Archive for the ‘Treason’ Category

Why Barack Obama Must Insist Upon the Prosecution of George W. Bush for Capital Crimes

January 23, 2009

Bush: An ‘accessory before the fact’ of Mass Murder

May 13, 2008

It’s bad enough that those courageous enough to oppose Bush’s rise to dictatorship are attacked and impugned by the right wing! That is to be expected. But the propagation of fallacies and nonsense by those who should know better is intolerable.

A recent ‘editorial’ by Buzzflash, which is ordinarily to be commended for keeping a watchful eye on Bush’s nefarious machinations, seems to have completely missed the point with regard to the so-called ‘911 Truth Movement’.

This article may be considered an ‘open letter’ to Buzzflash where I respond to their comments in italics.

We have often taken issue with the 9/11 Truth Movement because it takes the fact that there are many unanswered questions about 9/11 and tries to answer them with often bizarre speculation.

Conspiratorially Speaking: United Flight 93 and 9/11

It is fallacious to refer to a movement of many with the word ‘it’! There are many positions by many free thinking individuals throughout what is conveniently called the ‘911 Truth Movement’. To apply a single position to every person demanding a complete and unbiased investigation of a crime that was in fact never properly investigated is absurd, unfair and fallacious.

9/11 was not an inside job

In the many papers that I have read by David Ray Griffin et al, the focus is primarily on the demonstrable ‘holes’, lies and fallacies that are found in various conspiracy theories put forward by Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al as well as the ‘official account’ put forward by the 911 Commission.

Certainly, some members of the ‘911 TruthMovement’ have concluded that because only the Bush administration actively sought to cover up, prevent and in many instances quash investigations of 911, then it is reasonable to conclude that 911 was an inside job. Else –why cover it up? But to attribute that position to every Bush critic is unfair and fallacious.

It may be true to state that the so-called ‘Truth Movement’ began with Griffen’s still un-refuted paper entitled:

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

Popular Mechanics and MSM propagandists tried to marginalize this paper because they could not refute it! Last time I checked, steel still will not melt or weaken at temperatures less than 2795�F. The science upon which Griffin based his paper is simply beyond the meager intellectual capacity of idiots like Bill 0’Reilly to comprehend, let alone refute. Simply, if steel will not melt at kerosene fire temperatures, then the official theory of 911 is a monumental fraud! Photos of people walking around, waving distress flags, in the hole in the North Tower where some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was said to have been burning is absolute and irrefutable proof that the fires were never hot enough nor did they last long enough to have brought down the towers.

Bushies might wish we would forget WTC7 about which Larry Silverstein himself said ‘it was pulled’. Certainly, no airliner hit it. The dinky fires were unimpressive, less inflammatory than the rhetoric describing them. Even if the kerosene had damaged and caused the twin tower fires, that was not the case at WTC7. So –why did WTC7 collapse if not from dinky, unimpressive, fires here and there? Occam’s Razor demands the common sense conclusion: it was ‘pulled’ and therefore prepared weeks, possibly months, in advance! Just as Silverstein said it was.

This bears repeating: if WTC7 was pulled, then the official conspiracy theory is nonsense.

The ‘movement’, therefore, deals with the gaping holes, fallacies, lies, and inconsistencies with the ‘official conspiracy theory’. The ‘movement’ demands a complete, fair and competent investigation of the crime of 911 –an investigation that was, in fact, never begun.

911 was a crime still actively covered up by Bush. To conclude that because one demands a complete and thorough investigation of 911, he/she must, therefore, believe 911 to be an inside job is unfair and fallacious. In my case, I have concluded that 911 was, indeed, an inside job and for good reasons which I have outlined elsewhere. But it does not follow that because I so believe then everyone connected with a ‘movement’ is likewise convinced.

Buzzflash stated flatly that ‘911 was not an inside job’, an obvious attempt to shift the burden of proof. The dictum in both logic and debate is: those who assert must prove! It is Bush who asserts the theory –the so-called ‘official conspiracy theory’. The burden of proof is on Bush to prove it. It is Bush’s job to prove the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory involving some 19 Arabs who were most certainly not capable of piloting any aircraft of any size, seizing control of four large airliners armed only with box cutters. Reams can be written in refutation of this absurd theory, but it is enough, here, to point out its absurdity on its face.

Whenever a 100 ton airliner crashes anywhere at anytime for any reason, there is left behind some 100 tons of debris. The debris found at the Pentagon could have been carted off in several hand-toted wheelbarrows. Airliners of any size do not vaporize nor do they pop into parallel universes, worm holes or rabbit holes. It’s time to get fuckin’ real, folks! Bushies think you are too stupid to get wise to them.

The Space Shuttle Columbia crashed into the Stratosphere at some 24,000 MPH, yet left identifiable debris and body parts over three states. Unlike Flight 93, that wreckage was recovered and identified. It did not get sucked into another dimension nor did it shape-shift into a tiny hole.

…but it was something that probably could have been prevented in August of 2001 if Bush and Rice had listened to a CIA warning about Al-Qaeda preparing hijackings in the U.S. But Bush and Rice did nothing — absolutely nothing — to put airports on a heightened security alert.

Then Bush –at the very least –is an accessory to mass murder. Some case law:

The State concedes there was not sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of first-degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation, and it was error to so charge. There was evidence, however, that the defendant was an accessory before the fact to first-degree burglary, as we shall demonstrate later in this opinion. The killing was done during this burglary, which killing would be felony murder. State v. Simmons , 286 N.C. 681, 213 S.E.2d 280 (1975), death sentence vacated , 428 U.S. 903, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1208 (1976).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, 9 February 1996, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANIEL C. MARR, No. 164PA94 – Polk

If Bush participated in the destruction of evidence after 911, then he is an accessory after the fact.

Section 3. Accessory after the fact

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

But 911 is not a run-o-the-mill act of violence to which Bush is prima facie an accessory after the fact. 911, enabled by Bush inaction ‘before the fact’ is, therefore, an act of high treason. That changes everything:

The Supreme Court sustained a conviction of treason, for the first time in its history, in 1947 in Haupt v. United States. 1299 Here it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason–defendant’s harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile, and in obtaining employment in a defense plant–were all acts which a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

–See: HAUPT v. U.S., 330 U.S. 631 (1947)

The reality is that the Bush White House covered up much about 9/11, including its own incompetence.

Indeed! Bush ordered the destruction, sale or removal of most of the evidence prior to investigation. Last time I checked, 911 was a crime. This willful cover up of a crime IS a crime. In this case –‘obstruction of justice’ at the very least! Certainly, ‘accessory after the fact’.

Brush up your history of Watergate. Whether or not Nixon was complicit in the plot depended upon what he knew and when he knew it, an issue central to the special prosecutor’s investigation. Similarly, much of Bush’s complicity in 911 depends upon what he knew and when he knew it. If Bush had any knowledge whatsoever of any plot by anyone at any time and failed to act upon it, he should be prosecuted to the letter of the law!

How much we don’t know. But we do know that — if you recall — Bush would only be interviewed by the 9/11 Commission (which was stacked with white-washers) with Cheney at his side, and with no notes or minutes taken, and with their not being sworn in under oath, and with the “interview” occurring in the Oval Office. That sort of scenario does not inspire a great deal of credibility.

Indeed, it does not! We might have known what we now ‘don’t know’ had there been various investigations that Bush either overtly and deliberately quashed or failed to support. One is culpable who is aware of an imminent murder and despite being in a position to prevent it does nothing! If I were a juror considering a capital crimes indictment against GWB, I might be swayed not only by Bush’s failure to act but his overt actions to quash! I might be inclined to return: guilty as charged!

Late July 2001 (B): David Schippers, noted conservative Chicago lawyer and the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial, later claims that FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota contact him around this time and tell him that a terrorist attack is going to occur in lower Manhattan. According to Schippers, the agents had been developing extensive information on the planned attack for many months. However, the FBI soon pulls them off the terrorist investigation and threatens them with prosecution under the National Security Act if they go public with the information.

Verifiable Research on 9/11

Now –if you don’t believe ‘Verifiable Research’, call up David Schippers and ask him directly. That’s called journalism. If Bush had foreknowledge of this type and failed to act, then he is at least guilty of being an accessory before the fact. An additional charge of high treason might be prosecuted due to the fact that ‘911’ was, in fact, an act of war against the people of the US.

But on a scale of 1 to 10, BuzzFlash would put it at an 8 likelihood that Flight 93 was indeed downed by an American missile.

Perhaps Buzzflash missed it when Donald Rumsfeld referred on video tape to the ‘missile’ that hit the Pentagon and the ‘missile’ that shot down Flight 93.

In the meantime, Buzzflash would do well to represent fairly the positions of the 911 truth movement as a whole. Buzzflash would do well to consider the implications of the Bush administration’s order to sell off WTC steel to China, for example, an act that makes Bush —prima facie –an accessory to mass murder after the fact! The destruction of that evidence alone should have been enough to land Bush in the dock in a Federal Courtroom. Now –my position is that innocent folk rarely cover up capital crimes nor have an interest in doing so. The cover up of capital crimes is something that is invariably done by those who commit them!

Additional resources


911 Truth & WTC-7 Free Fall: (Coup) Commentary

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

Google Yahoo! AOL Bloglines

<!—

—> <!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items

—>

Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,
<!— Syndicate by Content Type: Bush | War Crimes | GOP War in Iraq | Terrorism | WMD Fraud

—>

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Bugliosi: George W. Bush Should be Tried for Mass Murder

May 10, 2008

It has been my position for years that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for various capital crimes, not the least of which are the deaths following from his wars of naked aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. [See: US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441] I have urged that a Federal Grand jury bring indictments against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condo Rice, Don Rumsfeld and numerous other co-conspirators, accomplices and accessories-after-the fact. Now –a heavy hitter, a tough-minded, legendary prosecutor wants to see George W. Bush stand trial for mass murder. Vince Bugliosi is famous for his prosecution of Charles Manson and his ascerbic critique of a Supreme Court decision that made no law —Bush v Gore. He now claims that George W. Bush should stand trial for the crime of mass murder of US citizens.

When George W. Bush said of our “Constitution that it is “… just a Goddamn piece of paper!”, he declared himself an outlaw at war with the American people. The Bush administration’s culture of fear, hate and contempt for law inspires an epidemic of police lawlessness and thuggery that now terrorizes law-abiding Americans. You can be thrown in jail if ‘authorities’ merely ‘deem’ you a ‘terrorist’. Under Bush, the high standards found in the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution no longer apply. You don’t get to make a phone call. You don’t get to call your lawyer. You don’t get to call your wife or husband. You don’t get visitors. It is a state of treasonous war, a capital crime for which George W. Bush must answer.

