Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drugs. Show all posts

Saturday, April 7, 2007

Jundullah: Iran-Contra Crimes Revisited

Friday April 06th 2007, 9:39 am

It is part Contra, part “al-Qaeda,” and part Taliban. “A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005,” reports ABC News. “The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran…. U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or ‘finding’ as well as congressional oversight.”

Congressionally approved funding is not an issue, as Jundullah’s leader, Abd el Malik Regi, is not only “part Taliban, part Sunni activist,” but a drug smuggler as well—a not uncommon profession for “activists” working for the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI. “Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera,” explained Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant.

Not that you’ll hear a peep about this in the corporate media, now so obsessed with the Iranian release of British “hostages,” that is to say admitted military intelligence operatives working for the Royal Marines.

Jundullah members captured in Iran after blowing up a bus with members of the Revolutionary Guard onboard back in February “said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.” Back in 2003, the CIA established “secret bases” in Pakistan, ostensibly to hunt for the dead Osama bin Laden and his dour pranksters, that is to say patsies and mental deficients.

Of course, this is but the latest effort in a long and sordid relationship between the CIA and ISI, stretching back into the 1980s when “the ISI’s Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Arab volunteers,” according to B. Raman, writing for the South Asia Analysis Group. As we know, select members of the “Islamic fundamentalists,” particularly the “Arab volunteers,” later became “al-Qaeda,” the CIA spawned terrorist group named after a Mujahideen database.

“Some former CIA officers say the [Jundullah] arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s,” ABC continues.

In the Contra operation, drug smuggling played a central role, as it did in Afghanistan. “In 1984, stories began to emerge about a secret Nicaraguan Contra network run by a Lieutenant Colonel in the basement of the White House and financed by the importation of large amounts of cocaine,” write Dennis Bernstein and Julie Light. “It was soon revealed that the name of the Lieutenant Colonel was Oliver North and that there was in fact a secret illegal network that was pieced together by the Central Intelligence Agency,” a fact “actively suppressed by Democrats and Republicans alike” during the Iran-Contra hearings. The late Gary Webb, writing for the San Jose Mercury News, documented in “a three-part well-documented story … how the Contra network created, supervised, and funded by the CIA, had run for 10 years a cocaine supply line by transshipping from Central America through San Francisco and down to Los Angeles thousands of kilos of cocaine,” in essence creating the crack cocaine epidemic.

As noted in Volume II of the CIA’s Inspector General’s report, complicity in drug smuggling and the crack cocaine epidemic runs deep—either by direct participation or facilitating a cover-up—including such insiders as Richard Armitage, Frank Carlucci, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Michael Ledeen, Ed Meese, Adm. John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, and James Woolsey.

“For criminal organizations, participating in covert operations offers much more than money. They may get a voice in selecting the new government. They may get a government that owes them for help in coming to power. They may be able to use their connections with the United States government to enhance their political power at home,” explains Jack Blum, the former Chief Counsel to John Kerry’s Subcommittee on Narcotics and Terrorism in 1996 Senate Hearings, a subcommittee chaired by Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter. “I think that if people in the government of the United States make a secret decision to sacrifice some portion of the American population in the form of … deliberately exposing them to drugs,” Blum added.

Naturally, sacrificing “some portion of the American population” is no big deal for the U.S. government—although we are told, most recently during the hysterical reaction to the comments of Rosie O’Donnell, that our government would never do such things, never mind ample evidence, from CIA biological weapons experiments conducted upon unwitting citizens to the plans detailed in Operation Northwoods to “sacrifice some portion of the American population” through terrorism and thus hopefully undermine the government of Fidel Castro. As well, history is littered with instances of the U.S. government sacrificing hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers—to say nothing of millions of victims in targeted countries—in “military adventures” stretching back to the Spanish-American War in 1898 and continuing to this day in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if the neocons have their way, Iran.

In effect, the undeclared “secret” war against Iran, well underway as the “story” on Jundullah reveals, is simply the latest episode of this long and sordid history.

It should come as no surprise the effort against Iran is a pet project of Dick Cheney. “ABC cited Pakistani government sources as saying the secret campaign against Iran was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February,” notes a post on the Indian-Muslims website.

Finally, so enamored are the neocons with Cheney, they want to run him as president in 2008, as none of the Republican selectees currently dominating the field are “hawkish” enough, that is to say they apparently lack the required degree of murderous psychosis.

“Mr. Cheney has virtues as a candidate in his own right. He has foreign policy experience by virtue of having served as defense secretary,” an op-ed appearing in the New York Sun assures us. “His wife, Lynne, would be an asset to the ticket in her own right,” as her connections to the military-snoop-industrial complex and the neocon “think tanks” run deep. Dick’s unflagging desire to expand the neocon “war” into Iran, as evidenced by his working closely with the dictator Musharraf to spawn yet another CIA created terrorist group, according to the neocon organ the New York Sun, is a “contrast to the carping over tactics that has infected some of the Republican field and to the fever among the Democrats for cutting off funds for our GIs and sounding a retreat.”

Dick Cheney is the neocon choice for president, never mind he may well keel over dead from a heart attack before the “election” come 2008. In that case, the neocons will need settle for one of the other “contenders,” none of them as blood-thirsty and sadistic as Dick.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Index on Afghanistan: March 2007

Monday, April 02, 2007

by Sarah Meyer

Kandahar Airfield 2002

Civilian murders define this month’s obscenities in Afghanistan but – as in Iraq - the war-mongers insist that ‘progress’ is being made. The Americans do not care about civilians dying either in Iraq or in Afghanistan. From the US perspective, perhaps every civilian killed is a future ‘terrorist.’

Canadian torture and losing prisoners in Afghanistan was under the spotlight this month. A further obscenity was the announcement of NATO racist policies in Kandahar Airbase toilets . Not surprising that Afghans, like Iraqis, don’t want occupation forces in their country?


