DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION

2 - The Brutal, Illegal Gulf War
The most recent of wars carried out under the cloak of diplomacy by deception, the Gulf War, differs from others in that the Committee of 300, the Council on Foreign Relations, Illuminati and Bilderbergers did not adequately cover their tracks along the way to war. The Gulf War therefore is one of the easiest of wars to trace back to Chatham House and Harold Pratt House, and, fortunately for us, it is one of the easiest to prove the diplomacy by deception thesis.

The Gulf War must be viewed as a single component of the Committee of 300's overall strategy for the Middle East oil-producing Islamic states. Only a brief historical overview can be given here. It is essential to know the truth and to be set free from the propaganda of Madison Avenue opinion-makers, also known as "advertising agencies."

British imperialists, aided by their American cousins, began to implement their plans to seize control of all Middle East oil in or around the mid-1800s. The illegal Gulf War was an integral provision of that plan. I say illegal, because, as explained in the chapters dealing with the United Nations, only the Congress can declare war, as laid down in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 of the U.S. Constitution. Henry Clay, a recognized authority on the Constitution, said this on a number of occasions.

No elected official can override the provisions of the Constitution, and both former Secretary of State James Baker III and President George Bush, ought to have been impeached for violating the Constitution. A British intelligence source told me that when Baker met Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace, he actually bragged about how he got around the Constitution, and then, in the presence of the queen, chastised Edward Heath who had opposed the war. Edward Heath, a former British prime minister was sacked by the Committee of 300 for failing to support the European unity policy and for his strong opposition to the Gulf War.

Baker remarked to the gathering of heads-of-state and diplomats that he dismissed attempts to draw him into discussing constitutional issues. Baker also boasted about how his threats against the Iraqi nation were carried out, and Queen Elizabeth II nodded her approval. Obviously Baker and President Bush, who was also present at the gathering, placed their fealty to the One World Government above that of the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The land of Arabia existed for thousands of years, and it was always known as Arabia. The land was linked to events in Turkey, Persia (now Iran), and Iraq through the Wahabi and the Abdul Aziz families. In the 15th century, the British, under the direction of Black Guelph Venetian robber-bankers saw the possibilities of entrenching themselves in Arabia, where they were opposed by the Koreish tribe, the tribe of the prophet Muhammad, the posthumous son of the Hashemite, Abdullah, out of which came the Fatima and Abbasid Dynasties.

The Gulf War was only an extension of the Committee of 300's attempts to destroy Muhammad and the Hashemite people in Iraq. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are hated and despised by all true followers of Islam, more so since they allowed "infidels" (U.S. troops) to be stationed in the land of the prophet Muhammad.

The essential articles of the Muslim religion consist of a belief in one God, (Allah), in his angels and his prophet Muhammad, the last of the prophets and belief in his revealed work, the Koran; belief in the Day of Resurrection and God's predestination of men. The six fundamental duties of believers are recitation of the profession of faith, attesting to the unity of God, and the firm acceptance of the mission of Muhammad; five daily prayers; total fasting during the month of Ramadan, and a pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once in the lifetime of the believer.

Strict observation of the fundamental principles of the Muslim religion make one a fundamentalist, which the Wahabi and Abdul Aziz families (the Saudi Royal family), are not The Saudi Royal Family has slowly but surely drifted away from fundamentalism, which has not endeared them to Islamic fundamentalist countries like Iraq and Iran, who now blame them for making the Gulf War possible in the first place. Skipping over centuries of history, we come to 1463, when a great war, instigated and planned by the Black Guelph Venetian bankers, broke out in the Ottoman Empire. The Venetian Guelphs (who are directly related to Queen Elizabeth II of England) had deceived the Turks into believing that they were friends and allies, but the Ottomans were to learn a bitter lesson.

To understand the period, we must understand that the British Black Nobility is synonymous with the Venetian Black Nobility. Under the leadership of Mohammed the Conqueror, the Venetians were driven out of what is today Turkey. The role of Venice in world history has been deliberately and grossly understated. And its influence is today understated, such as the role it played in the Bolshevik Revolution, both world wars and the Gulf War. The Ottomans were betrayed by the British and Venetians, who "came as friends but held a concealed dagger behind their backs" as history records. This was one of the earlier sallies into diplomacy by deception. It was very successfully copied by George Bush in posing as a friend of the Arab people.

With British intervention, the Turks were pushed back from the gates of Venice and an Arab presence firmly established in the peninsula. The British misused the Arabs under Col. Thomas E. Lawrence to bring down the Ottoman Empire, eventually betraying them and setting up the Zionist state of Israel, through the Balfour Declaration. This is a good example of the diplomacy by deception that succeeded. In the period 1909 to 1915, the British government used Lawrence to lead Arab forces to fight the Turks and drive them out of Palestine. The void left by the Turks was filled by immigrant Jews flocking into Palestine under the terms of the Balfour Declaration.

The British government continued its deception by moving British troops into the Sinai and Palestine. Sir Archibald Murray assured Lawrence the move was to forestall Jewish immigration under the Balfour Declaration signed by Lord Rothschild, a top member of the Illuminati. The terms under which the Arabs agreed to intervene in the Ottoman campaign (to whom the Black Nobility of Britain had sworn undying loyalty), was negotiated by Sheriff Hussein of the Hijaz, and specifically included a provision that Britain would not permit Jewish immigration into Palestine, Transjordan and Arabia to continue. Hussein made this demand the very heart of the agreement signed with the British government

Of course, the British government never intended to honor the terms of its agreement with Hussein, adding the names of the other countries to Palestine so that they could say, "well, we did keep them out of these countries." It was diplomacy by deception at its finest, because the Zionists had no interest in sending Jews to any Middle East country other than Palestine.

The British government always played the Abdul-Aziz and Wahabis (the Saudi Royal Family) against Sheriff Hussein, secretly entering into an agreement with the two families that "officially" pretended to recognize Hussein as the King of Hijaz (which the British government did on Dec. 15,1916). The British government agreed to secretly back the two families with enough arms and money to conquer the independent city-states of Arabia.

Of course, Hussein was not privy to the side deal, and he agreed to launch a full-scale attack on the Turks. This prompted the Wahabi and Abdul Aziz families to put together an army and launch a war to bring Arabia under their control. The British oil companies thus succeeded in getting Hussein to battle the Turks unwittingly on their behalf.