The following material consists of Bugliosi’s article in blockquotes followed by my comments.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

by Vincent Bugliosi

There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public � lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the US This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other US intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, �Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.� The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.

Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.

In the original NIE report, members of the US intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA�s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.

The Manning Memo

On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair�s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to �provoke a confrontation� with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly �U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach� of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.

Denying Blix�s Findings

Hans Blix, the United Nation�s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, in his March 7, 2003, address to the UN Security Council, said that as of that date, less than 3 weeks before Bush invaded Iraq, that Iraq had capitulated to all demands for professional, no-notice weapons inspections all over Iraq and agreed to increased aerial surveillance by the US over the �no-fly� zones. Iraq had directed the UN inspectors to sites where illicit weapons had been destroyed and had begun to demolish its Al Samoud 2 missiles, as requested by the UN. Blix added that �no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found� by his inspectors and �no underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.� He said that for his inspectors to absolutely confirm that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) �will not take years, nor weeks, but months.�

Mohamed El Baradei, the chief UN nuclear inspector in Iraq and director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the UN Security Council that, �we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.�

The UN inspectors were making substantial progress and Hussein was giving them unlimited access. Why was Bush in such an incredible rush to go to war?

Hussein Disarms, so Bush � Goes to War

When it became clear that the whole purpose of Bush�s prewar campaign � to get Hussein to disarm � was being (or already had been) met, Bush and his people came up with a demand they had never once made before � that Hussein resign and leave Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Bush said in a speech to the nation that, �Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.� Military conflict � the lives of thousands of young Americans on the line � because Bush trumped up a new line in the sand?

The Niger Allegation

One of the most notorious instances of the Bush administration using thoroughly discredited information to frighten the American public was the 16 words in Bush�s January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech: �The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.� The Niger allegation was false, and the Bush administration knew it was false.

Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador to Iraq, was sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate a supposed memo that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake (a form of lightly processed ore) to Iraq by Niger in the late 1990s. Wilson reported back to the CIA that it was �highly doubtful� such a transaction had ever taken place.

On March 7, 2003, Mohamed El Baradei told the UN Security Council that �based on thorough analysis� his agency concluded that the �documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.� Indeed, author Craig Unger uncovered at least 14 instances prior to the 2003 State of the Union address in which analysts at the CIA, the State Department, or other government agencies that had examined the Niger documents �raised serious doubts about their legitimacy � only to be rebuffed by Bush administration officials who wanted to use them.�

On October 5 and 6, 2002, the CIA sent memos to the National Security Council, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and to the White House Situation Room stating that the Niger information was no good.

On January 24, 2003, four days before the president�s State of the Union address, the CIA�s National Intelligence Council, which oversees all federal agencies that deal with intelligence, sent a memo to the White House stating that �the Niger story is baseless and should be laid to rest.�

The 9/11 Lie

The Bush administration put undue pressure on US intelligence agencies to provide it with conclusions that would help them in their quest for war. Bush�s former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, said that on September 12, 2001, one day after 9/11, �The President in a very intimidating way left us � me and my staff � with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11.�

Bush said on October 7, 2002, �We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy � the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high level contacts that go back a decade,� and that �Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.� Of Hussein, he said on November 1, 2002, �We know he�s got ties with Al Qaeda.�

Even after Bush admitted on September 17, 2003, that he had �no evidence� that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, he audaciously continued, in the months and years that followed, to clearly suggest, without stating it outright, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.

On March 20, 2006, Bush said, �I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America.�

Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney�s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder is available May 27.

For more information visit www.prosecutionofbush.com

When Bush said that the “Constitution is just a Goddamned piece of paper”, he aligned himself with Hitler, Mussolini, Mao –“state absolutists”, fascists, and/or radical communists. Bush declared war on the American people, our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Democracy and freedom. The peace, therefore, is already broken and, by Bush’s declaration, a state of war exists between Bush and the sovereign people of the United States.

Criminals and traitors have seized power illegitimately and operate outside the law i.e, the Constitution so hated by Bush. So far, this gang of crooks have had nothing to fear from the impeachment process though there is probable cause to try Bush himself for capital crimes. As Bush jokes about remaining in power past his term, Americans as well as Iraqis are brutalized without charges, trial or representation. Under Bush, jackbooted thugs may not bother accusing you of a crime. They need only ‘define’ you as a terrorist. [See: Police Atrocities Define the Bush Police State]

Bush’s “War on Terror” is as fraudulent as is the official 911 conspiracy theory which justifies it. It is as untruthful as the uncountable lies told to the United Nations and the world about Iraq. Benazir Bhutto spoke the truth shortly before her death: if US foreign policy does not support world wide terrorism directly, it is, at least, the very cause of it! It is a charge supported by official FBI statistics, published originally by the Brookings Institution. The proposition that terrorism is the inevitable result of imperial aggressions explains Bush’s incompetent economic policies as well as America’s fascist tilt. That terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes is a demonstrable, statistical fact and for daring to publish it, I was attacked by the right wing Heritage Foundation. My rebuttal remains unanswered.

The CIA creates terrorism two ways by indulging it as a tactic and by inspiring it with US imperial excesses. The legacy of Blackwater USA, an international terrorist organization, will have inspired generations of “terrorists” resorting to a tactic against which top down fascist regimes are impotent. Bush has failed to make us safe. He has, rather, made the world a much, much more dangerous place. And for this –we have given up the cornerstone of American freedom.

Bush has abrogated or violated every provision of the US Bill of Rights, arguably the most important document standing between you and tyranny! [See: Bush’s War on the Bill of Rights] Next, an increasingly desperate Bush administration will try to crack down on the internet, among the dwindling sources of truth in a new age of Orwellian suppression!

Bush has put himself above the rule of law even as he denies you the benefit and the protections that are yours under the law! There is a name for this –dictatorship!

A Roper Poll of October 1999 indicated that the American people supported the International Criminal Court by a margin of 66% to only 29% opposed. While public support for the court has not ‘translated’ into US national policy, the Bush administration worked overtly to subvert the ICC and place ‘themselves’ above international, universal prohibitions against aggressive war and torture! Bushco anticipated problems with international laws long before 911 and, therefore, sought to place themselves beyond prosecution or justice. A bill sponsored by then House Speaker Tom Delay authorized Bush to order a military attack on the Hague should Americans find themselves on trial for war crimes. Only a crooked regime would plan in advance to subvert only those international laws that made their plans a capital crime.

That record of deceit itself is probable cause to indict George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumself, Colin Powell and others in his administration in connection with a ‘false flag’ attack –911! Bush’s order that forensic evidence related to the crime of 911 be destroyed is ‘probable cause’ to indict Bush for ‘obstruction of justice’ or worse —mass murder! Only those guilty of crimes work overtly to cover them up.

Bush’s disregard of American or world opinion is matched by his utter contempt for the the US Constitution, indeed, the very rule of law. The Constitution –he screamed, impatiently –is “just a Goddamned piece of paper!” Clearly –Bush had planned to trash the Constitution even before 911.

Iraq, of course, had nothing whatsoever to do with 911 and Saddam Hussein, like Manuel Noreiga, had been a CIA puppet. While Saddam never had WMD, his independent will was, in Bush’s opinion, a cause to invade, begin the construction of permanent bases, and the permanent theft of Iraqi resources.

At Abu Ghraib, Bush would find a test of his ability to place the US above international laws designed to prevent, or, at least, punish the those who perpetrate atrocities. To this end, Bush employed the dubious talents of Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, toadies who would tell Bush what he wanted to hear, that is, that he was above the international laws that were, in fact, designed to prevent the very crimes Bush had in mind.

Is the Bush administration a failed presidency? No! Bush will leave office having enriched his base by trashing the Constitution. That’s all he ever cared about. He will leave office hated by the American people whose lives he ruined and by the people of Iraq whose lives he snuffed with a smirk.

Additional resources

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

Google Yahoo! AOL Bloglines

<!—

—> <!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items

—>

Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,
<!— Syndicate by Content Type: Bush | War Crimes | GOP War in Iraq | Terrorism | WMD Fraud

—>

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

The Probable Cause to Charge Dick Cheney With Mass Murder, Terrorism, and High Treason

March 25, 2008

Bush Wages War on Americans

February 16, 2008

How the CIA Created a Ruling, Corporate Overclass in America

January 15, 2008

The result is a form of corporate serfdom if not slavery.

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

–Steve Kangas, The Origins of the Overclass

The Bush administration will be forever associated with a “ruling overclass” –oligarchs who were the sole beneficiaries of Ronald Reagan’s infamous tax cut of 1982 and, later, several equally inequitable tax cuts during the Bush regime. It is no coincidence that the oligarchs likewise benefited in various ways from Bush’s military adventures in the Middle East. GOP tax cuts are typically called “trickle down” theory. Reagan’s Budget Director David Stockman called the theory that justifies them a “trojan horse”.

Since Ronald Reagan’s infamous tax cut of 1982, “conservatives” myopically cite a mythical “Reagan Recovery” as proof of “Reaganomics”, otherwise called supply-side economics. The right wing argument is simplistic and fallacious. It must be pointed out that following the tax cut, the nation plunged into recession, the worst since Herbert Hoover’s Great Depression of 1929. Nevertheless, conservatives will persist in citing a three percent growth rate following two years of severe recession as proof that “wealth trickles down”. This assertion fails to address key questions.

Who benefited from the recovery?

At some 3 percent how long did it take for the nation to regain lost ground?

Did Reagan’s tax cuts bring about more growth than would have normally occurred?

The record shows that between 1979 and 1989 the growth rate was 3% –the same as the growth rate between 1973 and 1979! There was, then, no improvement with “voodoo economics” than without it. There was no “Reagan recovery”! Wealth did not trickloe down; it flowed upward at alarming rates. The nation had been plunged unnecessarily into recession upon a pack of lies. The only beneficiaries were those who were rich already.

However hard you may look, you will not find in the cold hard stats any confirmation of GOP/Reaganomics whatsoever. Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, the BEA! You will find, rather, confirmation of a more pernicious trend: the rich began to get even richer. The poor began to lose ground at alarming rates. It seems almost to have been deliberate. The late Steve Kangas believed it was deliberate just as I believe that the war against Iraq is a payoff to the robber barons that make up the Military/Industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned. Later, JFK would warn of the dangers posed by the CIA, which he proposed to “smash into a thousand pieces”.

The following essay by the late Steve Kangas should be required reading. He makes the bullet proof case that the enrichment of the “overclass” is the work of radical “conservatives” who knew at the time that “trickle down” hardly describes the effect of inequitable tax cuts. Kangas’ is supported by Ronald Reagan’s own Budget Director, David Stockman, who later called “Reaganomics” a “trojan horse” insisted upon by radicals, a “noisy faction of Republicans”!

Kangas’ work is a classic. Kangas himself was found shot to death just outside the office of the infamous Richard Mellon Scaife –the man who bankrolled the dubious attempt to buy witnesses against Bill Clinton! It is more than a mere footnote to history, that not even Scaife’s millions succeeded in “buying” a single witness against Clinton. But I digress. The story that Kangas might well have paid for with his life is nothing less than the role played by the CIA in the creation of a permanent ruling “overclass” in America.

Stockman was right. Supply-side, otherwise called “trickle down” theory, was indeed a trojan-horse, about which it was known that it would create and support a class of oppressive oligarchs. Following is Kangas’ essay in its entirety.


The Origins of the Overclass

By Steve Kangas

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface � and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine’s creators had CIA backgrounds.

During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA’s expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America�s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent � the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.

How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation�s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General “Wild Bill” Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation�s rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that “OSS” stood for “Oh, so social!”

Another early elite was Allen Dulles, who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels. He was also a board member of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, with offices in Wall Street, London, Zurich and Hamburg. His financial interests across the world would become a conflict of interest when he became head of the CIA. Like Donavan, he would recruit exclusively from society�s elite.

By the 1950s, the CIA had riddled the nation�s businesses, media and universities with tens of thousands of part-time, on-call operatives. Their employment with the agency took a variety of forms, which included:

  • Leaving one’s profession to work for the CIA in a formal, official capacity.
  • Staying in one’s profession, using the job as cover for CIA activity. This undercover activity could be full-time, part-time, or on-call.
  • Staying in one’s profession, occasionally passing along information useful to the CIA.
  • Passing through the revolving door that has always existed between the agency and the business world.

Historically, the CIA and society�s elite have been one and the same people. This means that their interests and goals are one and the same as well. Perhaps the most frequent description of the intelligence community is the “old boy network,” where members socialize, talk shop, conduct business and tap each other for favors well outside the formal halls of government.

Many common traits made it inevitable that the CIA and Corporate America would become allies. Both share an intense dislike of democracy, and feel they should be liberated from democratic regulations and oversight. Both share a culture of secrecy, either hiding their actions from the American public or lying about them to present the best public image. And both are in a perfect position to help each other.

How? International businesses give CIA agents cover, secret funding, top-quality resources and important contacts in foreign lands. In return, the CIA gives corporations billion-dollar federal contracts (for spy planes, satellites and other hi-tech spycraft). Businessmen also enjoy the romantic thrill of participating in spy operations. The CIA also gives businesses a certain amount of protection and privacy from the media and government watchdogs, under the guise of “national security.” Finally, the CIA helps American corporations remain dominant in foreign markets, by overthrowing governments hostile to unregulated capitalism and installing puppet regimes whose policies favor American corporations at the expense of their people.

The CIA�s alliance with the elite turned out to be an unholy one. Each enabled the other to rise above the law. Indeed, a review of the CIA�s history is one of such crime and atrocity that no one can reasonably defend it, even in the name of anticommunism. Before reviewing this alliance in detail, it is useful to know the CIA�s history of atrocity first.

The Crimes of the CIA

During World War II, the OSS actively engaged in propaganda, sabotage and countless other dirty tricks. After the war, and even after the CIA was created in 1947, the American intelligence community reverted to harmless information gathering and analysis, thinking that the danger to national security had passed. That changed in 1948 with the emergence of the Cold War. In that year, the CIA recreated its covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination. Its first director was Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities included

    propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.

By 1953, the dirty tricks department of the CIA had grown to 7,200 personnel and commanded 74 percent of the CIA�s total budget. The following quotes describe the culture of lawlessness that pervaded the CIA:

    Stanley Lovell, a CIA recruiter for “Wild Bill” Donovan: “What I have to do is to stimulate the Peck’s Bad Boy beneath the surface of every American scientist and say to him, ‘Throw all your normal law-abiding concepts out the window. Here’s a chance to raise merry hell. Come help me raise it.'” (1)

    George Hunter White, writing of his CIA escapades: “I toiled wholeheartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun, fun… Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill, cheat, steal, rape and pillage with the sanction and blessing of the all-highest?” (2)

    A retired CIA agency caseworker with twenty years experience: “I never gave a thought to legality or morality. Frankly, I did what worked.”

Blessed with secrecy and lack of congressional oversight, CIA operations became corrupt almost immediately. Using propaganda stations like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, the CIA felt justified in manipulating the public for its own good. The broadcasts were so patently false that for a time it was illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S. This was a classic case of a powerful organization deciding what was best for the people, and then abusing the powers it had helped itself to.

During the 40s and 50s, most of the public was unaware of what the CIA was doing. Those who knew thought they were fighting the good fight against communism, like James Bond. However, they could not keep their actions secret forever, and by the 60s and 70s, Americans began learning about the agency�s crimes and atrocities. (3) It turns out the CIA has:

  • Corrupted democratic elections in Greece, Italy and dozens of other nations;
  • Been involved to varying degrees in at least 35 assassination plots against foreign heads of state or prominent political leaders. Successful assassinations include democratically elected leaders like Salvador Allende (Chile) and Patrice Lumumba (Belgian Congo); also CIA-created dictators like Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic) and Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam); and popular political leaders like Che Guevara. Unsuccessful attempts range from Fidel Castro to Charles De Gaulle.
  • Helped launch military coups that toppled democratic governments, replacing them with brutal dictatorships or juntas. The list of overthrown democratic leaders includes Mossadegh (Iran, 1953), Arbenz (Guatemala, 1954), Velasco and Arosemena (Ecuador, 1961, 1963), Bosch (Dominican Republic, 1963), Goulart (Brazil, 1964), Sukarno (Indonesia, 1965), Papandreou (Greece, 1965-67), Allende (Chile, 1973), and dozens of others.
  • Undermined the governments of Australia, Guyana, Cambodia, Jamaica and more;
  • Supported murderous dictators like General Pinochet (Chile), the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos (Phillipines), “Papa Doc” and “Baby Doc” Duvalier (Haiti), General Noriega (Panama), Mobutu Sese Seko (Ziare), the “reign of the colonels” (Greece), and more;
  • Created, trained and supported death squads and secret police forces that tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, leftists and political opponents, in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti, Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Iran, Turkey, Angola and others;
  • Helped run the “School of the Americas” at Fort Benning, Georgia, which trains Latin American military officers how to overthrow democratic governments. Subjects include the use of torture, interrogation and murder;
  • Used Michigan State “professors” to train Diem�s secret police in torture;
  • Conducted economic sabotage, including ruining crops, disrupting industry, sinking ships and creating food shortages;
  • Paved the way for the massacre of 200,000 in East Timor, 500,000 in Indonesia and one to two million in Cambodia;
  • Launched secret or illegal military actions or wars in Nicaragua, Angola, Cuba, Laos and Indochina;
  • Planted false stories in the local media;
  • Framed political opponents for crimes, atrocities, political statements and embarrassments that they did not commit;
  • Spied on thousands of American citizens, in defiance of Congressional law;
  • Smuggled Nazi war criminals and weapon scientists into the U.S., unpunished, for their use in the Cold War;
  • Created organizations like the World Anti-Communist League, which became filled with ex-Nazis, Nazi sympathizers, Italian terrorists, Japanese fascists, racist Afrikaaners, Latin American death squad leaders, CIA agents and other extreme right-wing militants;
  • Conducted Operation MK-ULTRA, a mind-control experiment that gave LSD and other drugs to Americans against their will or without their knowledge, causing some to commit suicide;
  • Penetrated and disrupted student antiwar organizations;
  • Kept friendly and extensive working relations with the Mafia;
  • Actively traded in drugs around the world since the 1950s to fund its operations. The Contra/crack scandal is only the tip of the iceberg �- other notorious examples include Southeast Asia�s Golden Triangle and Noreiga�s Panama.
  • Had their fingerprints all over the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcom X. Even if the CIA is not responsible for these killings, the sheer amount of CIA involvement in these cases demands answers;
  • And then routinely lied to Congress about all of the above.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (4) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an “American Holocaust.”

We should note that the CIA gets away with this because it is not accountable to democratic government. Former CIA officer Philip Agee put it best: “The CIA is the President’s secret army.” Prior to 1975, the agency answered only to the President (creating all the usual problems of authoritarianism). And because the CIA�s activities were secret, the President rarely had to worry about public criticism and pressure. After the 1975 Church hearings, Congress tried to create congressional oversight of the CIA, but this has failed miserably. One reason is that the congressional oversight committee is a sham, filled with Cold Warriors, conservatives, businessmen, and even ex-CIA personnel.

The Business Origins of CIA Crimes

Although many people think that the CIA�s primary mission during the Cold War was to “deter communism,” Noam Chomksy correctly points out that its real mission was “deterring democracy.” From corrupting elections to overthrowing democratic governments, from assassinating elected leaders to installing murderous dictators, the CIA has virtually always replaced democracy with dictatorship. It didn�t help that the CIA was run by businessmen, whose hostility towards democracy is legendary. The reason they overthrew so many democracies is because the people usually voted for policies that multi-national corporations didn’t like: land reform, strong labor unions, nationalization of their industries, and greater regulation protecting workers, consumers and the environment.

So the CIA�s greatest “successes” were usually more pro-corporate than anti-communist. Citing a communist threat, the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mussadegh government in Iran in 1953. But there was no communist threat � the Soviets stood back and watched the coup from afar. What really happened was that Mussadegh threatened to nationalize British and American oil companies in Iran. Consequently, the CIA and MI6 toppled Mussadegh and replaced him with a puppet government, headed by the Shah of Iran and his murderous secret police, SAVAK. The reason why the Ayatollah Khomeini and his revolutionaries took 52 Americans hostage in Tehran in 1979 was because the CIA had helped SAVAK torture and murder their people.