1. Oil and Gas (Pakistan/Iran /India & Iraq)
2. Strategic Imperatives (Afghanistan, Pakistan, US, Media & Videos)
3. Contracts
4. Contractors
5. Investment and Aid
6. US/NATO (General; missile shield)
7. NATO Participating Countries (Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, UK
8. Opium
9. Human Rights (‘rendition; torture; Canadian misdemeanors; racism; Rumsfeld in German court case.)
10. Some Deaths (catalogue of civilian deaths; Pat Tillman)
11. Future Deaths
12. Meanwhile, in Iran …
13. Meanwhile, in New Orleans …

Index Research

--MORE--

Monday, February 26, 2007

IT'S TIME to take the Food and Drug Administration back from the drug companies

MARCIA ANGELL

Taking back the FDA

IT'S TIME to take the Food and Drug Administration back from the drug companies.

Before a prescription drug can be sold, the manufacturer must conduct clinical trials to prove to the FDA that the drug is safe and effective. Without that, doctors have no way of knowing how good or bad a drug is. Just trying it out would be not only risky, but unreliable, since individual experience can be misleading. The scrutiny that this agency exists to provide is vital to our health.

But in 1992, Congress put the fox in the chicken coop. It passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorizes drug companies to pay "user fees" to the FDA for each brand-name drug considered for approval. Nearly all of the money generated by these fees has been earmarked to speed up the approval process.

In effect, the user fee act put the FDA on the payroll of the industry it regulates. Last year, the fees came to about $300 million, which the companies recoup many times over by getting their drugs to market faster.

But while it's a small investment for drug companies, it's a lot of money for the agency, and it has drastically changed the way it operates -- creating a disproportionate emphasis on approving brand-name drugs in a hurry. Consequently, the part of the agency that reviews new drugs gets more than half its money from user fees, and it has grown rapidly. Meanwhile, the parts that monitor safety, ensure manufacturing standards, and check ads for accuracy have languished or even shrunk.

Most tellingly, the office that approves generic drugs is so small that approval time for generics is twice as long as for brand-name drugs. There is now a backlog of more than 800 generics. That delay is worth billions of dollars to the drug companies whose high prices depend on not having generic competition.

--MORE--

Monday, January 22, 2007

Pfizer to Cut Up to $1 Billion in Costs, Fire 10,000

(Update2)

By Shannon Pettypiece

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drugmaker, will fire 10,000 workers as generic copies of its top- selling medicines cut into sales.

The job cuts are the equivalent of 10 percent of Pfizer's global workforce and are part of a plan to lower costs by $500 million to $1 billion a year, Pfizer said today in a statement. The New York-based drugmaker will close two U.S. plants and research centers in the U.S., Japan and France.

Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Kindler is deepening cost- cuts after the company reported a 43 percent drop in fourth- quarter profit. New medicines under development are expected by analysts to generate just half the revenue that will be lost in the next five years as patents expire on older drugs.

``Cuts need to happen, and they need to come from basically any place they can,'' said Jeffrey Malcom, a portfolio manager at Horan Capital Management, which owns Pfizer shares, in an interview. ``As revenue decreases, they do need to make their cost structure in line with the fact that they are going to be a smaller company.''

Competing drugmakers including GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Sanofi-Aventis SA face similar problems and may follow Pfizer in cutting staff.

``A reshaping of Pfizer and the industry's cost structure is beginning to unfold, largely precipitated by the punishing effects of rampant generic competition,'' said Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan in a Jan. 16 research report.

Shares Fall

Pfizer shares declined 52 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $26.70 at 1:16 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The stock gained 10 percent in the 12 months through Jan. 19.

Kindler announced the new round of cuts to Pfizer's 100,000- member workforce at a meeting today in New York with analysts and investors, expanding an earlier plan by former Chief Executive Officer Hank McKinnell to trim $4 billion in yearly spending by 2008. In 2006, the company eliminated 8,000 positions.

The Kindler plan will bring the total reduction in annual expenses by the end of next year to $4.5 billion to $5 billion, Pfizer said. Of that, $3 billion will be reinvested in new products and business development.

Pfizer said it plans to close a production site in Brooklyn, New York, where the company was founded in 1849. Other closings will include a plant in Omaha, Nebraska, and research operations in Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo, Michigan; Nagoya, Japan; and Amboise, France. The number of plants will be reduced to 48 in 2008 from 93 in 2003, Pfizer said.

Plant in Germany

The company said it ``will pursue'' the sale of a plant in Feucht, Germany, subject to local labor laws and consultations with work councils. The European sales force will be reduced by more than 20 percent under the plan.

Pfizer said it will simplify its research and development organization and will drop discovery research in gastroenterology and dermatology. The pharmaceutical business will be reorganized into four units, each led by a general manager, the company said.

Excluding certain costs, profit this year will be $2.18 to $2.25, Pfizer said, in line with the $2.19 average estimate of 19 analysts in a Bloomberg survey of analysts. For 2008, adjusted earnings will be $2.31 to $2.45 a share, higher than the $2.31 average of 15 estimates in a Bloomberg survey.

Fourth-Quarter Results

Pfizer forecast net income of $1.45 to $1.55 a share for 2007 and $1.75 to $1.93 in 2008. In 2006, the company reported net income of $19.3 billion, or $2.66 a share, including a $7.9 billion profit from the sale of a consumer division.

The company repeated a forecast that revenue won't change in 2007 and 2008 from this year's $48.4 billion.

In the fourth quarter, revenue rose less than a percent to $12.6 billion as generic competition weighed on sales of the antidepressant Zoloft, Pfizer's third-biggest drug. Excluding the sale of Pfizer's consumer business, earnings fell to $1.5 billion, or 21 cents a share, from $2.6 billion, or 35 cents, a year earlier. The gain on the unit's sale helped net income more than double to $9.45 billion, or $1.32 a share

Pfizer's revenue will drop sharply after 2011 when it loses patent protection on the Lipitor cholesterol pill, which accounts for almost half of profit, analysts predicted. In the fourth quarter, sales of the drug declined to $3.34 billion from $3.36 billion a year earlier. Revenue for 2006 rose 6 percent to $12.9 billion, missing the company's goal of $13 billion.

Revenue Shortfall

When a drug's patent expires and other companies are allowed to sell copies, the price typically falls as much as 70 percent. Pfizer doesn't have enough drugs in development with the potential to replace revenue from Lipitor, the world's best- selling drug.

``We project that the current late-stage pipeline will generate more than $7 billion in sales from 2011 to 2012,'' said J.P. Morgan analyst Chris Shibutani, who carries StarMine Corp.'s top rating, in a Jan. 3 research report. ``But even that amount would be insufficient to offset the almost $14 billion in sales that we estimate will be lost during the same period from the Lipitor patent expiry.''

Analysts expect Pfizer to lose patent protection through 2011 on five other drugs with $8.69 billion in 2005 sales.

Pfizer was counting on replacing sales of Lipitor with a newer cholesterol drug called torcetrapib. The company halted testing of torcetrapib early after a study showed an increased number of deaths in patients taking the medicine.

Pfizer is among at least four drugmakers cutting staff and expenses because of mergers and the onset of generic competition. Kindler cut 20 percent of Pfizer's sales force, or 2,200 jobs, in December. The company has fired more than 5,325 employees, mainly in manufacturing, sales and research, as of Oct. 1, according to a November regulatory filing.

Opportunity for Rivals

Other drugmakers may follow Pfizer's lead, analysts said. GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis would benefit the most from cutting sales jobs, said Susanna Matter, an analyst with Leerink Swann & Co. in Boston, in a Jan. 3 note to clients.

``Pfizer's plans to cut its U.S. sales force by at least 20 percent offers an opportunity for companies with large primary- care sales forces to further reduce headcount,'' Matter said.

Germany's Bayer AG said in November it would cut more than 800 U.S. jobs, many in research, after completing its purchase of Schering AG. The move will save Bayer $210 million a year by the end of 2008.

Eli Lilly & Co. announced in late 2005 that it aimed to trim $250 million in costs this year and cut staff by 6 percent. Last year Merck & Co. began eliminating 7,000 jobs and closing plants to reduce $5 billion in costs by 2010, and as of December it had already fired more than 3,000 workers.

(For Pfizer's conference with analysts, see {LIVE }.)

To contact the reporter on this story: Shannon Pettypiece in Washington at spettypiece@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 22, 2007 13:23 EST

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Documents Leaked to Web Prompt First-Amendment Debate

Legal Affairs

Morning Edition, January 17, 2007 · A federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., is considering whether bloggers are entitled to the same free speech protections given to reporters for newspapers and other media. The case involves leaked documents belonging to the pharmaceutical giant, Eli Lilly.

Specifically, the documents concern the drug Zyprexa. It's a schizophrenia drug and the company's best-seller. Lilly had turned over the documents to lawyers representing patients who were suing the company.

As is common in such cases, the documents — thousands of pages of internal Eli Lilly e-mails, research studies and marketing reports — were kept confidential by court order. But last month, they leaked out and were obtained by several organizations, including The New York Times and NPR.

On Dec. 17, 2006, the Times ran the first of several stories based on the leaked documents. According to the Times, they showed that Lilly had engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the risks of Zyprexa — risks such as excessive weight gain and diabetes. Lilly strongly disputes the description of what the documents show.

For a couple of days, you could judge for yourself, because the Zyprexa documents were posted on the Web by individuals to whom they were also leaked.

On Dec. 18, Lilly obtained a temporary court order to get its documents back. The New York Times refused, but the Web links were shut down. Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein will be asked to restore the links.

Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Freedom Foundation in San Francisco will argue that the order to shut down the Web links violated the protections of the first amendment.

"Courts in the United States, thanks to the First Amendment, are not allowed to issue what are called 'prior restraints,' Von Lohmann said. "After all, the Pentagon Papers were also allegedly improperly obtained. And the courts have said over and over again 'It doesn't matter if the documents were improperly obtained. Courts do not issue stop-the-presses orders against people who happen to get the documents after they had been released.'"

Von Lohmann's client is anonymous. "John Doe" posted entries on a Wikipedia Web site about the Zyprexa documents. He doesn't have the stature of the reporters involved in the Pentagon Papers case. They worked for The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Neil Richards, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, says this case squarely poses the question of whether "John Doe" deserves the same protections as the established media.

"A number of people have made claims to be the press," Richards said. "The Supreme Court, in interpreting the First Amendment, has defined the press very broadly because it doesn't want to foreclose new types of people who are engaged in press-like activities from claiming First Amendment protection."

Richards thinks the court will decide that "John Doe" is a full-fledged member of the press.

But to release the documents on the Web, Richards says, Judge Weinstein will also have to decide that the public interest in knowing what's in the documents outweighs Lilly's interest in protecting its trade secrets.

For its part, Lilly says releasing the documents could harm patients and physicians, because the documents tell only part of the story about Zyprexa.

A ruling could come at any time.

by

Listen to this story...

Here

Saturday, January 13, 2007

The Other Losing War: ORLANDO PATTERSON - The Drug War

GUEST COLUMNIST
By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Published: January 13, 2007

America’s unwillingness to recognize the socioeconomic context of the drug crisis at home and abroad is as incomprehensible as the quagmire in Iraq.

Kingston, Jamaica

Preoccupation with Iraq has drawn attention from another unwinnable American war that has been far more destructive of life both at home and abroad and has caused far greater collateral damage in other countries, in addition to spreading contempt for American foreign engagements. This is the failed war on drugs.

It was Nixon who, in 1971, first declared war on drugs. As with Iraq, the strategy is flawed in its conception and execution, made worse by a refusal to change course in the face of failure. It strongly emphasizes eradicating the source of drugs, interdiction of traffic and draconian punishment for offenders. It neglects what nearly every expert believes — and European experience has shown — to be the only successful strategy: a demand-side emphasis on preventive programs and rehabilitation of addicts. The present administration's claims of a shift to preventive measures is belied by the budget of its drug control office, which allocates a 94 percent share to disrupting the supply, mainly through environmentally hazardous spraying in Latin America and the Caribbean that alienates local farmers. .....

---MORE--

Another Failed War Needs Withdrawal

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Drug war, Taliban, poppies are all in full flower

Opium, thugs bloom under U.S. policies in Afghanistan war

- Ann Jones
Sunday, December 17, 2006

<>A little more than five years since the start of the Bush administration's Afghan war, the "ousted" Taliban is back in full flower, and so is the notorious Afghan poppy. There's no doubt the two are intimately connected. The Taliban, which briefly banned poppy cultivation in 2000 in an effort to gain U.S. diplomatic recognition and aid, now both supportts and draws support from that profitable crop; Afghanistan provides 92 percent of the world's heroin.

Yet Western policies designed to eliminate the Taliban and the poppy are at odds with each other. While NATO troops scramble, between battles, to rebuild rural infrastructure, U.S. advisers urge Afghan anti-narcotics police to eradicate the livelihood of 2 million poor farmers.

So far, the poppy-eradication program, largely funded by the United States, hasn't made a dent. Last year, it claimed to have destroyed 38,000 acres of poppies, up from 12,000 the year before; but during the same period overall poppy cultivation soared from 104,000 hectares to 165,000 hectares (or 408,000 acres).

When the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, poppies were grown on only 7,600 hectares. Under the American occupation that followed the defeat of the Taliban, poppy cultivation spread to every province, and overall production has increased exponentially ever since -- this year by 60 percent.

Still, the counterproductive eradication program succeeds in one thing: It makes life miserable for hundreds of thousands of small farmers and their families.

What happens to them? The Senlis Council, an international drug-policy think tank, reports that the drug-eradication program not only ruins small farmers but actually drives them into the arms of the Taliban, which offers them loans, protection and a chance to plant again. Big farmers, on the other hand, are undeterred by the eradication program; they simply pay off the police and associated officials, spreading corruption and dashing hopes of honest government.

In 2002, President Bush announced, "We must reduce drug use for one great moral reason. When we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans."

There's a profusion of ironies here. The United States in the 1980s fought a proxy war against the Soviet Union on Afghan soil, encouraging Islamist extremists (then "our" soldiers) and helping to set the stage for the Taliban.

Now the Bush administration sets Afghan against Afghan again: For what? The souls of American heroin addicts? Or the Republican Party, for whom the "war on drugs" is a moral crusade?

While Bush claims the moral high ground, other administration officials worry more pragmatically that the drug trade may destabilize the country and the region.

Paradoxically, many a person on the street in Kabul points to the poppy as the source of jobs, wealth, hope and such stability as President Hamid Karzai currently enjoys. Karzai himself often promises to rid the government and country of drug lords, but as a Pashtun and a realist, he keeps his enemies close. His strategy is to avoid confrontation, befriend potential adversaries and give them offices, often in his Cabinet.

The trade penetrates even the elected Parliament, which is full of the usual suspects. Among the 249 members of the Wolesi Jirga (lower house) are at least 17 known drug traffickers, in addition to 40 commanders of armed militias, 24 members of criminal gangs, and 19 men facing serious allegations of war crimes and human rights violations, any or all of whom may be affiliated with the poppy business.

Through many administrations, the U.S. government has been implicated in the Afghan drug trade. During the Soviet occupation of the 1980s, the CIA sponsored anti-Soviet Islamist extremists, and to finance its covert operations, it fostered the drug trade. Before the American and Pakistani-sponsored mujahedeen took on the Soviets in 1979, Afghanistan produced a very small amount of opium for regional markets, and no heroin at all. By the end of the jihad against the Soviet army, it was the world's top producer of both drugs.

As Alfred McCoy reports in "The Politics of Heroin," Afghan mujahedeen -- the guys President Ronald Reagan famously likened to "our founding fathers" -- ordered Afghan farmers to grow poppy; Afghan commanders and Pakistani intelligence agents refined heroin; the Pakistani army transported it to Karachi for shipment overseas; while the CIA made it all possible by providing legal cover for these operations.

After the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush administration made use of our old Islamist allies, paying them millions of dollars to hunt Osama bin Laden, a task to which they appear not to have been entirely devoted. Asked in 2004 why the United States wasn't going after drug kingpins in Afghanistan, an unnamed U.S. official told a New York Times reporter that the drug lords were "the guys who helped us liberate this place in 2001," the guys we relied on to get bin Laden.

Early on, the British, who were responsible for international anti-narcotics operations in Afghanistan, tried to persuade Afghan farmers to take up "alternative livelihoods" -- that is, to grow other crops -- even though no other crop requires less work or produces a fraction of the profits of poppy. Not that the farmers themselves get rich. Within Afghanistan, where perhaps 3 million people draw direct income from poppy, profits may reach $3 billion this year; but international traffickers in the global marketplace will make 10 times as much, at the very least.

The small percentage of profit that stays in Afghanistan enriches mainly the kingpins: warlords, government officials, politically connected smugglers. But as drug lords build mansions in Kabul -- ornate "Pakistani Palaces" of garish tile and colored glass -- they create jobs and a booming trade in all sorts of legal goods from cement to pots and pans. What's more, that small in-country profit adds up to an estimated 60 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product, or more than half the country's annual income. It's also more than twice as much as the United States designated in the past five years for Afghan reconstruction, most of which never reached the country anyway.