Funded by Britain in 1913 and 1927, the Abdul Aziz-Wahabi armies conducted a bloody campaign against Arabia's independent city states overrunning Hijaz, Jauf and Taif. The holy Hashemite city of Mecca was attacked on Oct 13,1924, forcing Hussein and his son, Ali, to flee. On Dec. 5, 1925, Medina surrendered after a particularly bloody battle. The British government, demonstrating once again its grasp of diplomacy by deception, did not tell the Wahabis and Saudis that its true goal was the destruction of the sanctity of Mecca and the overall weakening of the Muslim religion, which was deeply resented by the British oligarchists and their Black Nobility Venetian cousins.

Nor did the British government tell the Saudi and Wahabi families that they were merely pawns in the game to secure Arabian oil for Britain over the claims of Italy, France, Russia, Turkey and Germany. On Sept 22,1932, the Saudi-Wahabi armies put down a rebellion in the largely Hashemite territory of Transjordan. Thereafter, Arabia was renamed Saudi Arabia and was henceforth to be ruled by a king drawn from the two families. Thus, by the deceit of diplomacy by deception, the British oil companies gained control of Arabia.

 

This diplomacy by deception and the whole bloody campaign is fully described in my monograph, "Who are the Real Saudi Kings and Kuwaiti Sheiks?"

Once freed from the Ottoman threat and Arab nationalism under Sheriff Hussein to pursue its designs even further, the British government, acting on behalf of its oil companies, entered into a new period of diplomacy by deception. They drew up and guaranteed a treaty between Saudi Arabia, as it was now called, and Iraq, which became the foundation of a whole series of inter-Arab-Muslim pacts, which the British government said it would enforce against Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Contrary to what Britain's leaders told the Arab-Muslim parties, the Balfour Declaration which had already been negotiated, permitted Jews not only to immigrate to Palestine, but to make it a homeland. This agreement, laid out terms of an Anglo-French accord, placed Palestine under international administration. This is just as easily done by today's United Nations, with Cyrus Vance carving up Bosnia Herzegovina, an internationally-recognized country, into small en claves so that Serbia can take them over in due time.

Then, on Nov. 2,1917, came the public announcement of the Balfour Declaration, which said that the British government — not the Arabs or the Palestinians, whose land it was— favored establishing Palestine as a national homeland for the Jewish people. Britain vowed to use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of that goal,

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

A more audacious piece of diplomacy by deception is hard to find anywhere. Note that the real inhabitants of Palestine were downgraded to "non-Jewish communities." Also note that the declaration, which was in reality a proclamation, was signed by Lord Rothschild, head of British Zionists, who was not a member of the British Royal Family, nor was he a member of Balfour's cabinet and therefore had even less standing than Balfour to sign such a document

The gross betrayal of the Arabs so angered Col. Lawrence that he threatened to expose the British government's duplicity, a threat that was to cost him his life. Lawrence had given Hussein and his men a solemn promise that further Jewish immigration into Palestine would not occur. Documents in the British Museum clearly show that the promise relayed to Sheriff Hussein by Lawrence, was made by Sir Archibald Murray and General Edmund Allenby on behalf of the British government

In 1917, British troops marched into Baghdad, marking the beginning of the end of the Ottoman empire. Throughout this period, the Wahabi and Saudi families were continually reassured by Murray that no Jews would be allowed to enter Arabia, and that the few Jews who would be allowed to immigrate would be settled only in Palestine. On Jan. 10, 1919, the British gave themselves a "mandate" to rule Iraq, which passed into law on May 5,1920. Not a single government in the world protested Britain's illegal action. Sir Percy Cox was named high commissioner. Of course, the people of Iraq were not consulted at all.

By 1922, the League of Nations had approved the terms of the Balfour (Rothschild) Declaration, which gave the British government a man date to run Palestine and the Hashemite country called Transjordan. One can only marvel at the audacity of the British government and the League of Nations.

In 1880, the British government formed a friendship with a tame Arab sheik by the name of Emir Abdullah al Salem Al Sabah. Al Sabah was made their representative in the area along the southern border of Iraq where the Rumalia oilfields had been discovered inside Iraqi territory. The Al Sabah family kept an eye on this rich prize while the

British went after another prize in 1899, that of the huge gold deposits in the tiny Boer Republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State, which we shall come to in succeeding chapters. It is mentioned here to illustrate the Committee of 300's quest to grab natural resources of nations whenever and wherever they could do so.

On behalf of the Committee of 300, on Nov. 25,1899 — the same year the British went to war against the Boer Republics — the British government made a deal with Emir Al Sabah, whereby the land encroaching on the Rumalia oilfields in Iraq was ceded to the British government notwithstanding the fact that the land was an integral part of Iraq, or that the Emir AI Sabah had no right to it.

The deal was signed by Sheik Mubarak Al Sabah, who traveled to London in style with his retinue, with all expenses paid by the British taxpayers and not the British oil companies who were the beneficiaries of the deal. Kuwait became a de facto undeclared British protectorate. The local population had no say in the setting up of the Al Sabahs as absolute dictators who soon showed cruel ruthlessness.

In 1915, the British invaded Iraq and occupied Baghdad in an act President George Bush would have called "naked aggression," the term he used to describe Iraq's move against Kuwait to reclaim its land stolen by Britain. The British government set up a self-proclaimed "mandate" as we have already seen, and on Aug. 23,1921, two months after his arrival in Baghdad, self-styled high commissioner Cox, named former King Faisal of Syria as head of a puppet regime in Basra. Britain now had one puppet in northern Iraq and another in southern Iraq.

In order to strengthen their position, not being satisfied with the blatantly rigged plebiscite that gave the British their mandate, an elaborate and bloody plot was hatched. MI6 British intelligence agents were sent in to stir up a revolt among the Kurds in the Mosul. Encouraged to revolt by their leader, Sheik Mahmud, they staged a great insurrection on Jun. 18,1922. British intelligence agents of MI6 had for months told Sheik Mahmud that his chances of securing an autonomous state for the Kurds would never be better.

Why did MI6 ostensibly act against the best interests of the British government?

 

The answer is found in diplomacy by deception. Yet, even as the Kurds were being told that their age-old quest for an autonomous state was about to become a reality, Cox was telling Iraqi leaders in Baghdad that the Kurds were about to revolt It was, said Cox, only one of many reasons why the Iraqis needed a continued British presence in the country. After two years of fighting, the Kurds were defeated and their leaders executed.

