medical term Idioglossia meaning an idiosyncratic language that few speak, and associated with Cryptophasia.

[edit] Summary


In the deep back country, a local boy discovers that a semi-paralyzed hermit has died. Local police and a doctor are taken to her primitive cabin, and discover a seemingly half crazed women who speaks only in unintelligent babbles. At first, the woman is declared a wild child, and protective services needs to know if she is capable to live on her own. A linguist is called in to observe the woman to see if they can learn to speak her language. After intense lessons, the researchers learn that the woman's name is Nell, and that her distinctive speech is due from her mother (the hermit) being paralyzed on one side on her face, and from twin speech from her now dead sister.
"but I do know that you should remove my full name from your sig. Dig?" - Unnamed, Super Scary Persun, bbrrrrr....
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brownzeroed » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:32 pm

From Jeff:
bz has earned the right to be pissed for the carnival you brought to his thread.


No worries, Jeff.

After having an acquaintance kill herself this summer and suddenly finding myself embroiled in someone's ridiculous, self-serving conspiracy theory -- due to me trying to pay my respects --, there ain't much around here that makes me angry.

Life is too short. Hell of a waste of energy.
brownzeroed
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby CouldBe » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:02 am

brownzeroed wrote:From Jeff:
bz has earned the right to be pissed for the carnival you brought to his thread.


No worries, Jeff.

After having an acquaintance kill herself this summer and suddenly finding myself embroiled in someone's ridiculous, self-serving conspiracy theory -- due to me trying to pay my respects --, there ain't much around here that makes me angry.

Life is too short. Hell of a waste of energy.


Wow, sorry about that. The same thing happened to me twenty years ago. I always felt a bit guilty, because we were only acquaintances. I wondered if there was something I could have done to help out, if I'd been a bit friendlier with her.

Uhm, please nobody hate me for this, but one of the reasons I signed up here is because I appreciate Hugh's theories. Some of his examples might be off, but in general, he seems to be completely correct that history and ideas get co-opted by the ptb's.
CouldBe
 

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests