DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION
2 - The Brutal, Illegal
The most recent of wars carried out under the cloak of diplomacy by
deception, the Gulf War, differs from others in that the
of 300, the
Council on Foreign Relations,
Bilderbergers did not adequately cover their tracks along the way to
war. The Gulf War therefore is one of the easiest of wars to trace
back to Chatham House and Harold Pratt House, and, fortunately for
us, it is one of the easiest to prove the diplomacy by deception
The Gulf War must be viewed as a single component of the Committee
of 300's overall strategy for the Middle East oil-producing Islamic
states. Only a brief historical overview can be given here. It is
essential to know the truth and to be set free from the propaganda
of Madison Avenue opinion-makers, also known as "advertising
British imperialists, aided by their American cousins, began to
implement their plans to seize control of all Middle East oil in or
around the mid-1800s. The illegal Gulf War was an integral provision
of that plan. I say illegal, because, as explained in the chapters
dealing with the United Nations, only the Congress can declare war,
as laid down in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
and 18 of the U.S. Constitution. Henry Clay, a recognized authority
on the Constitution, said this on a number of occasions.
No elected official can override the provisions of the Constitution,
and both former Secretary of State James Baker III and President
George Bush, ought to have been impeached for violating the
Constitution. A British intelligence source told me that when Baker
met Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace, he actually bragged
about how he got around the Constitution, and then, in the presence
of the queen, chastised Edward Heath who had opposed the war. Edward
Heath, a former British prime minister was sacked by the Committee
of 300 for failing to support the European unity policy and for his
strong opposition to the Gulf War.
Baker remarked to the gathering of heads-of-state and diplomats
that he dismissed attempts to draw him into discussing constitutional
issues. Baker also boasted about how his threats against the Iraqi
nation were carried out, and Queen Elizabeth II nodded her approval.
Obviously Baker and President Bush, who was also present at the
gathering, placed their fealty to the One World Government above
that of the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution of
the United States.
The land of Arabia existed for thousands of years, and it was always
known as Arabia. The land was linked to events in Turkey, Persia
(now Iran), and Iraq through the Wahabi and the Abdul Aziz families.
In the 15th century, the British, under the direction of Black
Guelph Venetian robber-bankers saw the possibilities of entrenching
themselves in Arabia, where they were opposed by the Koreish tribe,
the tribe of the prophet Muhammad, the posthumous son of the
Hashemite, Abdullah, out of which came the Fatima and Abbasid
The Gulf War was only an extension of the Committee of 300's
attempts to destroy Muhammad and the Hashemite people in Iraq. The
rulers of Saudi Arabia are hated and despised by all true followers
of Islam, more so since they allowed "infidels" (U.S. troops) to be
stationed in the land of the prophet Muhammad.
The essential articles of the Muslim religion consist of a belief in
one God, (Allah), in his angels and his prophet Muhammad, the last
of the prophets and belief in his revealed work, the Koran; belief
in the Day of Resurrection and God's predestination of men. The six
fundamental duties of believers are recitation of the profession of
faith, attesting to the unity of God, and the firm acceptance of the
mission of Muhammad; five daily prayers; total fasting during the
month of Ramadan, and a pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once in the
lifetime of the believer.
Strict observation of the fundamental principles of the Muslim
religion make one a fundamentalist, which the Wahabi and Abdul Aziz
families (the Saudi Royal family), are not The Saudi Royal Family
has slowly but surely drifted away from fundamentalism, which has
not endeared them to Islamic fundamentalist countries like Iraq and
Iran, who now blame them for making the Gulf War possible in the
first place. Skipping over centuries of history, we come to 1463,
when a great war, instigated and planned by the Black Guelph
Venetian bankers, broke out in the Ottoman Empire. The Venetian Guelphs (who are directly related to Queen Elizabeth II of England)
had deceived the Turks into believing that they were friends and
allies, but the Ottomans were to learn a bitter lesson.
To understand the period, we must understand that the British
Nobility is synonymous with the Venetian Black Nobility. Under the
leadership of Mohammed the Conqueror, the Venetians were driven out
of what is today Turkey. The role of Venice in world history has
been deliberately and grossly understated. And its influence is
today understated, such as the role it played in the Bolshevik
Revolution, both world wars and the Gulf War. The Ottomans were
betrayed by the British and Venetians, who "came as friends but held
a concealed dagger behind their backs" as history records. This was
one of the earlier sallies into diplomacy by deception. It was very
successfully copied by
George Bush in posing as a friend of the Arab
With British intervention, the Turks were pushed back from the gates
of Venice and an Arab presence firmly established in the peninsula.