In 1923, however, Britain was forced by Italy, France and Russia to recognize a protocol that granted independence to Iraq once Iraq joined the League of Nations, or, in any case, not later than 1926. This angered the Royal Dutch Shell Co. and British Petroleum, who both called for renewed action, afraid they would lose their oil concessions which were to expire in 1996. Another severe blow to British imperialists and their oil companies was the League of Nations award of the oil-rich Mosul to Iraq.

MI6 arranged for another Kurdish revolt to take place February through April of 1925. False promises were made to the Iraq government, with accounts of what would happen if the British withdrew protection from Iraq. The Kurds were misled into insurrection. The object was to show the League of Nations that its award of Mosul to Iraq was a mistake that it was bad for the world to have an "unstable" government in charge of a major oil reserve. The other benefit was that the Kurds would probably lose, and would once again have their leaders executed. This time, however, the plot didn't work; the League remained steadfast in its decision on Mosul. But the rebellion again ended in defeat for the Kurds and the execution of their leaders.

The Kurds never realized that their enemy was not Iraq, but British and American oil interests. It was Winston Churchill, not the Iraqis, who in 1929 ordered the Royal Air Force to bomb Kurdish villages, because the Kurds objected to British oil interests over the Mosul oilfields which they fully understood the value of.

April, May and June of 1932 saw the Kurds in yet another M16 inspired and directed insurrection, again aimed at persuading the League to alter its decision over Mosul oil, but the attempt was not successful, and on Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq became an independent nation with full control over Mosul. The British oil companies hung on for another 12 years, until finally, in 1948 they were forced to leave Iraq.

And even after leaving Iraq, the British did not withdraw their presence from Kuwait on the spurious grounds that it was not part of Iraq, but a separate country. After the murder of President Kassem, the Iraqi government feared another uprising by the Kurds, who were still under the control of British intelligence. On June 10,1963, the Kurds under Mustafa al-Barzani threatened war against Baghdad, which had its hands full with crushing the Communist menace. The Iraqi government made an agreement granting some measure of autonomy to the Kurds, and issued a proclamation to this effect

Stoked up by British intelligence, the Kurds resumed fighting in April of 1965, because no progress had been made by Iraq in implementing the provisions of the 1963 proclamation. The Baghdad government charged Britain with meddling in its internal affairs, and Kurdish unrest continued for four more years. On Mar. 11, 1970, the Kurds were finally granted autonomy. But, as before, only a very few of the provisions contained in the agreement were implemented. The arrangement had been disturbed in 1923 when, at the insistence of Turkey, Germany and France, a conference was held at Lausanne, Switzerland, under the auspices of the League of Nations.

The real reason for the 1923 Lausanne Conference was the discovery of the Mosul oilfields in northern Iraq. Turkey suddenly decided it had a claim to the vast oilfield that lay beneath the land occupied by the Kurds. By now America was also interested, with John D. Rockefeller ordering President Warren Harding to send an observer. The American observer went along with the existing illegal situation in Kuwait. Rockefeller had no intention of rocking the British boat just as long as he could get his share of the new oil find.

Iraq lost its rights under the old Turkish Petroleum Company agreement, and the status of Kuwait remained unchanged. The question of Mosul oil was left deliberately vague at the insistence of the British delegate. These questions would be settled "by future negotiations" the British delegate stated. The blood of American servicemen will yet be spilled to secure Mosul oil for British and American oil companies, just as it was spilled over the oil in Kuwait

On June 25, 1961, Iraqi Premier Hassan Abdul Kassem fiercely attacked Britain over the Kuwait issue, pointing out that the promised negotiations agreed upon at the Lausanne Conference had not taken place. Kassem declared that the territory called Kuwait had been an integral part of Iraq and was so recognized for more 400 years by the Ottoman empire. Instead, the British granted Kuwait independence.

But it was clear that the British ploy of leaving the status of Kuwait and the Mosul oil fields to a later date was almost foiled by Kassem. Hence, the sudden need to grant independence to Kuwait, before the rest of the world discovered the British and American tactics. Kuwait could never be independent, because, as the British well knew, it was a piece of Iraq which had been sliced off at the Rumalia oilfields and given to British Petroleum.

Had Kassem succeeded in getting Kuwait back, the British rulers would have lost billions of dollars in oil revenues. But when Kassem vanished after Kuwait got its independence the movement to challenge Britain lost its momentum. By granting independence to Kuwait in 1961, and ignoring the fact that the land was not theirs to give, Britain was able to fend off the just claims of Iraq. As we know, Britain did the same thing in Palestine, India and later, in South Africa.

For the next 30 years, Kuwait continued as a vassal state of Great Britain, with the oil companies pulling billions of dollars into British banks while Iraq got nothing. British banks flourished in Kuwait, which were administered from Whitehall and the City of London. This continued until 1965, in addition to the cruelty of the Al Sabahs was the fact that there was no "one man one vote". In fact there was no vote at all for the people. This was not the concern of the British and United States government

The British government made this deal with the Al Sabah family, who would henceforth remain the rulers of Kuwait (as that portion of Iraqi territory came to be known), under the full protection of the British government. Thus was Kuwait stolen from Iraq. The fact that Kuwait did not apply for membership in the U.N. at the time Saudi Arabia did, is proof that it was never a country in the truest sense of the word.

The creation of Kuwait was hotly disputed by successive Iraqi governments, who could do little to reclaim the land in the face of superior British military might. On July 1, 1961, after years of protest over Kuwait annexing its territory, the Iraqi government finally moved on the issue. Emir Al Sabah called on Britain to honor the 1899 agreement, and the British government moved military forces into Kuwait. Baghdad backed down, but never gave up its just claim to the territory.

Britain's seizure of the Iraqi land, calling it Kuwait and granting it independence, must rank as one of the most audacious acts of piracy in modern times, and directly contributed to the Gulf War. I have gone to some lengths to explain the background of events that led to the Gulf War in an attempt to show just how unjustly the United States acted toward Iraq, and the power of the Committee of 300.

Here is a summary of the events that led up to the Gulf War:

  • 1811-1818. Wahabis of Arabia attack and occupy Mecca, but are forced to withdraw by the Sultan of Egypt
     

  • 1899, Nov. 25. Sheik Mubarak al-Sabah cedes part of the Rumalia oilfields to Britain. Land ceded was recognized for 400 years as Iraqi territory. Very sparsely populated up until 1914. Kuwait becomes a British protectorate.
     

  • 1909-1915, British use Col. Thomas Lawrence of British intelligence to befriend the Arabs. Lawrence assures the Arabs that Gen. Edmund Allenby would keep the Jews out of Palestine. Lawrence was not advised of Britain's real intent Sheriff Hussein, the ruler of Mecca, raises an Arab army to attack the Turks. Ottoman empire's presence in Palestine and Egypt is destroyed.
     

  • 1913. British secretly agree to arm, train and supply Abdul Aziz and Wahabi families to prepare for conquest of Arabian city states.
     

  • 1916. British troops move into Sinai and Palestine. Sir Archibald Murray tells Lawrence it is a move designed to forestall Jewish immigration, which Sheriff Hussein accepts. Hussein declares an Arab state on June 27; becomes king on Oct 29. On Nov. 6, 1916, Britain, France and Russia recognize Hussein as head of the Arab people; confirmed on Dec. 15 by British government
     

  • 1916. In a bizarre action, British get India to recognize Arab city-states of Nejd, Qaif and Jubail as possessions of the Ibn Saud of Abdul Aziz family.
     

  • 1917. British troops seize Baghdad. Balfour Declaration is signed by Lord Rothschild who betrays the Arabs and grants homeland to the Jews in Palestine. Gen. Allenby occupies Jerusalem.
     

  • 1920. San Remo Conference. Independence of Turkey; oil disputes settled. The start of British control of oil rich countries in the Middle East. British government establishes puppet regime in Basra, ruled by King Faisal of Syria. Ibn Saud Abdul Aziz attacks Taif in Hijaz, only able to capture it after four year struggle.
     

  • 1922. Aziz sacks Jauf and murders Shalan family dynasty. Balfour Declaration is approved by the League of Nations.
     

  • 1923. Turkey, Germany and France object to British occupation of Iraq and call for summit at Lausanne. Britain agrees to freedom for Iraq, but hangs onto Mosul oilfields in order to create a separate entity situation in northern Iraq. In May, British weaken the rule of Emir Abdullah Ibn Hussein, son of Sheriff Hussein of Mecca, and call the new country "Transjordan."
     

  • 1924. On Oct 13, Wahabis and Adbul Aziz attack and capture the holy city of Mecca, burial place of prophet Muhammad. Hussein and his two sons are forced to flee.
     

  • 1926. Ibn Saud proclaims himself as King of Hijaz and Sultan of Nejd.
     

  • 1927. British sign treaty with Ibn Saud and Wahabis, granting complete freedom of action and recognizing captured city-states as his possessions. This marked the beginning of British Petroleum and the American oil companies battling to outdo each other in obtaining oil concessions.
     

  • 1929. Britain signs a new treaty of friendship with Iraq recognizing its independence, but leaves Kuwait's status unresolved. First large-scale attacks are aimed at Jewish immigrants by Arabs at disputed "Wailing Wall."
     

  • 1930. British government releases the White Paper by the Passfield Commission, which recommends that Jewish immigration to Palestine be halted immediately, and that no more land be awarded to Jewish settlers because of "too many landless Arabs." The recommendation is modified by the British parliament and only token action is taken.
     

  • 1932. Arabia is renamed Saudi Arabia.
     

  • 1935. British Petroleum builds pipeline from disputed Mosul oilfields to port of Haifa. Peel Commission reports to British parliament that Jews and Arabs can never work together; recommends partitioning of Palestine.
     

  • 1936. Saudis sign a non-aggression pact with Iraq, but break it during the Gulf war. The Saudis decided to back the United States and in the process, thereby dishonored the previous agreement with Iraq.
     

  • 1937. Pan Arab Conference inSyria rejects the Peel Commission's plan for Jewish immigration into Palestine. British arrest the Arab leaders and deport them to Seychelles.
     

  • 1941. Britain invades Iran to "save" the country from Germany.
     

  • 1946. Transjordan is granted independence by Britain and is renamed "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" in 1949. Widespread and violent opposition by Zionists follows.
     

  • 1952. Serious rioting in Iraq over continued British presence, outrage over U.S. complicity with oil companies..
     

  • 1953. New government of Jordan orders British troops out of the country.
     

  • 1954. Britain and U.S. berate Jordan for refusing to join in armistice talks with Israel, followed by downfall of the Jordanian cabinet U.S. Sixth Fleet menaces Arab countries by landing Marines in Lebanon (an act of war). King Hussein is not intimidated and responds by denouncing the strong U.S. ties with Israel.
     

  • 1955. Palestinians on West Bank riot Israel declares "Palestinians a Jordanian problem."
     

  • 1959. Iraq protests inclusion of Kuwait in CETAN membership. Accuses Saudis of "aiding British imperialism." British control over Kuwait is strengthened. Iraq's outlet to the sea is cut off.
     

  • 1961. Premiere Kassem of Iraq warns Britain "Kuwaitis Iraqi land and has been for 400 years." Kassem is later assassinated mysteriously. British government declares Kuwait an independent nation. British oil companies are given control over a large part of the Rumalia oilfields. Kuwait signs treaty of friendship with Britain. British troops move in to counter possible attack by Iraq.
     

  • 1962. Britain and Kuwait terminate defense pact
     

  • 1965. Crown Prince Sabah Al Salem Al Sabah becomes Emir of Kuwait

By now, the Committee of 300's grip on Middle East oil was almost total. The road Britain and America had followed was not a new one, but an extension began by Lord Bertrand Russell:

"If a world government is to work smoothly, certain economic conditions will have to be fulfilled. Various raw materials are essential to industry. Of these, at present one of the most important is oil. Probably uranium, though no longer needed for the purposes of war, will be essential for industrial use of nuclear energy. There is no justification in the private ownership of such essential raw material sand I think we should include in undesirable ownership, not only ownership by individuals or companies, but also separate states. The raw material without which industry is impossible should belong to the international authority and granted to separate nations."

This turned out to be a profound statement by the "prophet" of the Committee of 300, coming precisely when British-U.S. meddling in Arab affairs was at its height. Note that Russell already knew then that there would be no nuclear war. Russell declared himself in favor of a One World Government, or the New World Order spoken of by President Bush. The Gulf War was a continuation of earlier efforts to wrest control of Iraqi oil from its rightful owners and to protect the entrenched position of British Petroleum and other majors of the oil cartel for the Committee of 300.

The Balfour Declaration is the kind of document for which the British became infamous. In 1899, they had pressed deception against the tiny Boer Republics in South Africa to new levels. While talking peace, already disturbed by the hundreds of thousands of vagabonds and carpet-baggers who flocked to the Boer republics in the wake of the biggest gold strike in the history of the world, Queen Victoria was preparing for war.