As things stand, the poppy farmer makes a decent living. Poppies enable him to hold on to his scrap of land. He can feed his family and send his children to school. Nevertheless, two years ago, some poppy farmers in Nangahar province were actually persuaded to give up poppy for tomatoes. They were pressured by an aggressive American campaign of defoliant aerial spraying of poppy fields that killed poppies and sickened children and livestock. The United States still denies responsibility for that episode and similar aerial attacks that devastated livestock in Helmand province in February 2005.

When word came that the Quran had been dumped in a Guantanamo toilet, Nangahar farmers were among the angry Afghans who rioted in Jalalabad. For them, the desecration of their holy book was the last straw. They were already furious about the tomatoes. They had harvested good crops, then watched them rot because a promised bridge they needed to get their tomatoes to market hadn't been built. Remarkably, the Nangahar farmers still gave "alternative livelihoods" one more try, but they made too little money to feed their children. This year they announced they're planting poppies again.

A field of poppies in bloom is a beautiful sight -- especially in Afghanistan where the plant's brilliant greenery and its white-and-purplish flowers stand against a drab landscape of rock and sand, visual testimony to the promise of human endeavor even in the worst of circumstances. It may be that Afghan farmers contemplate their fields as metaphor, Afghans being great lovers of poetry. But they're practical and desperate as well, so they came up with a plan.

Afghan farmers officially proposed to British anti-narcotics officials that they be licensed to grow poppy and produce opium for state-owned refineries to be built with foreign aid donations. The refineries, in turn, would produce medicinal morphine and codeine for worldwide legal sale, thereby filling a global need for inexpensive, natural painkillers.

The farmers got nowhere with this proposal, although it's hard to think of any plan that could more effectively have bound the rural peasantry to Karzai's feeble central government, stabilizing and strengthening it.

One expert the administration sent to Kabul to assess the "drug problem" admitted as much. "The only sensible way out is to legalize drugs," he said in an interview early in 2004. "But nobody in the White House wants to hear that."

Sure enough, in November 2004, President Bush, backed by the civilian leadership of the Pentagon and powerful Republican congressmen like Henry Hyde of Illinois, suddenly increased U.S. funds committed to the conventional Afghan war on drugs sixfold to $780 million, including $150 million for aerial spraying.

So you see what weird, self-defeating policies a government such as ours can develop when its ideology silences those who might give it good advice. When it can't face facts, it attacks the very people whose hearts and minds it hopes to win. When it spends billions to tear down the lives of poor Afghans even as our NATO allies pray for a break in battling the Taliban so that -- with time running out -- they can rebuild.

Ann Jones spent the better part of the last four years in Afghanistan, working on education and women's rights -- and watching. She wrote about what she saw in Kabul in "Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan'' (Metropolitan Books, 2006). Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

Page C - 1

Monday, December 18, 2006

Drug Files Show Maker Promoted Unapproved Use

Eli Lilly encouraged primary care physicians to use Zyprexa, a powerful drug for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, in patients who did not have either condition, according to internal Lilly marketing materials.

The marketing documents, given to The New York Times by a lawyer representing mentally ill patients, detail a multiyear promotional campaign that Lilly began in Orlando, Fla., in late 2000. In the campaign, called Viva Zyprexa, Lilly told its sales representatives to suggest that doctors prescribe Zyprexa to older patients with symptoms of dementia.

By ALEX BERENSON

--MORE--



Monday, December 11, 2006

Afghan poppies to be sprayed with herbicide: U.S. anti-drug chief

Jason Straziuso
Canadian Press

Sunday, December 10, 2006

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The top U.S. anti-drug official said Saturday that Afghan poppies will be sprayed with herbicide to combat an opium trade that produced a record heroin haul this year, a measure likely to anger farmers and scare Afghans unfamiliar with weed-killers.

John Walters, the director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, said Afghanistan could turn into a narco-state unless "giant steps" are made toward eliminating poppy cultivation.

"We cannot fail in this mission," he said.

"Proceeds from opium production feed the insurgency and burden Afghanistan's nascent political institutions with the scourge of corruption."

Afghans are deeply opposed to spraying poppies. After nearly three decades of war, western science and assurances can do little to assuage their fears of chemicals being dropped from airplanes. Because of those fears - and because crop-dusters could be shot down by insurgents - spraying would need to be done on the ground.

The Afghan government has not publicly said it will spray and President Hamid Karzai has said in the past herbicides pose too big a risk, contaminating water and killing the produce that grows alongside poppies.

But Walters said Karzai and other officials have agreed to ground spraying.

"I think the president has said yes and I think some of the ministers have repeated yes," Walters said without specifying when spraying would start.

"The particulars of the application have not been decided yet but yes the goal is to carry out ground spraying."

Gen. Khodaidad, Afghanistan's deputy minister for counter-narcotics, said the government hadn't made any decisions yet. But a top Afghan official close to Karzai said the issue is being looked at closely.

"We are thinking about it; we are looking into it. We're just trying to see how the procedure will go," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Opium production in Afghanistan this year rose by 49 per cent to 6,078 tonnes - enough to make about 600 tonnes of heroin. That's more than 90 per cent of the world's supply and more than the world's addicts consume in a year.

A U.S. official who asked not to be named said last month if Afghans don't spray in 2007 "there's going to be a lot of pressure on the government for spraying...a lot of pressure from the U.S."

At the news conference Saturday, Walters tried to emphasize to the largely Afghan media members in attendance spraying is perfectly safe. He said the herbicide glyphosate - sold commercially in the United States under the name Roundup - would be used and it is a safe and common weed killer.

He said the U.S. uses glyphosate to spray marijuana plants in Hawaii and it's also used against coca plants in Colombia.

"We are not experimenting on the people of Afghanistan," he said.

"We are not using a chemical that has a history of questionable effects on the environment."

Walters said he doesn't expect the fight against poppies "to be a one-year success story."

A recent UN report said it would take a generation - 20 years - to defeat the drug trade in Afghanistan.