The British misused the Arabs under Col. Thomas E. Lawrence to bring
down the Ottoman Empire, eventually betraying them and setting up
the Zionist state of Israel, through the Balfour Declaration. This
is a good example of the diplomacy by deception that succeeded. In
the period 1909 to 1915, the British government used Lawrence to
lead Arab forces to fight the Turks and drive them out of Palestine.
The void left by the Turks was filled by immigrant Jews flocking
into Palestine under the terms of the Balfour Declaration.
The British government continued its deception by moving British
troops into the Sinai and Palestine. Sir Archibald Murray assured
Lawrence the move was to forestall Jewish immigration under the
Balfour Declaration signed by Lord Rothschild, a top member of the
Illuminati. The terms under which the Arabs agreed to intervene in
the Ottoman campaign (to whom the Black Nobility of Britain had
sworn undying loyalty), was negotiated by Sheriff Hussein of the Hijaz, and specifically included a provision that Britain would not
permit Jewish immigration into Palestine, Transjordan and Arabia to
continue. Hussein made this demand the very heart of the agreement
signed with the British government
Of course, the British government never intended to honor the terms
of its agreement with Hussein, adding the names of the other
countries to Palestine so that they could say, "well, we did keep
them out of these countries." It was diplomacy by deception at its
finest, because the Zionists had no interest in sending Jews to any
Middle East country other than Palestine.
The British government always played the Abdul-Aziz and Wahabis (the
Saudi Royal Family) against Sheriff Hussein, secretly entering into
an agreement with the two families that "officially" pretended to
recognize Hussein as the King of Hijaz (which the British government
did on Dec. 15,1916). The British government agreed to secretly back
the two families with enough arms and money to conquer the independent city-states of Arabia.
Of course, Hussein was not privy to the side deal, and he agreed to
launch a full-scale attack on the Turks. This prompted the Wahabi
and Abdul Aziz families to put together an army and launch a war to
bring Arabia under their control. The British oil companies thus
succeeded in getting Hussein to battle the Turks unwittingly on
Funded by Britain in 1913 and 1927, the Abdul Aziz-Wahabi armies
conducted a bloody campaign against Arabia's independent city
states overrunning Hijaz, Jauf and Taif. The holy Hashemite city of
Mecca was attacked on Oct 13,1924, forcing Hussein and his son, Ali,
to flee. On Dec. 5, 1925, Medina surrendered after a particularly
bloody battle. The British government, demonstrating once again its
grasp of diplomacy by deception, did not tell the Wahabis and Saudis
that its true goal was the destruction of the sanctity of Mecca and
the overall weakening of the Muslim religion, which was deeply
resented by the British oligarchists and their Black Nobility
Nor did the British government tell the Saudi and Wahabi families
that they were merely pawns in the game to secure Arabian oil for
Britain over the claims of Italy, France, Russia, Turkey and
Germany. On Sept 22,1932, the Saudi-Wahabi armies put down a
rebellion in the largely Hashemite territory of Transjordan.
Thereafter, Arabia was renamed Saudi Arabia and was henceforth to be
ruled by a king drawn from the two families. Thus, by the deceit of
diplomacy by deception, the British oil companies gained control of
This diplomacy by deception and the whole bloody campaign is
fully described in my monograph, "Who are the Real Saudi Kings and
Once freed from the Ottoman threat and Arab nationalism under
Sheriff Hussein to pursue its designs even further, the British
government, acting on behalf of its oil companies, entered into a
new period of diplomacy by deception. They drew up and guaranteed a
treaty between Saudi Arabia, as it was now called, and Iraq, which
became the foundation of a whole series of inter-Arab-Muslim pacts,
which the British government said it would enforce against Jewish
immigration to Palestine.
Contrary to what Britain's leaders told the Arab-Muslim parties, the
Balfour Declaration which had already been negotiated, permitted
Jews not only to immigrate to Palestine, but to make it a homeland.
This agreement, laid out terms of an Anglo-French accord, placed
Palestine under international administration. This is just as easily
done by today's United Nations, with Cyrus Vance carving up Bosnia
Herzegovina, an internationally-recognized country, into small en
claves so that Serbia can take them over in due time.
Then, on Nov. 2,1917, came the public announcement of the Balfour
Declaration, which said that the British government — not the Arabs
or the Palestinians, whose land it was— favored establishing
Palestine as a national homeland for the Jewish people. Britain
vowed to use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of
"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done
which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing
non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
A more audacious piece of diplomacy by deception is hard to find
anywhere. Note that the real inhabitants of Palestine were
downgraded to "non-Jewish communities." Also note that the
declaration, which was in reality a proclamation, was signed by Lord
Rothschild, head of British Zionists, who was not a member of the
British Royal Family, nor was he a member of Balfour's cabinet and
therefore had even less standing than Balfour to sign such a
The gross betrayal of the Arabs so angered Col. Lawrence that he
threatened to expose the British government's duplicity, a threat
that was to cost him his life. Lawrence had given Hussein and his
men a solemn promise that further Jewish immigration into Palestine
would not occur. Documents in the British Museum clearly show that
the promise relayed to Sheriff Hussein by Lawrence, was made by Sir
Archibald Murray and General Edmund Allenby on behalf of the British
In 1917, British troops marched into Baghdad, marking the beginning
of the end of the Ottoman empire. Throughout this period, the Wahabi
and Saudi families were continually reassured by Murray that no Jews
would be allowed to enter Arabia, and that the few Jews who would be
allowed to immigrate would be settled only in Palestine. On Jan. 10,
1919, the British gave themselves a "mandate" to rule Iraq, which
passed into law on May 5,1920. Not a single government in the world
protested Britain's illegal action. Sir Percy Cox was named high
commissioner. Of course, the people of Iraq were not consulted at
By 1922, the League of Nations had approved the terms of the Balfour
(Rothschild) Declaration, which gave the British government a man
date to run Palestine and the Hashemite country called Transjordan.
One can only marvel at the audacity of the British government and the
League of Nations.
In 1880, the British government formed a friendship with a tame Arab
sheik by the name of Emir Abdullah al Salem Al Sabah. Al Sabah was
made their representative in the area along the southern border of
Iraq where the Rumalia oilfields had been discovered inside Iraqi
territory. The Al Sabah family kept an eye on this rich prize while
British went after another prize in 1899, that of the huge gold
deposits in the tiny Boer Republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free
State, which we shall come to in succeeding chapters. It is
mentioned here to illustrate the Committee of 300's quest to grab
natural resources of nations whenever and wherever they could do so.
On behalf of the Committee of 300, on Nov. 25,1899 — the same year
the British went to war against the Boer Republics — the British
government made a deal with Emir Al Sabah, whereby the land
encroaching on the Rumalia oilfields in Iraq was ceded to the
British government notwithstanding the fact that the land was an
integral part of Iraq, or that the Emir AI Sabah had no right to it.
The deal was signed by Sheik Mubarak Al Sabah, who traveled to
London in style with his retinue, with all expenses paid by the
British taxpayers and not the British oil companies who were the
beneficiaries of the deal. Kuwait became a de facto undeclared
British protectorate. The local population had no say in the setting
up of the Al Sabahs as absolute dictators who soon showed cruel
In 1915, the British invaded Iraq and occupied Baghdad in an act
President George Bush would have called "naked aggression," the term
he used to describe Iraq's move against Kuwait to reclaim its land
stolen by Britain. The British government set up a self-proclaimed
"mandate" as we have already seen, and on Aug. 23,1921, two months
after his arrival in Baghdad, self-styled high commissioner Cox,
named former King Faisal of Syria as head of a puppet regime in
Basra. Britain now had one puppet in northern Iraq and another in
In order to strengthen their position, not being satisfied with the
blatantly rigged plebiscite that gave the British their mandate, an
elaborate and bloody plot was hatched. MI6 British intelligence
agents were sent in to stir up a revolt among the Kurds in the
Mosul. Encouraged to revolt by their leader, Sheik Mahmud, they
staged a great insurrection on Jun. 18,1922. British intelligence
agents of MI6 had for months told Sheik Mahmud that his chances of
securing an autonomous state for the Kurds would never be better.
Why did MI6 ostensibly act against the best interests of the British
The answer is found in diplomacy by deception. Yet, even
as the Kurds were being told that their age-old quest for an
autonomous state was about to become a reality, Cox was telling
Iraqi leaders in Baghdad that the Kurds were about to revolt It was,
said Cox, only one of many reasons why the Iraqis needed a continued
British presence in the country. After two years of fighting, the
Kurds were defeated and their leaders executed.
In 1923, however, Britain was forced by Italy, France and Russia to
recognize a protocol that granted independence to Iraq once Iraq
joined the League of Nations, or, in any case, not later than 1926.
This angered the Royal Dutch Shell Co. and British Petroleum, who
both called for renewed action, afraid they would lose their oil
concessions which were to expire in 1996. Another severe blow to
British imperialists and their oil companies was the League of
Nations award of the oil-rich Mosul to Iraq.
MI6 arranged for another Kurdish revolt to take place February
through April of 1925. False promises were made to the Iraq
government, with accounts of what would happen if the British
withdrew protection from Iraq. The Kurds were misled into
insurrection. The object was to show the League of Nations that its
award of Mosul to Iraq was a mistake that it was bad for the world
to have an "unstable" government in charge of a major oil reserve.
The other benefit was that the Kurds would probably lose, and would
once again have their leaders executed. This time, however, the plot
didn't work; the League remained steadfast in its decision on Mosul.
But the rebellion again ended in defeat for the Kurds and the
execution of their leaders.
The Kurds never realized that their enemy was not Iraq, but British
and American oil interests. It was Winston Churchill, not the
Iraqis, who in 1929 ordered the Royal Air Force to bomb Kurdish
villages, because the Kurds objected to British oil interests over
the Mosul oilfields which they fully understood the value of.
April, May and June of 1932 saw the Kurds in yet another M16
inspired and directed insurrection, again aimed at persuading the
League to alter its decision over Mosul oil, but the attempt was not
successful, and on Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq became an independent nation
with full control over Mosul. The British oil companies hung on for
another 12 years, until finally, in 1948 they were forced to leave
And even after leaving Iraq, the British did not withdraw their
presence from Kuwait on the spurious grounds that it was not part of
Iraq, but a separate country. After the murder of
President Kassem, the Iraqi government feared another uprising by the
Kurds, who were still under the control of British intelligence. On
June 10,1963, the Kurds under Mustafa al-Barzani threatened war
against Baghdad, which had its hands full with crushing the
Communist menace. The Iraqi government made an agreement granting
some measure of autonomy to the Kurds, and issued a proclamation to
Stoked up by British intelligence, the Kurds resumed fighting in
April of 1965, because no progress had been made by Iraq in
implementing the provisions of the 1963 proclamation. The Baghdad
government charged Britain with meddling in its internal affairs,
and Kurdish unrest continued for four more years. On Mar. 11, 1970,
the Kurds were finally granted autonomy. But, as before, only a very
few of the provisions contained in the agreement were implemented.
The arrangement had been disturbed in 1923 when, at the insistence
of Turkey, Germany and France, a conference was held at Lausanne,
Switzerland, under the auspices of the League of Nations.
The real reason for the 1923 Lausanne Conference was the discovery
of the Mosul oilfields in northern Iraq. Turkey suddenly decided it
had a claim to the vast oilfield that lay beneath the land occupied
by the Kurds. By now America was also interested, with
Rockefeller ordering President Warren Harding to send an observer.
The American observer went along with the existing illegal situation
in Kuwait. Rockefeller had no intention of rocking the British boat
just as long as he could get his share of the new oil find.
Iraq lost its rights under the old Turkish Petroleum Company agreement, and the status of Kuwait remained unchanged. The question of
Mosul oil was left deliberately vague at the insistence of the
delegate. These questions would be settled "by future negotiations"
the British delegate stated. The blood of American servicemen will
yet be spilled to secure Mosul oil for British and American oil
companies, just as it was spilled over the oil in Kuwait
On June 25, 1961, Iraqi Premier Hassan Abdul Kassem fiercely
attacked Britain over the Kuwait issue, pointing out that the
promised negotiations agreed upon at the Lausanne Conference had not
taken place. Kassem declared that the territory called Kuwait had
been an integral part of Iraq and was so recognized for more 400
years by the Ottoman empire. Instead, the British granted Kuwait
But it was clear that the British ploy of leaving the status of
Kuwait and the Mosul oil fields to a later date was almost foiled by
Kassem. Hence, the sudden need to grant independence to Kuwait,
before the rest of the world discovered the British and American
tactics. Kuwait could never be independent, because, as the British
well knew, it was a piece of Iraq which had been sliced off at the
Rumalia oilfields and given to British Petroleum.
Had Kassem succeeded in getting Kuwait back, the British rulers
would have lost billions of dollars in oil revenues. But when Kassem
vanished after Kuwait got its independence the movement to challenge Britain lost its momentum. By granting independence to Kuwait
in 1961, and ignoring the fact that the land was not theirs to give,
Britain was able to fend off the just claims of Iraq. As we know,
Britain did the same thing in Palestine, India and later, in South
For the next 30 years, Kuwait continued as a vassal state of Great
Britain, with the oil companies pulling billions of dollars into
British banks while Iraq got nothing. British banks flourished in
Kuwait, which were administered from Whitehall and the City of
London. This continued until 1965, in addition to the cruelty of the
Al Sabahs was the fact that there was no "one man one vote". In fact
there was no vote at all for the people. This was not the concern of
the British and United States government
The British government made this deal with the Al Sabah family, who
would henceforth remain the rulers of Kuwait (as that portion of
Iraqi territory came to be known), under the full protection of the
British government. Thus was Kuwait stolen from Iraq. The fact that
Kuwait did not apply for membership in the U.N. at the time Saudi
Arabia did, is proof that it was never a country in the truest sense
of the word.
The creation of Kuwait was hotly disputed by successive Iraqi
governments, who could do little to reclaim the land in the face
of superior British military might. On July 1, 1961, after years of
protest over Kuwait annexing its territory, the Iraqi government
finally moved on the issue. Emir Al Sabah called on Britain to honor
the 1899 agreement, and the British government moved military forces
into Kuwait. Baghdad backed down, but never gave up its just claim to
Britain's seizure of the Iraqi land, calling it Kuwait and granting
it independence, must rank as one of the most audacious acts of
piracy in modern times, and directly contributed to the Gulf War. I
have gone to some lengths to explain the background of events that
led to the Gulf War in an attempt to show just how unjustly the
United States acted toward Iraq, and the power of the Committee of
Here is a summary of the events that led up to the Gulf War:
1811-1818. Wahabis of Arabia attack and occupy Mecca, but are forced
to withdraw by the Sultan of Egypt
1899, Nov. 25. Sheik Mubarak al-Sabah cedes part of the Rumalia
oilfields to Britain. Land ceded was recognized for 400 years as
Iraqi territory. Very sparsely populated up until 1914. Kuwait
becomes a British protectorate.
1909-1915, British use Col. Thomas Lawrence of British intelligence
to befriend the Arabs. Lawrence assures the Arabs that Gen. Edmund
Allenby would keep the Jews out of Palestine. Lawrence was not
advised of Britain's real intent Sheriff Hussein, the ruler of
Mecca, raises an Arab army to attack the Turks. Ottoman empire's
presence in Palestine and Egypt is destroyed.
1913. British secretly agree to arm, train and supply Abdul Aziz and
Wahabi families to prepare for conquest of Arabian city states.
1916. British troops move into Sinai and Palestine. Sir Archibald
Murray tells Lawrence it is a move designed to forestall Jewish
immigration, which Sheriff Hussein accepts. Hussein declares an Arab
state on June 27; becomes king on Oct 29. On Nov. 6, 1916, Britain,
France and Russia recognize Hussein as head of the Arab people;
confirmed on Dec. 15 by British government
1916. In a bizarre action, British get India to recognize Arab
city-states of Nejd, Qaif and Jubail as possessions of the Ibn Saud
of Abdul Aziz family.
1917. British troops seize Baghdad. Balfour Declaration is signed by
Lord Rothschild who betrays the Arabs and grants homeland to the
Jews in Palestine. Gen. Allenby occupies Jerusalem.
1920. San Remo Conference. Independence of Turkey; oil disputes
settled. The start of British control of oil rich countries in the
Middle East. British government establishes puppet regime in Basra,
ruled by King Faisal of Syria. Ibn Saud Abdul Aziz attacks Taif in
Hijaz, only able to capture it after four year struggle.
1922. Aziz sacks Jauf and murders Shalan family dynasty. Balfour
Declaration is approved by the League of Nations.