The Gulf War was fought for two primary reasons: The first concerns the hatred of all things Muslim by the RIIA and their American cousins of the CFR, in addition to their strong desire to protect their surrogate, Israel. The second was unbridled greed and a desire to control all Middle East oil-producing countries.

As to the war itself, U.S. maneuvering began at least three years before Bush officially went on the offensive. The United States first armed Iraq, and then incited it to attack Iran in a war which decimated both countries: the so-called "meat grinder war." The war was designed to weaken both Iraq and Iran to the point that they would no longer be a credible threat to British and U.S. oil interests, and, as a military force, they would no longer pose a threat to Israel.

In 1981, Iraq asked the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) in Brescia, Italy, for a line of credit buy weapons from an Italian company. That company later sold land mines to Iraq. Then, in 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism in response to a State Department request

In 1983, the U.S. Agricultural Department provided Iraq with loans amounting to $365 million, ostensibly to purchase agricultural products, but subsequent events disclosed that the money was used to purchase military hardware. In 1985, Iraq approached the BNL branch in Atlanta, Georgia, with a request that the bank process its loans from the U.S. Agricultural Department's Commodity Credit Corporation.

In January of 1986, a high-level CIA-National Security Agency (NSA) meeting was held in Washington, DC. Discussed was whether the United States should give intelligence data it had on Iraq to the government in Teheran. Then Deputy NSA Director Robert Gates was against doing so, but was overruled by the National Security Council.

It was not until 1987 that President Bush made a number of public references supporting Iraq, one in which he said:

"the U.S. must build a solid relationship with Iraq for the future."

Shortly thereafter, BNL's Atlanta branch secretly agreed to a $2.1 billion commercial loan to Iraq. In 1989, hostilities between Iraq and Iran came to an end.

By 1989, a secret memorandum prepared by the State Department Intelligence Agency warned Secretary James Baker:

"Iraq retains its heavy-handed approach to foreign affairs...and is working hard at (making) chemical and biological weapons and new missiles."

Baker did nothing of any substance about the report, and as we shall see, later actively encouraged President Saddam Hussein to believe that the United States would be even-handed about Iraq's policies toward its Middle East neighbors.

In April of the same year, a nuclear proliferation report by the Department of Energy said that Iraq had embarked on a project to build an atomic bomb. This was followed by a June report prepared jointly by Eximbank, (a U.S. banking agency), the CIA and the Federal Reserve Banks, which said that a joint study revealed that Iraq was integrating U.S. technology "directly into Iraq's planned missile, tank and armored personnel carrier industries."

On August 4,1989, the FBI raided the offices of the BNL in Atlanta. Some suspect that this was done to preempt any real investigation into whether loans for Iraq were used to buy sensitive military technology and other military know-how, rather than for the purposes extended by the Agricultural Department.

During September, in an effort insiders say was an advance move to absolve itself from blame, the CIA reported to Baker that Iraq was obtaining the ability to make nuclear weapons through a variety of front companies suspected of links with Pakistan at the highest levels. Pakistan had been long suspected, and even accused by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission of making nuclear weapons, which led to a major rift in relations with Washington, described as being "at an all time low."

In October of 1989 the State Department wrote a "damage control" memo to Baker, recommending that Baker "wall-off" the Agriculture Department's credit program from BNL investigators. The memo was initialed by Baker, which some interpret as his approval of the recommendation. It is generally recognized that by initialing a document, approval is given to its content and any course of action laid out

Shortly thereafter, in a surprise turn, President Bush signed National Security Directive 26, which supported U.S. trade with Iraq.

"Access to the Persian Gulf and key friendly states in that area is vital to U.S. national security," Bush said.

Here then, is confirmation that as early as October, 1989, the President was indulging in diplomacy by deception, acting as though Iraq was an ally of the United States, when in fact, preparations for a war against the country were already underway.

Then, on Oct. 26, 1989, slightly more than three weeks after Bush declared Iraq a friendly state, Baker called Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter with a request that the agricultural trade credits for Iraq be increased. In response, Yeutter ordered his department to provide $1 billion in insured trade credits for the Baghdad government, even though the Treasury Department expressed reservations.

Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger assured the Treasury that the money was needed for "geopolitical reasons":

"Our ability to influence Iraqi behavior in areas from Lebanon to the Middle East peace process (an oblique reference to Israel), is enhanced by expanded trade," said Eagleburger.

However, this was not enough to allay a suspicious and hostile element of the Democrats in Congress, possibly reacting to intelligence information received from Israel. In January of 1990, Congress barred loans to Iraq and eight other countries congressional investigators said were hostile toward the United States. This was a setback for the major plan to go to war against Iraq, which Bush did not trust Congress to know. So, on January 17,1990, he exempted Iraq from the congressional ban.

Possibly fearing that Congressional intervention might upset war plans, State Department specialist John Kelly fired off a memo to Undersecretary of State for Policy Robert Kimit, in which the Agriculture Department was castigated for its tardiness in moving on the loans to Iraq. This February, 1990 incident is of major importance in proving that the president was anxious to complete stocking Iraq with arms and technology so that the timetable for war would not fall.

On February 6, James Kelly, a lawyer for the New York Federal Reserve Bank who was responsible for regulating BNL operations in the United States, wrote a memo which ought to have caused a great deal of alarm: A planned trip to Italy by Federal Reserve criminal investigators was put off. The BNL had cited concerns regarding the Italian press. A trip to Istanbul was put off at the request of Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.

Kelly's February, 1990 memo said in part:

"...A key component of the relationship and failure to approve the loans will feed Saddam's paranoia and accelerate his swing against us."

If we did not already know about the war planned against Iraq, the latter statement would appear to be an amazing one. How could the United States go on arming President Hussein if it feared that he would "swing against us"? Logically, the proper course of action would have been to suspend the credits rather than arm a nation that the State Department believed might turn against us.

March of 1990 brought some surprising developments. Documents produced in federal court in Atlanta showed that Reinaldo Petrignani, Italy's ambassador to Washington, told Thornburgh that incriminating Italian officials in the BNL investigation would be "tantamount to a slap in the face for the Italians." This conversation was subsequently denied as having taken place by both Petrignani and Thornburgh. It proved one thing: the deep involvement of the Bush administration in the BNL loans to Iraq.

In April of 1990, the Interagency Deputies Committee of the National Security Council, headed by Deputy National Security Adviser Rob ert Gates, met at the White House for discussions about a possible change in U.S. attitude toward Iraq — yet another twist in the cyclone of diplomacy by deception.