Another “success” was the CIA�s overthrow of the democratically elected government of Jacabo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954. Again, there was no communist threat. The real threat was to Guatemala�s United Fruit Company, a Rockefeller-owned firm whose stockholders included CIA Director Allen Dulles. Arbenz threatened to nationalize the company, albeit with generous compensation. In response, the CIA initiated a coup that overthrew Arbenz and installed the murderous dictator Castillo Armas. For four decades, CIA-backed dicatators would torture and murder hundreds of thousands of leftists, union members and others who would fight for a more equitable distribution of the country�s resources.

Another “success” story was Chile. In 1973, the country�s democratically elected leader, Salvadore Allende, nationalized foreign-owned interests, like Chile�s lucrative copper mines and telephone system. International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT) offered the CIA $1 million to overthrow Allende � which the CIA allegedly refused � but paid $350,000 to his political opponents. The CIA responded with a coup that murdered Allende and replaced him with a brutal tyrant, General Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet tortured and murdered thousands of leftists, union members and political opponents as economists trained at the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman installed a “free market” economy. Since then, income inequality has soared higher in Chile than anywhere else in Latin America.

Even when the communist threat was real, the CIA first and foremost took care of the elite. In testimony before Congress in the early 50s, it artificially inflated Soviet military capabilities. A notorious example was the “bomber gap” that later turned out to be grossly exaggerated. Another was “Team B,” a group of hawkish CIA analysts who seriously distorted Soviet military data. These scare tactics worked. Congress awarded giant defense contracts to the U.S. military-industrial complex.

And not even the fall of the Soviet Union and the demise of American defense contracts have stopped the CIA from serving the elite. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss writes:

    Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has been abuzz with talk about using the CIA for economic espionage. Stripped of euphemism, economic espionage simply means that American spies would target foreign companies, such as Toyota, Nissan and Honda, and then covertly pass stolen trade secrets and technology to U.S. corporate executives. (5)

If this isn�t bad enough, a worse problem arises in that the CIA doesn�t hand over this technology to every American auto-related company, but only the Big Three: Ford, Chrysler and General Motors.

In a 1975 interview, Ex-CIA agent Philip Agee summed up his personal observations of the agency:

    To the people who work for it, the CIA is known as The Company. The Big Business mentality pervades everything. Agents, for instance, are called assets. The man in charge of the United Kingdom desk is said to have the “U.K. account”�

    American multinational corporations have built up colossal interests all over the world, and you can bet your ass that wherever you find U. S. business interests, you also find the CIA� The multinational corporations want a peaceful status quo in countries where they have investments, because that gives them undisturbed access to cheap raw materials, cheap labor and stable markets for their finished goods. The status quo suits bankers, because their money remains secure and multiplies. And, of course, the status quo suits the small ruling groups the CIA supports abroad, because all they want is to keep themselves on top of the socioeconomic pyramid and the majority of their people on the bottom. But do you realize what being on the bottom means in most parts of the world? Ignorance, poverty, often early death by starvation or disease�

    Remember, the CIA is an instrument of the President; it only carries out policy. And, like everyone else, the President has to respond to forces in the society he’s trying to lead, right? In America, the most powerful force is Big Business, and American Big Business has a vested interest in the Cold War. (6)

Domestic Recruitment

The CIA had no trouble recruiting elites who sought a more exciting life. Betweenn 1948 and 1959, more than 40,000 American individuals and companies acted as sources for the U.S. intelligence community. (7) Let�s look at each area of recruitment, and see how they enabled the CIA to conduct its crimes:

Big Business

The CIA co-opted big business right from the start, beginning with the most famous billionaire of the time: Howard Hughes. Hughes had inherited his father�s million-dollar tool and die company at age 19. Anxious to expand his fortune, he made a conscientious decision “to go where the money is” � namely, government. With a few well-placed bribes, Hughes secured defense contracts to build military planes. The result was the Hughes Aircraft company. By 1940, he had also acquired a controlling interest in Trans World Airlines. His government connections and international airline soon caught the attention of the CIA, and the two began a lifelong relationship. Hughes, whom the CIA dubbed “The Stockbroker,” became the agency�s largest contractor. Not only did he let the CIA use his business firms as fronts, but he also funded countless CIA operations. Perhaps the most notorious was Operation Jennifer, an allegedly failed attempt to recover nuclear codes from a sunken Soviet submarine. Hughes� right-hand security man, Robert Maheu, was a CIA agent who at one time represented the CIA in negotiations with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro.

The CIA�s contacts with big business quickly spread. The agency showed a preference for international companies, public relations firms, media companies, law offices, banks, financiers and stockbrokers. The CIA didn�t limit its activities to recruiting businessmen; sometimes the CIA bought or created entire companies outright. One benefit of co-opting big business was that the CIA was able to create a secret source of funds other than from government. With stock portfolios multiplying their profits, it�s impossible now to say how flush the CIA really is. If Congress ever cut off funds for a mission, the business fraternity could easily replace them, either by donations or even setting up profitable businesses in the target country. In fact, this is precisely what happened during the Iran/Contra scandal.

By allying itself with the business community, the CIA received the funds and ability it needed to remove itself from democratic control.

The Media

Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today�s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post�s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA�s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who’s Who of journalism:

  • Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
  • William Paley (President, CBS)
  • Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
  • Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
  • Jerry O’Leary (Washington Star)
  • Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
  • Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
  • James Copley (Copley News Services)
  • Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
  • C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
  • Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
  • ABC
  • NBC
  • Associated Press
  • United Press International
  • Reuters
  • Hearst Newspapers
  • Scripps-Howard
  • Newsweek magazine
  • Mutual Broadcasting System
  • Miami Herald
  • Old Saturday Evening Post
  • New York Herald-Tribune

Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation�s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation�s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip�s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband�s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper�s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

    We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn�t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post�s headlines.

Ben Bradlee was the Post�s managing editor during most of the Cold War. He worked in the U.S. Paris embassy from 1951 to 1953, where he followed orders by the CIA station chief to place propaganda in the European press. (9) Most Americans incorrectly believe that Bradlee personifies the liberal slant of the Post, given his role in publishing the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigations. But neither of these two incidents are what they seem. The Post merely published the Pentagon Papers after The New York Times already had, because it wanted to appear competitive. As for Watergate, we�ll examine the CIA�s reasons for wanting to bring down Nixon in a moment. Someone once asked Bradlee: “Does it irk you when The Washington Post is made out to be a bastion of slanted liberal thinkers instead of champion journalists just because of Watergate?” Bradlee responded: “Damn right it does!” (10)

It would be impossible to elaborate in this short space even the most important examples of the CIA/media alliance. Sig Mickelson was a CIA asset the entire time he was president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. Later he went on to become president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, two major outlets of CIA propaganda.

The CIA also secretly bought or created its own media companies. It owned 40 percent of the Rome Daily American at a time when communists were threatening to win the Italian elections. Worse, the CIA has bought many domestic media companies. A prime example is Capital Cities, created in 1954 by CIA businessman William Casey (who would later become Reagan�s CIA director). Another founder was Lowell Thomas, a close friend and business contact with CIA Director Allen Dulles. Another founder was CIA businessman Thomas Dewey. By 1985, Capital Cities had grown so powerful that it was able to buy an entire TV network: ABC.

For those who believe in “separation of press and state,” the very idea that the CIA has secret propaganda outlets throughout the media is appalling. The reason why America was so oblivious to CIA crimes in the 40s and 50s was because the media willingly complied with the agency. Even today, when the immorality of the CIA should be an open-and-shut case, “debate” about the issue rages in the media. Here is but one example:

In 1996, The San Jose Mercury News published an investigative report suggesting that the CIA had sold crack in Los Angeles to fund the Contra war in Central America. A month later, three of the CIA�s most important media allies � The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times � immediately leveled their guns at the Mercury report and blasted away in an attempt to discredit it. Who wrote the Post article? Walter Pincus, longtime CIA journalist. The dangers here are obvious.

Academia

By the early 50s, CIA Director Allen Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale. (A disproportionate number of CIA figures, like George Bush, come from Yale�s “Skull and Crossbones” Society.) CIA recruiters also approached thousands of other professors to work in place at their universities on a part-time, contract basis. Not stopping at recruiting scholars, the agency would go on to create several departments at elite universities, including Harvard’s Russian Research Center and the Center for International Studies at MIT.

Although most academics were supportive of the CIA in the 50s, most were unaware of its abuses. In the 60s, academia would become outraged to learn that anti-communist organizations like the National Student Association were actually creations of the CIA. The most audacious CIA front was the Congress for Cultural Freedom, an organization that attracted liberal, freethinking artists and intellectuals who nonetheless deplored communism.

By the late 60s and 70s, growing reports of CIA crimes and atrocities had deeply alienated academia. Scholars were further troubled to learn that the CIA had penetrated and disrupted student antiwar groups. Unlike business and the media, academia overwhelmingly denounced the CIA after the Vietnam era. This eventually forced the CIA to turn to new places to find their analysts and scholars. The most important source was the conservative think-tank movement, which it helped to create. More on this later.

The Roman Catholic Church

Although the CIA began as a mostly Protestant organization, Roman Catholics quickly came to dominate the new covert-action wing in 1948. All were staunchly conservative, fiercely anti-communist and socially elite. Just a few of the many Catholic operatives included future CIA directors William Colby, William Casey, and John McCone. Another well-known personality from this period was William F. Buckley, Jr., editor of the National Review and gadfly host of TV�s Firing Line. Buckley, it turns out, served as a CIA agent in Mexico City, and his experiences there served as fodder for his Blackford Oakes spy novels.

There were several reasons for this influx of Catholic elites. First, Wisner (himself a Wall Street lawyer) had an extensive and glamorous circle of friends to recruit from. Second, Italy was in constant crisis in the 1940s, both during World War II and after. Throughout this troubled period, the American intelligence community�s greatest ally in Italy was the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church, of course, is one of the most anti-communist organizations in the world. The Marxist doctrine of atheism threatens Catholic theology, and its equality threatens the Church�s strict tradition of hierarchy and authoritarianism. When Hitler invaded Communist Russia, the Vatican openly approved. Jesuit Michael Serafian wrote: “It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII’s closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler’s armoured divisions as the right hand of God.” (11)

But Hitler persecuted Catholics as well, and ultimately drove the Church to the Americans. In 1943, the Vatican reached a secret agreement with OSS Chief Donovan � himself a devout Catholic � to let the Holy See become the center of Allied spy operations in Italy. Donovan considered the Church to be one of his prize intelligence assets, given its global power, membership and contacts. He cultivated this alliance by sending America�s most prestigious Catholics to the Vatican to establish rapport and forge an alliance.