1923. Turkey, Germany and France object to British occupation of
Iraq and call for summit at Lausanne. Britain agrees to freedom for
Iraq, but hangs onto Mosul oilfields in order to create a separate
entity situation in northern Iraq. In May, British weaken the rule
of Emir Abdullah Ibn Hussein, son of Sheriff Hussein of Mecca, and
call the new country "Transjordan."
1924. On Oct 13, Wahabis and Adbul Aziz attack and capture the holy
city of Mecca, burial place of prophet Muhammad. Hussein and his two
sons are forced to flee.
1926. Ibn Saud proclaims himself as King of Hijaz and Sultan of
1927. British sign treaty with Ibn Saud and Wahabis, granting
complete freedom of action and recognizing captured city-states as
his possessions. This marked the beginning of British Petroleum and
the American oil companies battling to outdo each other in obtaining
1929. Britain signs a new treaty of friendship with Iraq recognizing
its independence, but leaves Kuwait's status unresolved. First
large-scale attacks are aimed at Jewish immigrants by Arabs at
disputed "Wailing Wall."
1930. British government releases the White Paper by the Passfield
Commission, which recommends that Jewish immigration to Palestine
be halted immediately, and that no more land be awarded to Jewish
settlers because of "too many landless Arabs." The recommendation
is modified by the British parliament and only token action is
1932. Arabia is renamed Saudi Arabia.
1935. British Petroleum builds pipeline from disputed Mosul
oilfields to port of Haifa. Peel Commission reports to British
parliament that Jews and Arabs can never work together; recommends
partitioning of Palestine.
1936. Saudis sign a non-aggression pact with Iraq, but break it
during the Gulf war. The Saudis decided to back the United States
and in the process, thereby dishonored the previous agreement with
1937. Pan Arab Conference inSyria rejects the Peel Commission's plan
for Jewish immigration into Palestine. British arrest the Arab
leaders and deport them to Seychelles.
1941. Britain invades Iran to "save" the country from Germany.
1946. Transjordan is granted independence by Britain and is renamed
"Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" in 1949. Widespread and violent
opposition by Zionists follows.
1952. Serious rioting in Iraq over continued British presence,
outrage over U.S. complicity with oil companies..
1953. New government of Jordan orders British troops out of the
1954. Britain and U.S. berate Jordan for refusing to join in
armistice talks with Israel, followed by downfall of the Jordanian
cabinet U.S. Sixth Fleet menaces Arab countries by landing Marines
in Lebanon (an act of war). King Hussein is not intimidated and
responds by denouncing the strong U.S. ties with Israel.
1955. Palestinians on West Bank riot Israel declares "Palestinians a
1959. Iraq protests inclusion of Kuwait in CETAN membership. Accuses
Saudis of "aiding British imperialism." British control over Kuwait
is strengthened. Iraq's outlet to the sea is cut off.
1961. Premiere Kassem of Iraq warns Britain "Kuwaitis Iraqi land and
has been for 400 years." Kassem is later assassinated mysteriously.
British government declares Kuwait an independent nation. British
oil companies are given control over a large part of the Rumalia
oilfields. Kuwait signs treaty of friendship with Britain. British
troops move in to counter possible attack by Iraq.
1962. Britain and Kuwait terminate defense pact
1965. Crown Prince Sabah Al Salem Al Sabah becomes Emir of Kuwait
By now, the Committee of 300's grip on Middle East oil was almost
total. The road Britain and America had followed was not a new one,
but an extension began by Lord Bertrand Russell:
"If a world government is to work smoothly, certain economic
conditions will have to be fulfilled. Various raw materials are
essential to industry. Of these, at present one of the most
important is oil. Probably uranium, though no longer needed for the
purposes of war, will be essential for industrial use of nuclear
energy. There is no justification in the private ownership of such
essential raw material sand I think we should include in
undesirable ownership, not only ownership by individuals or
companies, but also separate states. The raw material without which
industry is impossible should belong to the international authority
and granted to separate nations."
This turned out to be a profound statement by the "prophet" of the
Committee of 300, coming precisely when British-U.S. meddling in
Arab affairs was at its height. Note that Russell already knew then
that there would be no nuclear war. Russell declared himself in
favor of a One World Government, or the New World Order spoken of by
President Bush. The Gulf War was a continuation of earlier efforts
to wrest control of Iraqi oil from its rightful owners and to
protect the entrenched position of British Petroleum and other
majors of the oil cartel for the Committee of 300.