In yet another unexpected turn of events that same month, apparently not anticipated by Bush or the NSA, the Treasury Department balked at the Agriculture Department's $500 million commodity trade credits, refusing to allow it to go through. In May of 1990, the Treasury Department let it be known that it had received a memo from the NSA objecting to its move. The memo said that NSA staff wanted to prevent Agricultural credits "from being cancelled, as this would exacerbate the already strained foreign policy relations with Iraq."

By July 25,1990, probably earlier than the Committee of 300 preferred, the trap was sprung. Spurred on by a mounting number of setbacks, President Bush authorized U.S. ambassador April Glaspie to meet with President Hussein. The purpose of the meeting was to reassure President Saddam Hussein that the United States had no quarrel with him and would not intervene in any inter-Arab border disputes, according to a number of as yet unreleased State Department cables which Rep. Henry Gonzalez was able to obtain. This was a clear reference to Iraq's dispute with Kuwait over the Rumalia oilfields.

The Iraqis took Glaspie's words as a signal from Washington that they could send their army into Kuwait, thereby buying right into the plot As Ross Perot stated during the November 1992 elections:

"I suggest that in a free society owned by the people, the American people ought to know what we told Ambassador Glaspie to tell Saddam Hussein, because we spent a lot of money and risked lives and lost lives in that effort and did not accomplish most of our objectives."

Meanwhile Glaspie disappeared from view and was sequestered to a secret location shortly after the news broke about her part in the diplomacy by deception practiced against Iraq. Finally, after much media prodding, and flanked by a couple of liberal Senators, who acted as if Glaspie was a wallflower in need of great chivalry, she appeared before a Senate Committee and denied everything. Shortly afterward, Glaspie "resigned" from the State Department, and no doubt now lives in comfortable obscurity from which she ought to be wrenched, placed under oath in a court of law and forced to testify to the truth of how the Bush administration calculatingly deceived not only Iraq, but also this nation.

On July 29,1990, four days after Glaspie met with the Iraqi president, Iraq began moving its army toward the border with Kuwait. Continuing with the deception, Bush sent a team to Capitol Hill to testify against imposing sanctions against Iraq, thereby adding to President Hussein's belief thath is impending invasion of Iraq would be winked at by Washington.

Two days later, on Aug. 2,1990, the Iraqi Army crossed the artificially created border of Kuwait Also during August the CIA, in a top secret report, told Bush that Iraq was not going to invade Saudi Arabia, and that the Iraqi military had not made any contingency plans to do so.

In September of 1990, Italian Ambassador Rinaldo Petrignani accompanied by a number of BNL officials, met with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators. At the meeting, Petrignani said that the BNL was,

"the victim of a terrible fraud—the bank's good name is of great importance, as the Italian state is a majority owner."

This came to light in documents turned over to the House Banking Committee's chairman, Henry Gonzalez.

To experienced watchers, this meant one thing: a plot was in motion to let the real culprits in Rome and Milan off the hook and shift blame to the local fall guy. No wonder a "not guilty" attitude was adopted: subsequently incontrovertible evidence surfaced that the loans made by the BNL's Atlanta branch had the full blessing of the head office of the BNL in Rome and Milan.

On Sept 11,1990, Bush called for a joint session of Congress and stated falsely that on Aug. 5,1990, Iraq had 150,000 troops and 1500 tanks in Kuwait, poised to strike at Saudi Arabia. Bush based his statement on false information relayed from the Defense Department. The claim was that 120,000 Iraqi troops and 850 tanks were in Kuwait. The Defense Department must have known this information was false, otherwise its KH11 and KH12 satellites were malfunctioning, and we know that they were not. Apparently Bush needed to exaggerate to convince Congress that Iraq presented a threat to Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the Russian military released its own satellite pictures showing the exact troop strength in Kuwait As a cover up for Bush, Washington held out that the satellite pictures were from a commercial satellite company that had been sold to ABC television, among others. By turning the satellite pictures over to a commercial company, Russia engaged in a bit of deception of its own. Clearly, the Defense Department and the president had been lying to the American people, and were now caught out in their lies.

By now, Chairman Gonzalez was asking embarrassing questions about the Bush administration's possible involvement in the BNL scandal. In September of 1990, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs wrote a memo to the attorney general which said:

"Our best attempt to thwart any further congressional enquiry by the House banking Committee into (BNL) loans is to have you contact Chairman Gonzalez directly."

On Sept. 26, a few days after he received the memo was, Thornburgh phoned Gonzalez and told him not to investigate the BNL matter because of national security issues involved. Gonzalez bluntly re fused to call off the House Banking Committee investigation of BNL. Thornburgh later denied ever having told Gonzalez to leave BNL alone. Gonzalez soon got hold of a memo written by the State Department dated Dec. 18, which exposed Thornburgh's "national security" plea. The memo also stated that the Justice Department's investigation of BNL didn't raise any national security issue or problems.

Further, the Defense Intelligence Agency announced that its teams in Italy had learned that BNL's Brescia branch loaned Iraq $255 million to buy land mines from an Italian manufacturer. The day the "allied victory" in the Gulf War was announced, the Justice Department indicted the fall guy for the BNL scandal, as expected. Christopher Drogoul was accused of illegally loaning Iraq in excess of $5 billion and accepting kick-backs of up to $2.5 million. Few believed that an obscure loan officer at a small branch of an Italian state-owned bank would have had authority to enter into transactions of such magnitude on his own volition.

From the period January to April of 1990, as more and more pressure built up for the Bush administration to explain the glaring anomalies in the BNL scandal, the National Security Council took steps to close ranks. On April 8, Nicolas Rostow, the NSC's general counsel, organized a top-level meeting to explore ways of fending off the pressing requests for documentation from, among others, House Banking Committee Chairman Gonzalez.

The meeting was attended by C. Boyden Gray, legal counsel to Bush, Fred Green, National Security Agency counsel, CIA general counsel Elizabeth Rindskopf and a whole slew of lawyers representing the Agriculture, Defense, Justice, Treasury, Energy and Commerce Departments. Rostow opened the meeting by warning that Congress seemed intent on probing the Bush administration's relations with Iraq before the war.

Rostow told the lawyers that,

"the National Security Council is providing coordination for the administration's response to congressional documents requests for Iraq-related material," adding that any congressional requests for documents should be checked for "issues of executive privilege, national security, etc. Alternatives to providing documents should be explored."

This information was eventually obtained by Gonzalez.