After the war, half of Europe lay under Communist control, and the Italian communist party threatened to win the 1948 elections. The prospect of communism ruling over the heart of Catholicism terrified the Vatican. Once again, American intelligence gathered their most prestigious Catholics to strengthen ties with the Vatican. Because this was the first mission of the new covert action division, the American Catholic agents acquired positions of power early on, and would dominate covert operations for the rest of the Cold War.

At a public level, the U.S. government sunk $350 million in social and military aid into Italy to sway the vote. On a secret level, Wisner spent $10 million in black budget funds to steal the elections. This included disseminating propaganda, beating up left-wing politicians, intimidating voters and disrupting leftist parties. The dirty tricks worked � the Communists lost, and the Catholic Americans� success permanently secured their power within the CIA.

The Knights of Malta (12)

The Roman Catholic Church did not forget the American agents who had saved them from both Nazism and Communism. It rewarded them by making them Knights of Malta, or members of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM).

SMOM is one of the oldest and most elite religious orders in the Catholic Church. Until recently, it limited its membership to Italians and foreign heads of state. In 1927, however, an exception was made for the United States, given its emerging status as a world power. SMOM opened an American branch, awarding knighthood or damehood to several American Catholic business tycoons. This group was so conservative that one, John Raskob, the Chairman of General Motors, actually became involved in an aborted military plot to remove Franklin Roosevelt from the White House. SMOM has also been embarrassed by knighting or giving awards to countless people who later turned out to be Nazi war criminals. This is the sort of culture that thrives within the leadership of SMOM.

Officially, the Knights of Malta are a global charity organization. But beginning in the 1940s, knighthood was granted to countless CIA agents, and the organization has become a front for intelligence operations. SMOM is ideal for this kind of activity, because it is recognized as the world�s only landless sovereignty, and members enjoy diplomatic immunity. This allows agents and supplies to pass through customs without interference from the host country. Such privileges enabled the Knights of Malta to become a major supplier of “humanitarian aid” to the Contras during their war in the 1980s.

A partial list of the Knights and Dames of Malta reads like a Who�s Who of American Catholicism:

  • William Casey � CIA Director.
  • John McCone � CIA Director.
  • William Colby � CIA Director.
  • William Donovan � OSS Director. Donovan was given an especially prestigious form of knighthood that has only been given to a hundred other men in history.
  • Frank Shakespeare � Director of such propaganda organizations as the U.S. Information Agency, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Also executive vice-president of CBS-TV and vice-chairman of RKO General Inc. He is currently chairman of the board of trustees at the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank.
  • William Simon � Treasury Secretary under President Nixon. In the private sector, he has become one of America�s 400 richest individuals by working in international finance. Today he is the President of the John M. Olin Foundation, a major funder of right-wing think tanks.
  • William F. Buckley, Jr. � CIA agent, conservative pundit and mass media personality.
  • James Buckley � William�s brother, head of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
  • Clare Boothe Luce – The grand dame of the Cold War was also a Dame of Malta. She was a popular playwright and the wife
  • of the publishing tycoon Henry Luce, who co-founded Time magazine.
  • Francis X Stankard – CEO of the international division of Chase Manhattan Bank, a Rockefeller institution. (Nelson Rockefeller was also a major CIA figure.)
  • John Farrell � President, U.S. Steel
  • Lee Iacocca � Chairman, General Motors
  • William S. Schreyer � Chairman, Merrill Lynch.
  • Richard R. Shinn � Chairman, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
  • Joseph Kennedy � Founder of the Kennedy empire.
  • Baron Hilton � Owner, Hilton Hotel chain.
  • Patrick J. Frawley Jr. � Heir, Schick razor fortune. Frawley is a famous funder of right-wing Catholic causes, such as the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade.
  • Ralph Abplanalp – Aerosol magnate.
  • Martin F. Shea – Executive vice president of Morgan Guaranty Trust.
  • Joseph Brennan – Chairman of the executive committee of the Emigrant Savings Bank of New York.
  • J. Peter Grace � President, W.R. Grace Company. He
  • was a key figure in Operation Paperclip, which brought Nazi scientists and spies to the U.S. Many were war criminals whose atrocities were excused in their service to the CIA.
  • Thomas Bolan � Of Saxe, Bacon and Bolan, the law firm of Senator McCarthy’s deceased aide Roy Cohn.
  • Bowie Kuhn � Baseball Comissioner
  • Cardinal John O’Connor � Extreme right-wing leader among American Catholics, and fervent abortion opponent.
  • Cardinal Francis Spellman � The “American Pope” was at one time the most powerful Catholic in America, an arch-conservative and a rabid anti-communist.
  • Cardinal Bernard Law – One of the highest-ranking conservatives in the American church.
  • Alexander Haig � Secretary of State under President Reagan.
  • Admiral James D. Watkins � Hard-line chief of naval operations under President Reagan.

    Jeremy Denton � Senator (R�Al).

  • Pete Domenici � Senator (R-New Mexico).
  • Walter J. Hickel – Governor of Alaska and secretary of the interior.

When this group gets together, obviously, the topics are spying, business and politics.

The CIA has also used other religious and charity organizations as fronts. For example, John F. Kennedy — another anticommunist Roman Catholic who greatly expanded covert operations — created the U.S. Peace Corps to serve as cover for CIA operatives. The CIA has also made extensive use of missionaries, with the blessings of many right-wing, anticommunist Christian denominations.

But the World Grows Wise�

It was only a matter of time before other nations caught on to these fronts. They learned that when the CIA comes to their countries to commit their crimes and atrocities, they come disguised as American journalists, businessmen, missionaries and charity volunteers. Unfortunately, foreigners are now targeting these professions as hostile. In Lebanon, terrorists held U.S. journalist Terry Anderson hostage for nearly seven years, on the not unreasonable assumption that he was a spy. Whether or not this was true is beside the point. The CIA has put all Americans abroad at risk, whether they are CIA agents or not. In hearings before the Senate in 1996, many organizations urged Congress to stop using their professions as CIA cover. Don Argue of the National Association of Evangelicals testified: “Such use of missionary agents for covert activities by the CIA would be unethical and immoral.” (13)

From the Cold War to the Class War

As noted above, academia was the first major institution to denounce the crimes of the CIA. Why? One reason is that scholars conduct their own extensive research into world affairs, so naturally they were the first to learn the truth. This is the main reason why protest against the Vietnam War and the CIA erupted first among students on the nation�s campuses. By the end of the Vietnam War, the CIA had suffered a “brain drain” as its academic allies became its most articulate, passionate and eloquent critics.

The social revolutions of the 60s terrified the CIA. James Jesus Angleton, chief of counter-intelligence and a truly paranoid man, was convinced the Soviets had masterminded the entire antiwar movement. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover shared his conviction. The CIA had always spied on student groups throughout the 60s, but in 1968 President Johnson dramatically stepped up the effort with Operation CHAOS. This initially called for 50 CIA agents to go undercover as student radicals, penetrate their antiwar organizations and root out the Russian spies who were causing the rebellion. Tellingly, they never found a single spy. The agents also began a campaign of wire-tapping, mail-opening, burglary, deception, intimidation and disruption against thousands of protesting American civilians.

By the time Operation CHAOS wound down in 1973, the CIA had spied on 7,000 Americans, 1,000 organizations and traded information on more than 300,000 persons with various law agencies. (14) When academia learned of this, its outrage grew.

The loss of academia was only the first blow for the CIA. Other disasters quickly followed; in the early 70s, the CIA was trying desperately to stave off a growing number of scandals. The first was Watergate.

The CIA�s fingerprints were all over Watergate. First, we should note the CIA had clear motives for helping oust Nixon. He was the ultimate “outsider,” a poor California Quaker who grew up feeling bitter resentment towards the elite “Eastern establishment.” Nixon, for all his arch-conservatism, was surprisingly liberal on economic issues, enfuriating businessmen with statements like “We are all Keynesians now.” He created a whole host of new agencies to regulate business, like the FDA, EPA and OSHA. He signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, which forced businesses to clean up their toxic emissions. He imposed price controls to fight inflation, and took the nation fully off the gold standard. Nixon also strengthened affirmative action. Even his staffers were famously anti-elitist, like Kevin Philips, who would eventually write the bible on inequality during the 1980s, The Politics of Rich and Poor. Add to this Nixon�s withdrawal from Vietnam and D�tente with China and the Soviet Union. Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had not only tried to remove control of foreign policy from the CIA, but had also taken measures to bring the CIA itself under control. Not surprisingly, Nixon and his CIA Director, Richard Helms, couldn�t stand each other. (Nixon fired him for failing to cover up for Watergate.) Clearly, Nixon was fighting at cross-purposes with the CIA and the nation�s elite.

As it turns out, the CIA had inside knowledge of Nixon�s dirty work. Nixon had created his own covert action team, “The Committee to Reelect the President,” more amusingly known by its acronym, CREEP. The team consisted of two CIA agents � E. Howard Hunt and James McCord � as well as former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy. They also employed four Cubans with long CIA histories. In fact, a CIA front called the Mullen Company funded their activities, which ranged from disrupting Democratic campaigns to laundering Nixon�s illegal campaign contributions.

The CIA not only had intimate knowledge of Nixon�s crimes, but it also acted as though it wanted the world to know them. When the FBI began investigating Watergate, Nixon tried using the CIA to cover up for him. At first the CIA half-heartedly complied, telling the FBI that the investigation would endanger CIA operations in Mexico. But a few weeks later it gave the FBI a green light again to proceed again with their investigation.

Furthermore, Watergate was exposed by the CIA�s main newspaper in America, The Washington Post. One of the two journalists who investigated the scandal, Robert Woodward, had only recently become a journalist. Previously Woodward had worked as a Naval intelligence liaison to the White House, privy to some of the nation�s highest secrets. He would later write a sympathetic portrait of CIA Director Bill Casey in a book entitled Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA. It was Woodward who personally knew and interviewed “Deep Throat,” the unnamed source who revealed inside information on Nixon�s activities. Many Watergate researchers consider one of Woodward�s old intelligence contacts to be a prime candidate for Deep Throat. (15)

Despite all the facts of CIA involvement, Woodward and Bernstein made virtually no mention of the CIA in their Watergate reporting. Even during Senate hearings on Watergate, the CIA somehow managed to stay out of the spotlight. In 1974, the House would clear the CIA of any involvement in Watergate.