© The Canadian Press 2006

Saturday, December 9, 2006

Gary Webb's Death: American Tragedy

By Robert Parry
December 9, 2006

When Americans ask me what happened to the vaunted U.S. press corps over the past three decades – in the decline from its heyday of the Watergate scandal and the Pentagon Papers to its failure to challenge the Iraq WMD lies or to hold George W. Bush accountable – I often recall for them the story of Gary Webb.

Two years ago, on the night of Dec. 9, 2004, investigative reporter Webb – his career shattered and his life in ruins – 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 divorced father of three who was living alone in a rental house in Sacramento County, California, 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.

Though a personal tragedy, the story of Gary Webb’s suicide has a larger meaning for the American people who find themselves increasingly sheltered from the truth by government specialists at cover-ups and by a U.S. news media that has lost its way.

Webb’s death 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 have been true.

Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series, published in August 1996, revived the story of how 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 these 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.”]

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 crack epidemic that had ravaged Los Angeles and other American cities in the 1980s. For that reason, African-American communities were up in arms as were their elected representatives.

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

Media Resistance

But that would have required some painful self-criticism among Washington journalists whose careers had advanced in part because they had avoided retaliation from aggressive Reagan supporters who had made an art 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 President Ronald Reagan’s beloved contras were little more than common criminals. 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.

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.

But – 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.

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 reported – 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 that supposedly 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 outright 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 chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb’s suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North’s emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, 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.]

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 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.

The CIA Probe

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’s defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One 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 from the government investigation shook the CIA’s weakening defenses.

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 sought 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 were implicated in heroin trafficking.

The next breach in the defensive wall 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 and executive summaries.

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, the CIA cable reported.

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.

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 the FDN commander 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.

CIA Drug Asset

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 contributed to the problem.

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.

fbiYears later, convicted drug trafficker Carlos Cabezas charged 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 Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Florida. He even offered to introduce them to his Bolivian cocaine supplier.

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.

The White House Trail

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 North’s NSC 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.

“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 was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Dec. 6, 2006, to be President George W. Bush’s new 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.

Drug Flights

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.

Hitz found other air transport companies used by the contras 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.

Fig Leaf

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.

Nevertheless, although Hitz’s report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers. [For more details, see Robert Parry’s Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’]

On Oct. 10, 1998, two days after Hitz’s report 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 the CIA’s 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 are now 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.

One Last Chance

Webb’s suicide offered the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times one more opportunity to set matters right, to revisit the CIA’s admissions in 1998 and to exact some accountability on the Reagan-era officials implicated in protecting the contra crimes.

But all that followed Gary Webb’s death was more trashing of Gary Webb. The Los Angeles Times ran a graceless obituary that made no mention of the admissions in the CIA’s Volume Two and treated Webb like a low-life criminal, rather than a journalist who took on a tough story and paid a high price.

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.

Yet, the big media’s consistent mishandling of the contra-cocaine scandal in the 1980s and 1990s carried another warning that the nation missed: that the U.S. press corps was no longer capable of reporting complex crimes of state.

That unaddressed danger returned with disastrous results in late 2002 and early 2003 when George W. Bush sold false stories about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction while the major newspapers acted as cheerleaders and accomplices.

At the time of Webb’s death on Dec. 9, 2004, the full scope of the Iraq disaster was still not evident, nor was the major press corps ready to acknowledge that its cowardice in the 1980s and its fecklessness in the 1990s were the direct antecedents to its complicity in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Gary Webb had been a kind of canary in the mine shaft. His career destruction in the 1990s and his desperate act of suicide in 2004 were warnings about grave dangers that, if left ignored, would wreak even worse havoc on the United States and the world.

But – on this second anniversary of Webb’s death – it should be remembered that his great gift to American history was that he, along with angry African-American citizens, forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any White House: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

It is way past time for that reality – and that gift – to be acknowledged.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Thursday, December 7, 2006

IT’S TIME TO UNITE AGAINST THE DRUG COMPANIES

DECEMBER 6, 2006

by Steve Wolfson and Roger Wolfson

So my son calls me today, and I answer the phone from my desk, and I guess I was a little surly. “Whatcha grumbling about, Dad?”

“I think I’m hungry.”

“You’re suddenly unable to feed yourself?”

“I could feed myself just fine. In fact, one of the pharmaceutical companies is offering a free lunch 20 feet away, and it smells like fancy stuff.”

“Why aren’t you there?”

“I never go to those things. It’s fine for drug companies to invest in research, but when they spend a fortune doling out food and propaganda to doctors, it just drives me nuts.”

My son paused for a second. That’s always a dangerous sign. You see, I’d forgotten that he can be, well… political. “Dad, this is fantastic.”

“Before you get any big ideas…”

“No, really. This is great. You should lead a boycott. A boycott of pharmaceutical graft!”

“Son…”

“No doctor should take gifts from a drug company without disclosing the gifts to their patients –- just like a politician can’t take money from a lobbyist without disclosing this to his constituents!”

“That’s not really fair to my colleagues…”

“So? Don’t you want to know if anyone giving you a recommendation is compensated by the beneficiary of the recommendation?”

“Son, it’s embarrassing, but doctors can’t afford to blow off the drug companies.”

“WHAT?”

“Calm down, calm down. Here’s the thing. Our low-income patients are in desperate need of the free samples we get from the drug companies. Free samples keep them alive.”

“I’m not saying I have a problem with that…”

“And it’s not like pharmaceutical companies are all bad. The drugs they develop save lives. And with the government slowing down its investment in research, the big companies have picked up some of the slack.”

“But on the other hand, Dad…”

I sighed. And admitted: “yeah, on the other hand, they spend more on marketing than on research. They only support the publication of research that boosts their products. They unleash an army of attractive drug representatives to cozy up to physicians. The reps offer free lunches, camaraderie that I confess really can brighten a workday, and glossy brochures that highlight the success and obscure the failure of their products. Meanwhile, their advertising directed to patients generates demand that bears little relationship to real needs.”