Cracks were now starting to appear in an otherwise solid administration stonewalling policy. On June4, 1990, officials at the Commerce Department admitted that they had deleted information on export documents to obscure the fact that the department had in deed granted the export licenses for shipments of military hardware and technology to Iraq.

Even larger cracks began to appear in July, when Stanley Moskowitz, the CIA's liaison to Congress, reported that the BNL bank officials in Rome not only were fully aware of what had transpired at the Atlanta branch long before the indictment of Drogoul was handed down, but had in fact signed and approved the loans for Iraq. This was a direct contradiction of Ambassador Petrignani's statement to the Justice Department that the BNL's Rome office knew nothing about the Iraq loans made by its Atlanta branch.

In May of 1992, in yet another a surprising turn, Attorney General William Barr wrote a letter to Gonzales in which he charged Gonzalez with harming "national security interests" by revealing the administration's policy toward Iraq. In spite of the serious charge, Barr provided no confirmation to back the allegation. Clearly, the president was rattled, and the November elections were just around the corner. This point was not lost on Gonzalez, who called Barr's charge "politically motivated."

On June 2,1992, Drougal pleaded guilty to bank fraud. An unhappy Judge Marvin Shoobasked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the BNL case in its entirety. But on July 24, 1992, the attack on Gonzalez resumed with a letter from CIA Director Robert Gates. He criticized the chairman for disclosing the fact that the CIA and a number of other U.S. intelligence agencies knew about the Bush administration's pre-Gulf War relationship with Iraq. Later that month. Gates' letter was released by the House Banking Committee for publication.

By August, the former chief of the Atlanta office of the FBI openly accused the Justice Department of dragging its feet and delaying indictments for nearly a year in the BNL affair. And on Aug. 10 1992, Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's pre-Gulf War relationship with Iraq, as requested by the House Judiciary Committee.

Then, on Sept 4, Barr wrote a letter to the House Banking Committee stating that he would not comply with the Committee's subpoenas for BNL documents and related information. It soon became evident that Barr must have instructed all government departments to refuse to cooperate with the House Banking Committee, because four days after Barr's letter was released, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Customs Service, the Commerce Department and the National Security Agency all stated that their intention was not to comply with subpoenas for information and documents on the BNL issue.

Gonzalez carried the battle to the floor of the House and disclosed that based on the CIA's own July 1991 report it was clear that BNL's top management in Rome knew of, and had approved the Atlanta-branch loans to Iraq. Federal prosecutors in Atlanta were floored by the highly damaging information.

On Sept. 17,1991, in an obvious damage control measure, the CIA and the Justice Department agreed to tell federal prosecutors in Atlanta that the only information they had on BNL had already been made publicly available, which was a blatant and reckless falsehood with shattering ramifications. The scramble to exculpate themselves and their departments is what led to all the finger pointing and internal fighting that showered all the news stations just before the election.

With the knowledge that he had spent most of his last 100 days in office desperately trying to keep the lid on the scandals erupting all around him, Bush got a life-line thrown to him: the media agreed not to report the details of the plot. The "national security" smokescreen had done the job.

In an ongoing effort to put distance between itself and the other parties involved in the BNL-Iraq-gate cover-up, the Justice Department agreed that it would soon release highly damaging documents showing the CIA's prior knowledge of the BNL's Rome office "green light" for loans for Iraq. The information was subsequently released to Judge Shoob, whose earlier doubts about the indictment of Drougal appeared to be vindicated.

Then, on Sept 23, 1992, Gonzalez announced that he had received classified documents which clearly showed that in January of 1991, the CIA knew about the BNL's high-level approval of the loans for Iraq. In his letter, Gonzalez expressed concern over Gates' lies to federal prosecutors in Atlanta regarding the BNL's Rome office not being aware of what its Atlanta branch was doing.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also accused Gates of misleading the Justice Department, federal prosecutors and Judge Shoob about the extent of CIA knowledge of BNL events. The Justice Department allowed Drogoul to withdraw his guilty plea on Oct. 1.. The lone battle, waged and won by the chairman of the House Banking Committee against the Bush administration was ignored by the median deference to the wishes of the Republican election committee and to protect Bush, one of its favorite sons.

Judge Shoob excused himself from the BNL case a few days later. He said that he had concluded that,

"it is likely that the U.S. intelligence agencies were aware of BNL-Atlanta's relations with Iraq... The CIA continues to be uncooperative in attempts to discover information about its knowledge of or involvement in the funding of Iraq by BNL Atlanta."

The source of this information could not originally be revealed, but the gist of it later appeared in a report published by the New York Times.

A major development occurred when Sen. David Boren accused the CIA of a cover-up and of lying to Justice Department officials. In its response, the CIA admitted that it gave the wrong information to the Justice Department in its September report-hardly any great admission, as Gonzalez, among others, already had proof of this. The CIA claimed it was an honest mistake. There was "no attempt to mislead anyone or cover-up anything" the agency contended. The CIA also reluctantly acknowledged that it had not released all of the documents it had on BNL.

The very next day, CIA chief counsel Rindskopf (who participated in the 1991 damage control briefing held by Nicolas Rostow of the National Security Agency), picked up the "honest mistake" refrain, calling it a "certainly regrettable mistake" brought on by a faulty filing system. Was it the best excuse that the chief lawyer for the CIA could come up with? Neither Sen. Boren or Rep. Gonzalez were convinced.

It should be recalled that the real purpose of the 1991 meeting called by Nicholas Rostow was to control the access to all government documents and information that would show the true relationship between the Bush administration and the Baghdad government Obviously those responsible for trying to break through the wall placed around such information had every right to be highly skeptical

The damage control efforts instituted by Rostow took another pounding on Oct. 8, 1992, when CIA officials were called upon to testify before a closed-door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. According to information received from sources close to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA officials had an uncomfortable time of it, eventually trying to pin blame on the State Department, claiming that they withheld information, and then gave misleading information on BNL-Atlanta at the insistence of a senior official of the Justice Department All they had done, CIA officials said, was what the Justice Department told them to do.

An official denial was issued on Oct. 9,1992, with the State Department refusing to take responsibility for having asked the CIA to withhold relevant BNL documents from the Atlanta prosecutors. The Justice Department then delivered its own broadside, accusing the CIA of delivering some classified documents in a disorganized manner while withholding others. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee agreed to launch its own investigation into these charges and counter-charges.