The CIA was not as lucky in 1974, when the Senate held hearings on James Jesus Angleton�s illegal surveillance of American citizens. These disclosures resulted in his firing. But that was nothing compared to the 1975 Church Committee. This Senate investigation looked into virtually every type of CIA crime, from assassination to secret war to manipulating the domestic media. The “reforms” that resulted from these hearings were mostly cosmetic, but the details that emerged shattered the CIA�s reputation forever. Interestingly enough, the two Senators who held these hearings � Frank Church and Otis Pike � were both defeated for reelection, despite a 98 percent reelection rate for incumbents.

The CIA wasn�t the only conservative institution that found itself embattled in the early 70s. This was a bad time for conservatives everywhere. America had lost the war in Vietnam. U.S. corporations had to cope with the rise of OPEC. The anti-poverty programs of Roosevelt�s New Deal and Johnson�s Great Society were causing a major redistribution of wealth. And Nixon was making things worse with his own anti-poverty and regulatory programs. Betweenn 1960 and 1973, these efforts cut poverty in half, from 22 to 11 percent. Meanwhile, between 1965 and 1976, the richest 1 percent had gone from owning 37 percent of America�s wealth to only 22 percent. (16)

At a 1973 Conference Board meeting of top American business leaders, executives declared: “We are fighting for our lives,” “We are fighting a delaying action,” and “If we don�t take action now, we will see our own demise. We will evolve into another social democracy.” (17)

The CIA to the rescue

In the mid-1970s, at this historic low point in American conservatism, the CIA began a major campaign to turn corporate fortunes around.

They did this in several ways. First, they helped create numerous foundations to finance their domestic operations. Even before 1973, the CIA had co-opted the most famous ones, like the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations. But after 1973, they created more. One of their most notorious recruits was billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. During World War II, Scaife’s father served in the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. By his mid-twenties, both of Scaife’s parents had died, and he inherited a fortune under four foundations: the Carthage Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Scaife Family Foundations and the Allegheny Foundation. In the early 1970s, Scaife was encouraged by CIA agent Frank Barnett to begin investing his fortune to fight the “Soviet menace.” (18) From 1973 to 1975, Scaife ran Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world. Shortly afterwards he began donating millions to fund the New Right.

Scaife’s CIA roots are typical of those who head the new conservative foundations. By 1994 the most active were:

  • Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
  • Carthage Foundation
  • Earhart Foundation
  • Charles G. Koch
  • David H. Koch
  • Claude R. Lambe
  • Philip M. McKenna
  • J.M. Foundation
  • John M. Olin Foundation
  • Henry Salvatori Foundation
  • Sarah Scaife Foundation
  • Smith Richardson Foundation

Betweenn 1992 and 1994, these foundations gave $210 million to conservative causes. Here is the breakdown of their donations:

  • $88.9 million for conservative scholarships;
  • $79.2 million to enhance a national infrastructure of think tanks and advocacy groups;
  • $16.3 million for alternative media outlets and watchdog groups;
  • $10.5 million for conservative pro-market law firms;
  • $9.3 million for regional and state think tanks and advocacy groups;
  • $5.4 million to “organizations working to transform the nations social views and giving practices of the nation’s religious and philanthropic leaders.” (19)

The political machine they built is broad and comprehensive, covering every aspect of the political fight. It includes right-wing departments and chairs in the nation�s top universities, think tanks, public relations firms, media companies, fake grassroots organizations that pressure Congress (irreverently known as “Astroturf” movements), “Roll-out-the-vote” machines, pollsters, fax networks, lobbyist organizations, economic seminars for the nation�s judges, and more. And because corporations are the richest sector of society, their greater financing overwhelms similar efforts by Democrats.

Besides creating foundations, the CIA helped organize the business community. There have always been special interest groups representing business, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and the CIA has long been involved with them. However, after 1973, a spate of powerful new groups would come into existence, like the Business Roundtable and the Trilateral Commission. These organizations quickly became powerhouses in promoting the business agenda.

Their efforts clearly succeeded. With the 1975 SUN-PAC decision, corporations persuaded government to legalize corporate Political Action Committees (the lobbyist organizations that bribe our government). By 1992, corporations formed 67 percent of all PACs, and they donated 79 percent of all campaign contributions to political parties. (20) In two landmark elections � 1980 and 1994 � corporations gave heavily and one-sidedly to Republicans, turning one or both houses of Congress over to the GOP. Democratic incumbents were shocked by the threat of being rolled completely out of power, so they quietly shifted to the right on economic issues, even though they continued a public fa�ade of liberalism. Corporations went ahead and donated to Democratic incumbents in all other elections, but only as long as they abandoned the interests of workers, consumers, minorities and the poor. As expected, the new pro-corporate Congress passed laws favoring the rich: between 1975 and 1992, the amount of national household wealth owned by the richest 1 percent soared from 22 to 42 percent. (21)

The CIA also helped create the conservative think tank movement. Prior to the 70s, think tanks spanned the political spectrum, with moderate think tanks receiving three times as much funding as conservative ones. At these early think tanks, scholars typically brainstormed for creative solutions to policy problems. This would all change after the rise of conservative foundations in the early 70s. The Heritage Foundation opened its doors in 1973, the recipient of $250,000 in seed money from the Coors Foundation. A flood of conservative think tanks followed shortly thereafter, and by 1980 they overwhelmed the scene. The new think tanks turned out to be little more than propaganda mills, rigging studies to “prove” that their corporate sponsors needed tax breaks, deregulation and other favors from government.

Of course, think-tank studies are useless without publicity, and here the CIA proved especially valuable. Using propaganda techniques it had perfected at the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, the CIA and its allies turned American AM radio into a haven for conservative talk show hosts. Yes � Rush Limbaugh uses the same propaganda techniques that Muscovites once heard from Voice of America. The CIA has also developed countless other media outlets, like Capital Cities (which eventually bought ABC), major PR firms like Hill & Knowlton, and of course, all the Agency�s connections in the national news media. (22)

The following is a typical example of how the “New Media” operates. As most political observers know, the Republicans suffer from a “gender gap,” in which women prefer Democrats by huge majorities. This is, in fact, why Clinton has twice won the presidency. But, curiously enough, as the 90s progressed, conservative female pundits began popping up everywhere in the media. Hard-right pundits like Ann Coulter, Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, Laura Ingraham, Barbara Olson, Melinda Sidak, Anita Blair and Whitney Adams conditioned us to the idea of the conservative woman. This phenomenon was no accident. It turns out that Richard Mellon Scaife donated $450,000 over three years to the Independent Women’s Forum, a booking agency that heavily seeds such female conservative pundits into the media. (23)

Conclusion

The most obvious criticism of the New Overclass is that their political machine is undemocratic. Using subversive techniques once aimed at communists, and with all the money they ever need to succeed, the Overclass undemocratically controls our government, our media, and even a growing part of academia. These institutions in turn allow the Overclass to control the supposedly “free” market. It doesn’t win all the time, of course � witness Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial � but it does score an endless string of other victories elsewhere, all to the detriment of workers, consumers, women, minorities and the poor. We need to fight it with everything we’ve got.

Related links:

Myth: There�s no “vast right wing conspiracy” to get Clinton.

Myth: Conservative think tanks are the answer to liberal academia.

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

Return to Liberalism Resurgent

Endnotes:

1. Mind Manipulators, Scheflin and Opton. p.241.

2. Captain George White in a letter to Dr. Sidney Gottlieb.

3. All history concerning CIA intervention in foreign countries is summarized from William Blum�s encyclopedic work, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995). Sources for domestic CIA operations come from Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen�s The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1997). Information about CIA drug running can be found at http://www.magnet.ch/serendipity/cia/blum1.html and http://speech.csun.edu/ben/news/cia/index.html.

4. Coleman McCarthy, “The Consequences of Covert Tactics” Washington Post, December 13, 1987.

5. Robert Dreyfuss, “Company Spies,” Mother Jones. Website: http://www.mojones.com/mother_jones/MJ94/dreyfuss.html

6. Philip Agee: The Playboy Interview. Website: http://www.connix.com/~harry/agee.htm

7. Lara Shohet, “Intelligence, Academia and Industry,” The Final Report of the Snyder Commission, Edward Cheng and Diane C. Snyder, eds., (Princeton Unversity: The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, January 1997). Website: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/snyder/academia.htm.

8. Website: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn/cn9-35.

9. Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great and the Washington Post, 2nd ed. (Bethesda MD: National Press, 1987)

10. “Forum for Ben Bradlee,” Watergate 25. Website: http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/97/bradlee.htm.

11. Lewy, Guenter, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (London and New York, 1964), pp. 249-250.

12. National Catholic Reporter, Jan 89, Mar 89, Apr 89, May 89, “Nazis, the Vatican and the CIA,” Covert Action Information Bulletin, Winter 1986, Number 25 Website: http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/knightsofmaltalist.html.

13. Anthony Collings, “Journalists tell Senate they want no CIA ties,” CNN, July 18, 1996. Website: http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/18/spies.journalists/.

14. Morton Halperin, et al, eds., The Lawless State (New York: Penguin, 1976), p. 153.

15. Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA.

16. Edward N. Wolff, “How the Pie is Sliced” The American Prospect no. 22 (Summer 1995), pp. 58-64. Website: http://epn.org/prospect/22/22wolf.html.

17. Quoted in Leonard Silk and David Vogel, Ethics and Profits (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976), pp. 44-47.

18. Karen Rothmyer, “The man behind the mask,” Salon, April 7, 1998.

19. Study conducted by National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, July 1997, as reported by the National Education Association. Website: http://www.nea.org/publiced/paycheck/paychkf.html.

20. Center for Responsive Politics, Washington D.C., 1993.

21. Wolff.

22. For CIA involvement in Capital Cities/ABC, see Dennis Mazzocco, Networks of Power (Boston: South End Press, 1994). For CIA involvement in the PR industry, see John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Toxic Sludge is Good for You! (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), pp. 49-51,153,157,160-63.

23. Jonathon Broder and Murray Waas, [Untitled] Salon, April 20, 1998. Website: http://www.salonmag.com/news/1998/04/20news.html

Add to Technorati Favorites<!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items

—>

, , , <!—,

Spread the word:

Spread the word:

—>

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine


The CIA Created Al Qaeda and there is ‘Probable Cause’ to Charge George W. Bush with High Treason!