“Dad, you’re a columnist. Write an article about this!”

“You seem pretty charged up.”

“We could write it together! We could ask every doctor to say no to the free lunches and the glossy brochures. Don’t some hospitals and medical schools already do that? Doesn't Yale? We could ask for more free samples, instead! And we could ask physicians and patients who read this article to ask their elected representatives to regulate pharmaceutical marketing! It’s the only way to change things, Dad! We need a movement! Let’s ask doctors and patients to stand up for honest marketing and for assistance to patients who can’t afford drugs they need!”

I confess, I was reluctant to get involved in this. But ultimately, I realized — I paid for the man’s education, and he was right. So we wrote this article, and we hope you’ll mention it to everyone you know, and that this movement will catch on.

—

Steven Wolfson is a cardiologist in New Haven. Roger Wolfson is a writer living in Los Angeles.

Friday, November 24, 2006

The Money Party vs. The People Party

This Associated Press story about the prospects for pharmaceutical importation legislation came out just a few hours after I wrote my post on how calls for “bipartisanship” between Republicans and Democrats hide the real power equation in Washington between the Money Party and the People Party. This piece shows exactly what I’m talking about.

The piece says that most Democrats support allowing Americans to buy cheaper, FDA-approved medicines from places like Canada. It also notes this:


“Things were headed in the right direction with reimportation to begin with, but the election will speed up that process because it’s removed leadership that was opposed to reimportation. I am a Republican and support leadership in general, but on reimportation they were opposed to it,” said Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana. Vitter and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., recently sponsored legislation to halt the seizures of imported Canadian drugs for personal use — something the government now allows only on a limited basis. And Vitter continues to block confirmation of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, President Bush’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, until federal drug import laws are further relaxed.
[…]
“A lot of people say, ‘Oh, it’s just the Democrats,’ but it’s not. It depends on where you’re from, and who are your constituents,” said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., a key sponsor of previous reimportation legislation.

Still, Emerson says the issue will have a “fighting chance” in the new Congress, even without a veto-proof majority. Others are less sanguine.

“This is one of those things where I think that the conventional wisdom may not be accurate. I personally think reimportation has a much tougher prospect of moving with the Democrats in charge, particularly in the House,” said Ira Loss, an analyst at Washington Analysis.
Loss points to the potential opposition of Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who will take over as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees the FDA. Dingell previously has warned of the safety risks posed by imported drugs — as do both the FDA and pharmaceutical industry.

So, in other words, there are Democrats and Republicans like Vitter and Emerson willing to stand up for the People Party on this critical issue, but there are people like Democratic Rep. John Dingell who may use a patently fake argument about imported drugs being unsafe in order to defend the Money Party.
The New York Times also gets in on the action, with reporter Robert Pear going even further to show the Money Party vs. People Party divide in his story about the drug industry developing strategies to stop Democratic reforms in Congress:
Billy Tauzin, president of [PhRMA], a lobbying organization for brand-name drug companies, recently urged Representative Edolphus Towns, Democrat of New York, to seek a position as chairman of a powerful House subcommittee, said Karen Johnson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Towns. The subcommittee has authority over Medicare and the Food and Drug Administration. Democrats have yet to decide who will head the subcommittee.

[…]

Amgen, the biotechnology company, recently disclosed that it had retained as a lobbyist George C. Crawford, a former chief of staff for Representative Nancy Pelosi of California.

[…]

Amgen is also seeking strategic advice from the Glover Park Group, a consulting firm whose founders include Joe Lockhart, a former press secretary for President Bill Clinton.
Other major drug companies have been snatching up Democratic former-aides-turned-lobbyists. Merck recently has hired Peter Rubin, a former aide to Representative Jim McDermott of Washington, one of the more liberal House Democrats. Cephalon has hired Kim Zimmerman, a health policy aide to Senator Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat of Nebraska.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization has retained Paul T. Kim, a former aide to two influential Democrats, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative Henry A. Waxman of California.

This is the real divide that matters in politics - not Republicans and Democrats, but Money vs. People. Don’t let the pundits’ calls for nebulous “bipartisanship” fool you. Don’t let the pledges of “civility” from politicians divert your attention. There is too much bipartisanship in pursuit of selling out, and too much civility that hides a very uncivil class war that Congress has waged - and may continue to wage - on middle America.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry

posted 11/24/2006 by David Sirota @ 10:24 am Permalink

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2006/11/24/the-money-party-vs-the-people-party/

Drug Industry Is on Defensive as Power Shifts

November 24, 2006

By ROBERT PEAR


WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — Alarmed at the prospect of Democratic control of Congress, top executives from two dozen drug companies met here last week to assess what appears to them to be a harsh new political climate, and to draft a battle plan.

Hoping to prevent Congress from letting the government negotiate lower drug prices for millions of older Americans on Medicare, the pharmaceutical companies have been recruiting Democratic lobbyists, lining up allies in the Bush administration and Congress, and renewing ties with organizations of patients who depend on brand-name drugs.

Many drug company lobbyists concede that the House is likely to pass a bill intended to drive down drug prices, but they are determined to block such legislation in the Senate. If that strategy fails, they are counting on President Bush to veto any bill that passes. With 49 Republicans in the Senate next year, the industry is confident that it can round up the 34 votes normally needed to uphold a veto.

While that showdown is a long way off, the drug companies are not wasting time. They began developing strategy last week at a meeting of the board of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Billy Tauzin, president of that group, a lobbying organization for brand-name drug companies, recently urged Representative Edolphus Towns, Democrat of New York, to seek a position as chairman of a powerful House subcommittee, said Karen Johnson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Towns. The subcommittee has authority over Medicare and the Food and Drug Administration.

Democrats have yet to decide who will head the subcommittee.