By now, it was becoming clear that all the parties who attended the April 8, 1991 meeting were scrambling to distance themselves from the matter. Then, on Oct. 10, the FBI announced that it, too, would investigate the BNL-Atlanta case. The CIA denied it had ever admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee that it had withheld information at the special request of the Justice Department

These strange events were proceeding in such rapid succession that daily announcements of accusations by one government agency or another continued through Oct 14, 1992. The Justice Department announced on Oct 11 that its Office of Professional Responsibility would lead an investigation of itself and of the CIA, and that the FBI would help. Assistant Attorney General Robert S. Meuller III, the Justice Department spokesman for its Public Integrity Section, was placed in charge. Information said to have originated from Sen. David Boren's office appeared to indicate that Meuller was directly involved

On Oct. 12, 1992, just two days after the FBI had announced that it would conduct its own investigation of the BNL case, ABC News charged that it had received information indicating that William Sessions, head of the FBI, was under investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The accusations charged Sessions with the improper use of government airplanes, having a fence built around his house at government expense and abuse of telephone privileges — none of which were in any way linked to the BNL case.

The ABC news report came on the heels of the Oct. 10 announcement by the FBI that it would investigate the BNL case, and was an attempt to pressure Sessions into calling off the promised FBI investigation. Sen. Boren told newsmen:

"The timing of the accusations against Judge Sessions makes me wonder if an attempt is being made to pressure him not to conduct an independent investigation."

Others pointed to a statement made by Sessions on Oct. 11 that his investigation would not seek help from Justice Department officials, who themselves, might be the subject of investigation. "The Justice Department will not participate in the (FBI) inquiry and the FBI will not share information," Sessions said. In the final days of his bid for reelection, Bush continued to flatly deny that he had any knowledge of or personal involvement in the Iraq-gate or Iran/Contra scandals.

Things took a turn for the worse for the president when on Oct. 12, 1992, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote to Attorney General Barr and asked for a special prosecutor to be appointed:

"...Since very high-level officials may well have been knowledgeable of or involved in an effort to absolve BNL-Rome of complicity in the activities of BNL-Atlanta, no arm of the executive branch can investigate U.S. government conduct in this case without at least the appearance of a conflict of interest."

Metzenbaum's letter stated that there were indications of "secret U.S. government involvement in arms sales to Iraq," which came out of court proceedings in Atlanta. Gonzalez fired off a stinging letter to Barr requesting that a special prosecutor be appointed to "address the repeated clear failures and obstruction of the leadership of the Justice Department. The best way to accomplish this is to do the right thing and submit your resignation," Gonzalez charged.

Then on Oct 14, Sen. Boren wrote to Barr telling him to appoint a special independent prosecutor:

"A truly independent investigation is required to determine whether federal crimes were committed in the government's handling of the BNL case."

Boren went on to say that both the Justice Department and the CIA had engaged in a cover-up of the BNL case. The very next day, the CIA released a cable from its station chief in Rome, which quoted an unidentified source as charging that high officials in Italy and the United States were bribed, apparently to keep them from saying what they knew about the BNL-Atlanta case.

This was followed by a five-day lull in the firestorm surrounding the Bush administration until the Senate Select Committee began its investigation into charges that the CIA and the NSA used front companies to supply Iraq with military hardware and technology in breach of federal law. Some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also called for Barr to appoint an independent prosecutor, which he again refused to do.

Bush struggled for his political life as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh handed down an indictment against former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, accusing him of lying to Congress. Sources in Washington said, "there was pandemonium in the White House." Weinberger, meanwhile, indicated that he would not play the role of fall guy for the president According to one source, C. Boyden Gray told the president that the only course of action open to him was to pardon Weinberger.

So, on Christmas Eve, 1992, Bush pardoned Weinberger and five other key players in the Iran/Contra scandal: Former national Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, CIA's Clair George, Duane Clarridge and Alan Fiers, and former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams. The Walsh was quick to express his anger to the news media.

 

The presidential clemency,

"demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office-deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences...The Iran/Contra cover-up, which has continued for six years, has now been completed... This office was informed only within the past two weeks, on Dec. 11, 1992, that President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his highly relevant contemporaneous notes (the Bush diary) despite repeated requests for such documents... In the light of President Bush's own misconduct in withholding his daily diary, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who have lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations."

Perhaps Walsh did not know what he was up against: nor that the cover-up had been going for a much longer time than he suspected. The case of the Israeli agent Ben-Menashe is one in point. The House October Surprise Task Force did not see fit to call Ben-Menashe as a witness. Had the committee done so, they would have heard that Ben-Menashe told "Time" correspondent Rajai Samghabadi about a vast "off the books" arms trade going on between Israel and Iran back in 1980.

During Ben-Menashe's trial in 1989,at which Samghabadi testified for him, it came out that the story of a huge illicit arms sale by Israel to Iran was repeatedly offered to "Time" magazine, who refused to print it, even though it had been substantiated by Bruce Van Voorst, a former CIA agent working for "Time." Walsh did not appear to know that the Eastern Liberal Establishment, run by the Committee of 300, is unconcerned about the law, because, they say they are the law.

Walsh came up against the same brick wall that Sen. Eugene McCarthy had run into when he attempted to get William Bundy before his committee and only got as far as John Foster Dulles. It was not surprising that Walsh would come up short, especially in going after a Skull and Bonesman. McCarthy had attempted to get Dulles to testify about certain CIA activities, but Dulles refused to cooperate.

Will R. James Woolsey, the man appointed by Clinton to run the CIA, do anything to bring the guilty to justice? Woolsey has credentials which include membership in the National Security Club, serving under Henry Kissinger as a National Security Council staffer, and as Under Secretary of the Navy in the Carter administration. He also served on numerous commissions and became a close associate of Les Aspin and Albert Gore.

Woolsey has another close friend in Dave McMurdy of the House Intelligence Committee and also a key Clinton adviser. A lawyer by profession, Woolsey was a partner in the establishment law firm of Shae and Gardner, during which time he acted as a foreign agent — without registering as such with the Senate. Woolsey also long enjoyed a client-attorney relationship with a top CIA official.

One of Woolsey's most notable clients was Charles Allen, a national intelligence officer at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Allen was accused by his boss, William Webster, in an internal investigation report of the Iran/Contra scandal of hiding evidence. It seems that Allen never handed over all of his files about dealings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, ago-between in the Iran/Contra affair. Webster threatened Allen, who turned to Woolsey for help saying he had made "a simple mistake."

 

When Sessions discovered that Allen was being represented by Woolsey, he dropped the matter.

 

Those who were close to the issue say that with Woolsey at the helm of the CIA, others who were not pardoned by Bush will find an "open door" in Woolsey.
 

Back to Contents