January 14, 2008

Bush’s War on Terrorism is a treasonous fraud, a war on US citizens waged by the people’s own government. “Terrorism”, moreover, continues to be fraudulently cited in support of a war of naked aggression in which well over one million civilians have died. It is a clear violation of US Codes which bind the US to international conventions.

Now –high treason is a serious charge, in most societies, a capital offense. On June 19th in 1953, the US executed Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. They had been accused of spying for the Russians. Though there is little doubt that Julius Rosenberg spied for the Russians, the charges against his wife were most certainly specious. In any case, neither Rosenberg had done anything remotely resembling the heinous crimes for which there is probable cause now to try the person of George W. Bush, traitor to the US Constitution and the people of the United States against whom he has waged war with the apparatus of state, specifically the CIA, et al.

Recently, The Guardian’s Jason Burke reported from the Middle East a truth that Bush doesn’t want you to know: al Qaeda is a creation of the US CIA. The Bush administration has said that al Qaeda is responsible for the 911 attacks. Burke’s story is about the Hezb-i-Islami group of mujahideen, a group whose training and weaponry are supplied by the CIA. The CIA maintains this fiction so that US government can exploit a perpetual “war on terrorism”, a treasonous war waged upon US citizens in violation of US Constitution, Article III, having to do with the issue of high treason.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

US Constitution: Article III

The Bush administration has found terrorism especially useful. It is necessarily vague and open-ended. It does not require a formal Declaration of War by Congress. Terrorism, moreover, can be anything Bush says it is; there is, therefore, no accountability, no benchmarks by which success is determined or measured. “Terrorism” need never end. New “threats” are easily fabricated and exploited just as Hermann Goring himself recommended following the Reichstag Fire for which he, himself, took credit.

The charges against Bush will not stop there. Bush is commander-in-chief. He cannot claim to have been following orders when, under his orders, the US military embarked upon a program of torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions. There is material evidence (that should be subpoenaed now) that people were murdered at Abu Ghraib. Why have not charges pursuant to the following US Codes been brought against George W. Bush?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > � 2441; � 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.� Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

Bush is, therefore, subject to prosecution for capital crimes, though he has made unconstitutional attempts –-ex post facto –to exempt himself from the provision cited above.

Al Qaeda –literally, “the Base” –is a cruel fiction that keeps not only Bush but the GOP in business. J’accuse! This exploitation of terrorism by this GOP administration is an ongoing treason, responsible for the deaths of more than 3000 people in New York City alone. There is probable cause to bring those charges against Bush now! A Federal Judge may convene a Grand Jury upon his/her own motion. I appeal to a Federal Judge to convene that panel while there is still hope that what remains of American democracy might be saved.

Voltaire said that if God had not existed, it would have been necessary to invent him! If al Qaeda had not existed, the CIA would have found it necessary to create them, arm them and train them. In fact, it did! If al Qaeda does not exist, then 911 said to have been perpetrated by them, must be re-examined.

If “al Qaeda” is simply a creation of the CIA, then the CIA must be investigated for its own treasonous, murderous connections to 911 and the series of Anthrax attacks with US Govt Grade anthrax, attacks targeting media and Democrats. How transparent! One wonders how the word “intelligence” managed to insinuate itself between the words “central” and “agency”.

Briefly: there is enough evidence, enough “probable cause” to begin a federal grand jury investigation of the Bush Administration and the CIA right now! Based upon that investigation, charges of sedition and/or treason should be drafted consistent with several articles under US Codes, Title 18.

It follows that if Bush’s official conspiracy theory of 911 is untrue, then so too every lie told to begin the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because both wars resulted in death, the orders to begin those wars are, likewise, violations of Nuremberg and other treaties to which the US is bound. If death has resulted from those orders, the said orders are capital crimes. The person issuing those orders is George W. Bush. Bush himself is, therefore, in violation of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 which he tried to change ex post facto. It is understandable that he would try to do so. Those US Codes make Bush himself subject to the death penalty.

The myth of “al Qaida” is built on an expansive foundation of many half-truths and hidden facts. It is a CIA creation. It was shaped by the agency to serve as a substitute “enemy” for America, replacing the Soviets whom the Islamist forces had driven from Afghanistan. Unknown American officials, at an indeterminate point in time, made the decision to fabricate the tale of a mythical worldwide network of Islamic terrorists from the exploits of the Afghan Mujahedeen. The CIA already had their own network of Islamic militant “freedom fighters,” all that was needed were a few scattered terrorist attacks against US targets and a credible heroic figurehead, to serve as the “great leader.”

The really tricky part of creating a mythical terrorist monster out of an incomplete truth is laying-out the facts behind your mythical story without revealing the whole truth about your part in its creation. In order to explain away the billions of dollars worth of weapons and training that went into the operation, they chose a rich jihadi, a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden, who had been a faithful recruiter and business agent of the Mujahedeen. He was painted as the sole financier of the entire enormous operation that was centered in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bin Laden may not even have known that he was playing a part in a deceitful CIA global drama until after the fact. It is more likely that his history was chosen many years later to serve as the legacy of “al Qaida,” than it is that he was a brainwashed tool of the spy agency all along.

The story of bin Laden is the story of the secret CIA/ISI insurgent camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Osama was 22 years old in 1979, when he was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp near Peshawar, Pakistan.

“Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities was used to finance the recruitment of Mujahedeen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7746

Researcher Kurt Nimmo writes:

“The database of Islamic fighters that was collected by the program was labeled n Arabic, ‘Q eidat ilmu’ti’aat’, which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word ‘Al Qaida” which is the Arabic word for ‘base.'” http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3569

In 1989, the US, under George Bush Sr. moved to abandon Afghanistan, making preparations to attack Saddam Hussein long before he had ever moved against Kuwait in 1991. As far as Bush knew, the spy agency had obeyed his orders to abandon the Afghan tribal bloodbath and civil war, but the CIA knew better than the Commander-In-Chief. This fit in well with a deceitful Secretary of Defense, who had also believed that he knew better than his boss, (as evidenced by Cheney ordering his underling Paul Wolfowitz to draw-up an alternative foreign policy, known as the “Defense Planning Guidance”). The covert foreign policy of Reagan and Carter had became even more secret, as control of the camp network was submerged even deeper into the bowels of the secret world of the CIA.

Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida, Global Research, January 13, 2008


Bushco Lies About 911.

Bushies said that no one could have envisioned the use of air craft as weapons. In fact, everyone, it seems, but Bush and Rice envisioned precisely that! Certainly, it had been envisioned by the CIA and most certainly it was envisioned by al Qaeda–itself a creation of the CIA. What we have witnessed on the video above is nothing less than officials of the US government committing high treason against the people of the United States. This treason –in fact a war gainst the people themselves –makes the charges against the Rosenbergs pale by comparison.

There is a prescription by which the people may reclaim it’s rogue and treasonous government. The people simply must unite to bring this junta to justice, insisting upon trials for Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet et al. Concurrently, a new administration must renew a promise made by JFK –a promise that most certainly cost him his life: the CIA must be “smashed into a thousand pieces”.

A saying is often attributed to the Chinese: may you live in interesting times! It is not a fond wish; it is a curse!

ADDENDUM:

The Rosenberg case mentioned above says a lot about the US. Societal elements that would later make possible the ascendency of someone like Bush –a would-be dictator who disdains the instrument of our founding, the US Constitution, are present throughout our history. Zinn identified them in the Rosenberg case.

The Rosenbergs were charged with espionage. The major evidence was supplied by a few people who had already confessed to being spies, and were either in prison or under indictment. David Greenglass, the brother of Ethel Rosenberg, was the key witness [in the case against the Rosenbergs]. He had been a machinist at the Manhattan Project laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, in 1944-1945 when the atomic bomb was being made there and testified that Julius Rosenberg had asked him to get information for the Russians. Greenglass said he had made sketches from memory for his brother-in-law of experiments with lenses to be used to detonate atomic bombs. He said Rosenberg had given him half of the cardboard top to a box of Jell-o, and told him a man would show up in New Mexico with the other half, and that, in June 1945, Harry Gold appeared with the other half of the box top, and Greenglass gave him information he had memorized.

Gold, already serving a thirty-year sentence in another espionage case, came out of jail to corroborate Greenglass’s testimony. He had never met the Rosenbergs, but said a Soviet embassy official gave him half of a Jello box top and told him to contact Greenglass, saying, “I come from Julius.” Gold said he took the sketches Greenglass had drawn from memory and gave them to the Russian official.

There were troubling aspects to all this. Did Gold cooperate in return for early release from prison? After serving fifteen years of his thirty-year sentence, he was paroled. Did Greenglass-under indictment at the time he testified-also know that his life depended on his cooperation? He was given fifteen years, served half of it, and was released. How reliable a memorizer of atomic information was David Greenglass, an ordinary-level machinist, not a scientist, who had taken six courses at Brooklyn Polytechnical Institute and flunked five of them? Gold’s and Greenglass’s stories had first not been in accord. But they were both placed on the same floor of the Tombs prison in New York before the trial, giving them a chance to coordinate their testimony.

How reliable was Gold’s testimony? It turned out that he had been prepared for the Rosenberg case by four hundred hours of interviews with the FBI. It also turned out that Gold was a frequent and highly imaginative liar. He was a witness in a later trial where defense counsel asked Gold about his invention of a fictional wife and fictional children. The attorney asked: “. . . you lied for a period of six years?” Gold responded: “I lied for a period of sixteen years, not alone six years.” Gold was the only witness at the trial to connect Julius Rosenberg and David Greenglass to the Russians. The FBI agent who had questioned Gold was interviewed twenty years after the case by a journalist. He was asked about the password Gold was supposed to have used – “Julius sent me.” The FBI man said:

Gold couldn’t remember the name he had given. He thought he had said: I come from – or something like that. I suggested, “Might it have been Julius?” That refreshed his memory.

When the Rosenbergs were found guilty, and Judge Irving Kaufman pronounced sentence, he said:

I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb as already caused the Communist aggression in Korea with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 Americans and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. . . .

He sentenced them both to die in the electric chair.

Morton Sobell was also on trial as a co-conspirator with the Rosenbergs. The chief witness against him was an old friend, the best man at his wedding, a man who was facing possible perjury charges by the federal government for lying about his political past. This was Max Elitcher, who testified that he had once driven Sobell to a Manhattan housing project where the Rosenbergs lived, and that Sobell got out of the car, took from the glove compartment what appeared to be a film can, went off, and then returned without the can. There was no evidence about what was in the film can. The case against Sobell seemed so weak that Sobell’s lawyer decided there was no need to present a defense. But the jury found Sobell guilty, and Kaufman sentenced him to thirty years in prison. He was sent to Alcatraz, parole was repeatedly denied, and he spent nineteen years in various prisons before he was released.