Mr. Tauzin, a former congressman, also met with Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat who has been trying for six years to allow drug imports from Canada. The industry vehemently opposes such legislation.

James C. Greenwood, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, another trade group, said, “There is a lot of pent-up animosity among Democrats against the pharmaceutical industry.”

Mr. Greenwood, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, said he had a list of 37 Congressional Democrats whom he intended to call in the next month.

Amgen, the biotechnology company, recently disclosed that it had retained as a lobbyist George C. Crawford, a former chief of staff for Representative Nancy Pelosi of California. Ms. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, is in line to become speaker in January and has said that the House will immediately take up legislation authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers.

The 2003 Medicare law prohibits the federal government from negotiating drug prices or establishing a list of preferred drugs.

Amgen is also seeking strategic advice from the Glover Park Group, a consulting firm whose founders include Joe Lockhart, a former press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

Other major drug companies have been snatching up Democratic former-aides-turned-lobbyists. Merck recently has hired Peter Rubin, a former aide to Representative Jim McDermott of Washington, one of the more liberal House Democrats. Cephalon has hired Kim Zimmerman, a health policy aide to Senator Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat of Nebraska.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization has retained Paul T. Kim, a former aide to two influential Democrats, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative Henry A. Waxman of California.

A Medicare expert who works for House Democrats said he recently received three job offers in one day from the drug industry, by telephone and in person.

At a dinner last week at the Hotel Monaco here, as part of their board meeting, pharmaceutical executives dissected the midterm election results with experts including Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster, and Stuart Rothenberg, the editor of a political newsletter.

Drug makers have not set a budget for their campaign. They and their trade groups already spend some $100 million a year on lobbying in Washington.

“We have new political realities to attend to,” Mr. Tauzin said in an interview after the board meeting. “We and our allies will do everything we can to defend the Medicare drug benefit, to get out the message that it is working.”

To reinforce that message, drug companies plan to mobilize beneficiaries and urge them to contact Congress.

“I’m putting my trust in beneficiaries,” said Mr. Tauzin, who represented Louisiana in the House for more than two decades, first as a Democrat and then as a Republican. Several recent surveys suggest that at least three-fourths of the people with Medicare drug coverage are satisfied.

But Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, who hopes to head the health subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said price negotiations for Medicare were his priority.

“The 2003 Medicare law was essentially written by the drug industry,” Mr. Pallone said in an interview. “That’s why you don’t have negotiated prices. Republican policies have served special interests like the pharmaceutical industry, and the American taxpayer is paying the price.”

Drug lobbyists believe that the Senate will be receptive to their argument that price negotiations lead inevitably to price controls, and to restrictions on access to drugs, likely to be unpopular with beneficiaries.

Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, said the White House opposed federal price negotiations because they would unravel the whole structure of the Medicare drug benefit, which relies on competing private plans.

Among leaders who attended the board meeting last week were Kevin Sharer, chairman of Amgen; Jeffrey B. Kindler, chief executive of Pfizer; Sidney Taurel, chairman of Eli Lilly; and Richard T. Clark, chief executive of Merck.

Drug lobbyists say they want to work with the new Democratic majority, but that will not be easy. In its campaign contributions, the pharmaceutical industry has overwhelmingly favored Republicans over Democrats. Drug companies infuriated many Democrats in 2003, when they worked closely with Republicans to create the Medicare drug benefit, in a process from which Democrats were largely excluded.

On other issues, Democrats are pushing for stricter regulation of drug safety and for legislation to encourage development of low-cost generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs. They are determined to allow imports of drugs from Canada, where brand-name products are often cheaper.

They want to investigate drug pricing and profits, drug advertising aimed at consumers and the marketing of drugs to doctors for purposes not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Democrats may try to repeal some of the liability protections that have been given to vaccine manufacturers.

Outspoken critics of the pharmaceutical industry will gain power as a result of Senate committee assignments made last week. Senators Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, and Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, are joining the Finance Committee, which has sweeping authority over Medicare and Medicaid. Three liberal senators — Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Barack Obama of Illinois and Bernard Sanders of Vermont — are joining the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which oversees drug regulation and biomedical research.

The pharmaceutical industry lost one of its most effective defenders when Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, was not re-elected. The new Senate Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, is no friend of the brand- name drug industry. He supports bills to allow imports from Canada and to increase access to generic drugs.

Top pharmaceutical executives are hurriedly planning a response to the Democratic agenda.

“It’s all hands on deck,” said Ken Johnson, a senior vice president at Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “It’s like a hurricane warning flag. You don’t know where it will hit. You don’t know who will be affected. But everybody has to be prepared.”

Drug companies may be open to some changes in the Medicare drug benefit, but they say they cannot accept any form of price negotiation.

“The new Medicare program is clearly benefiting seniors and people with disabilities and has exceeded initial expectations,” Mr. Tauzin said. “But we are open to new ideas that could make it even better. We will propose at the same time we are opposing.”

Specifically, Mr. Tauzin said, drug companies would like permission to fill a gap in coverage that has angered many Medicare beneficiaries.

Many drug companies have programs to provide free drugs to people with limited incomes. When such programs are used to fill the gap in the Medicare drug benefit, they may run afoul of federal law — the anti-kickback statute — because they steer patients to products made by one particular company.

The drug industry is anxiously waiting to see details of the Democratic proposal. Lawmakers are weighing several options. At a minimum, Congress could simply repeal the ban on price negotiations, without requiring Medicare officials to do anything. Many House Democrats want to go further. They would direct Medicare officials to negotiate prices for a government-run prescription drug plan, which would compete with dozens of existing private plans.

The government could negotiate prices for all drugs or just for brand-name drugs that have no competition. Alternatively, Congress could require manufacturers to provide a specified discount, so Medicare would get the “best price” available to any private buyer.

Such details, defining the federal role, are immensely important and could determine the outcome of any votes in Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/washington/24drug.html