FBI documents subpoenaed in the 1970s showed that Judge Kaufman had conferred with the prosecutors secretly about the sentences he would give in the case. Another document shows that after three years of appeal a meeting took place between Attorney General Herbert Brownell and Chief Justice Fred Vinson of the Supreme Court, and the chief justice assured the Attorney General that if any Supreme Court justice gave a stay of execution, he would immediately call a full court session and override it.

There had been a worldwide campaign of protest. Albert Einstein, whose letter to Roosevelt early in the war had initiated work on the atomic bomb, appealed for the Rosenbergs, as did Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso, and the sister of Bartolomeo Vanzetti. There was an appeal to President Truman, just before he left office in the spring of 1953. It was turned down. Then, another appeal to the new President, Dwight Eisenhower, was also turned down.

At the last moment, Justice William 0. Douglas granted a stay of execution. Chief Justice Vinson sent out special jets to bring the vacationing justices back to Washington from various parts of the country. They canceled Douglas’s stay in time for the Rosenbergs to be executed June 19, 1953. It was a demonstration to the people of the country, though very few could identify with the Rosenbergs, of what lay at the end of the line for those the government decided were traitors.

In that same period of the early fifties, the House Un-American Activities Committee was at its heyday, interrogating Americans about their Communist connections, holding them in contempt if they refused to answer, distributing millions of pamphlets to the American public: “One Hundred Things You Should Know About Communism” (“Where can Communists be found? Everywhere”). Liberals often criticized the Committee, but in Congress, liberals and conservatives alike voted to fund it year after year. By 1958, only one member of the House of Representatives (James Roosevelt) voted against giving it money. Although Truman criticized the Committee, his own Attorney General had expressed, in 1950, the same idea that motivated its investigations: “There are today many Communists in America. They are everywhere–in factories, offices, butcher shops, on street comers, in private business–and each carries in himself the germs of death for society.”

–Chapter Sixteen: “A People’s War?”, A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn

It’s hard to read this without concluding that “justice” in America depends upon your political beliefs. And, if that is, indeed, the case, then there is no justice in America.

Additional resources

Add to Technorati Favorites<!—
The Cowboy’s Shared News Items

—>

, , , <!—,

Spread the word:

Spread the word:

—>

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine


How Bush is Different From Every Other Worst President Ever!

December 10, 2007

Since 1948, historians and lay folk have ranked US Presidents. At various times, Nixon and Andrew Johnson have topped the list. Now, the game is over. The decision is in. The very worst President in American history is George W. Bush. Alone among “worst” Presidents, Bush has tried to overthrow and subvert the government of our Constitution and replace it with a dictatorship in which both courts and legislature –if either are to exist at all –are expected merely to kowtow to his wishes.

At the same time, the rights of habeas corpus and due process so carefully crafted by James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, are wiped away with an imperious decision. If because you oppose Bush, you are declared either a traitor or a terrorist, you may be imprisoned without trial, denied the right of counsel, a phone call, or the right to defend yourself against the charges. You may be tortured. You may be held indefinitely. You may be executed! Who would know? For centuries, this kind of high-handed rule by decree has been called tyranny. I call it tyranny now and I accuse Bush of high treason, capital crimes and subversion.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a “failure.” Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration’s “pursuit of disastrous policies.” In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton — a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

No previous president appears to have squandered the public’s trust more than Bush has. In the 1840s, President James Polk gained a reputation for deviousness over his alleged manufacturing of the war with Mexico and his supposedly covert pro-slavery views. Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois congressman, virtually labeled Polk a liar when he called him, from the floor of the House, “a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man” and denounced the war as “from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.” But the swift American victory in the war, Polk’s decision to stick by his pledge to serve only one term and his sudden death shortly after leaving office spared him the ignominy over slavery that befell his successors in the 1850s. With more than two years to go in Bush’s second term and no swift victory in sight, Bush’s reputation will probably have no such reprieve..

The Worst President in History?, One of America’s leading historians assesses George W. Bush, Sean Wilentz, Rolling Stone

Nixon is remembered for abuses of executive power and his outright disdain for the Constitutional “separation of powers”. Like Bush, Nixon equated dissent with treason and considered critics to be threats to national security. He spied on US citizens, pried into income tax returns and considered himself above the law: “if the President does it, it is not illegal“. Nevertheless, his assaults on the Constitution pale beside those of Bush. If Bush’s various treasons are allowed to stand, he will have rendered the Constitution moot and the United States of its creation destroyed, perhaps forever. Nixon never came close, primarily because Nixon was courageously opposed by the media, the Congress and the courts. Where are those real “patriots” now? Where is courage? Where is outrage?

That he lied about Iraq�s �threat� to the United States is no unsubstantiated allegation. The recently revealed �Downing Street Memo� is the report of Britain�s� intelligence chief made to Prime Minister Blair about his trip to the United States eight months before the war in Iraq began, long before it was publicly considered.

The memo makes clear that deception and the fitting of facts to serve a military agenda was a high priority for the Bush administration. (�C� in the following is Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain�s foreign intelligence service � MI 6 � who had just returned from meetings in Washington.) �C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.�

Let us be blunt. Basing a war on �fixed� evidence is a high crime, a betrayal of the trust of the nation�s citizens. In the United States, it is grounds for impeaching the president and removing him from office.

–Huck Gutman, The Worst US President Ever?

It is interesting that “worst” Presidents always seem connected in some way with the lingering consequences of slavery. Bush’s base of support is not merely the south; demographically, it’s base is found in the “disaffected” south, the south that felt persecuted by an admittedly harsh and reactionary re-construction. But it is also the “south” that would never have abolished slavery short of Civil War.

Nixon, for example, is remembered for his “Southern Strategy”, an exploitation of bigotry if not an outright appeal to it. What had been a Democratic south (the south had hated Lincoln) has been solid “red” since the sixties. There is even some credence given the opinion that the rest of the US would have been better off if the south had gone its own way. That position, however, does not wash Northern hands of the crime of slavery, a crime against humanity if there ever was one.

The American political system has long used different groups and issues to divide people into an “us” and a “them.” The reason America remains, and has always been, a two-political-party country is that we prefer our beliefs as simple duality�black white, good bad, us them. On every issue from slavery to communism to abortion, Americans have preferred to fight rather than to compromise. Sometimes, as with slavery, this is the correct choice. Sometimes, as with the issue of abortion, the American political path makes it too easy to tear each other apart and never resolve anything.

The truth about Wallace using race as a dividing tool is that he was simply being true to the nature of the American political system.

Being on the receiving end of school-yard politics is shit. I, along with every other recipient of a bully’s pain, take a certain joy when the bully finally gets theirs. I heard a friend talking about Frank the other day�Frank is now even fatter, along with being divorced and stuck in a dead-end job. I won’t lie and say I didn’t smile at that.

When Wallace was shot, how many people saw that as just payment for his sins?

But there is also something sad about Wallace. The other virulent race-baiters from those days, like Senator Strom Thurmond, have been rehabilitated and accepted. Not George Wallace. Even though he spoke at black churches and NAACP meetings in the two decades leading up to his death, seeking to bury his past with Christian atonement, people still saw him as he had been during the Civil Rights era. The fact that Wallace said he didn’t want to meet his maker with his sins unforgiven just didn’t matter to most people.

–Jason Sanford, Weeping for Wallace: George Wallace, school-yard bullies, and how we’re all living with the politics of the new south

Bush has taken his disdain for law much further than Nixon. The Washington Post wrote recently that Bush sought “…to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta“. Bush, in fact, arrogated unto himself the right to declare anyone opposing him an “enemy combatant — two words which deprive you of the right to be told what you have been charged with, the right to retain defense counsel, the right to a “speedy trial” by an impartial jury of one’s peers.

Bush’s treatment of prisoners of war have disgraced the US and alienated the world which now sees the US as a rogue nation, a banana republic, a fascist dictatorship. As Bush is owned by large corporate support and those corporate interests that make up the Military/Industrial complex, the charge is absolutely, irrefutably true. The US, under Bush, has become a fascist dictatorship. Live with it or change it!

It was not Nixon who blazed the trail for Bush. It was Ronald Reagan, who managed to sugar coat tyranny and make incipient goppers feel good about being jingos, narrow mindeded bigots, fascists and/or militarists. Ronald Reagan put an elderly, kindly smiley face on government incompetence and criminality. The reality was worse. Perverts ran a child prostitution ring right out of the White House. A program of endemic treason, Iran/Contra armed avowed enemies as well as right wing terrorists. Not surprisingly, terrorism was worse under Reagan than under any Democratic administration since WWII. Terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes.

Ronald Reagan clearly has become the sort of polarizing figure that Franklin Roosevelt was for an earlier generation�or, perhaps a better way to understand the phenomenon is that Reagan has become the personification of the pole opposite to Roosevelt. That polarization is evident in historians� evaluations of George W. Bush�s presidency. �If one believes Bush is a �good� president (or great),� one poll respondent noted, he or she �would necessarily also believe Reagan to be a pretty good president.� They also tend to despise Roosevelt. �There is no indication,� one historian said of Bush, �that he has advisors who are closet communist traitors as FDR had. Based on his record to date, history is likely to judge him as one of America�s greatest presidents, in the tradition of Washington and Lincoln.�

–History News Network, Historians vs. George W. Bush

Bush claims the right to ignore those parts of the law with which he disagrees. He rules by decree. He exploits the fatal flaw in the US political system. The Supreme Court has typically given “Presidents” a free hand in the conduct of national defense, particularly in times of “war”, a flaw merely waiting to be exploited by a demagogue, a would-be Buzz Windrip!

Bush would manufacture a phony war on terrorism and, in the period of panic that followed, the would ram through the Congress his own “enabling act”, given the Orwellian monicker: Patriot Act. In rare cases, the court’s have, at last, rebuked Bush’s policies with regard to the treatment of “detainees” –another Orwellian euphemism for “Bush kidnap victims”. The court has, at least, indicated how far the criminal Bush administration has subverted the very rule of law. Among numerous “worst Presidents”, Bush alone tried to destroy the United States of America and succeeded.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Cowboy’s Shared News Items





Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

CIA Obstruction of Justice Designed to Shield George W. Bush?

December 9, 2007

A man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!

October 21, 2007