The Balfour Declaration is the kind of document for which the
British became infamous. In 1899, they had pressed deception against
the tiny Boer Republics in South Africa to new levels. While talking
peace, already disturbed by the hundreds of thousands of vagabonds
and carpet-baggers who flocked to the Boer republics in the wake of
the biggest gold strike in the history of the world, Queen Victoria
was preparing for war.
The Gulf War was fought for two primary reasons: The first concerns
the hatred of all things Muslim by the RIIA and their American
cousins of the CFR, in addition to their strong desire to protect
their surrogate, Israel. The second was unbridled greed and a desire
to control all Middle East oil-producing countries.
As to the war itself, U.S. maneuvering began at least three years
before Bush officially went on the offensive. The United States
first armed Iraq, and then incited it to attack Iran in a war which
decimated both countries: the so-called "meat grinder war." The war
was designed to weaken both Iraq and Iran to the point that they
would no longer be a credible threat to British and U.S. oil
interests, and, as a military force, they would no longer pose a
threat to Israel.
In 1981, Iraq asked the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) in Brescia,
Italy, for a line of credit buy weapons from an Italian company.
That company later sold land mines to Iraq. Then, in 1982, U.S.
President Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries that
sponsor terrorism in response to a State Department request
In 1983, the U.S. Agricultural Department provided Iraq with loans
amounting to $365 million, ostensibly to purchase agricultural products, but subsequent events disclosed that the money was used to
purchase military hardware. In 1985, Iraq approached the BNL branch in
Atlanta, Georgia, with a request that the bank process its loans
from the U.S. Agricultural Department's Commodity Credit
In January of 1986, a high-level CIA-National Security Agency (NSA)
meeting was held in Washington, DC. Discussed was whether the United
States should give intelligence data it had on Iraq to the
government in Teheran. Then Deputy NSA Director Robert Gates was
against doing so, but was overruled by the National Security Council.
It was not until 1987 that President Bush made a number of public
references supporting Iraq, one in which he said:
"the U.S. must
build a solid relationship with Iraq for the future."
thereafter, BNL's Atlanta branch secretly agreed to a $2.1 billion
commercial loan to Iraq. In 1989, hostilities between Iraq and Iran
came to an end.
By 1989, a secret memorandum prepared by the State Department
Intelligence Agency warned Secretary James Baker:
"Iraq retains its
heavy-handed approach to foreign affairs...and is working hard at
(making) chemical and biological weapons and new missiles."
did nothing of any substance about the report, and as we shall see,
later actively encouraged President Saddam Hussein to believe that
the United States would be even-handed about Iraq's policies toward
its Middle East neighbors.
In April of the same year, a nuclear proliferation report by the
Department of Energy said that Iraq had embarked on a project to
build an atomic bomb. This was followed by a June report prepared
jointly by Eximbank, (a U.S. banking agency), the CIA and the
Federal Reserve Banks, which said that a joint study revealed that
Iraq was integrating U.S. technology "directly into Iraq's planned
missile, tank and armored personnel carrier industries."
On August 4,1989, the FBI raided the offices of the BNL in Atlanta.
Some suspect that this was done to preempt any real investigation
into whether loans for Iraq were used to buy sensitive military
technology and other military know-how, rather than for the purposes
extended by the Agricultural Department.
During September, in an effort insiders say was an advance move to
absolve itself from blame, the CIA reported to Baker that Iraq was
obtaining the ability to make nuclear weapons through a variety of
front companies suspected of links with Pakistan at the highest
levels. Pakistan had been long suspected, and even accused by the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission of making nuclear weapons, which led
to a major rift in relations with Washington, described as being "at an all time low."
In October of 1989 the State Department wrote a "damage control"
memo to Baker, recommending that Baker "wall-off" the Agriculture
Department's credit program from BNL investigators. The memo was
initialed by Baker, which some interpret as his approval of the
recommendation. It is generally recognized that by initialing a
document, approval is given to its content and any course of
action laid out
Shortly thereafter, in a surprise turn, President Bush signed
National Security Directive 26, which supported U.S. trade with
"Access to the Persian Gulf and key friendly states in that
area is vital to U.S. national security," Bush said.
Here then, is
confirmation that as early as October, 1989, the President was
indulging in diplomacy by deception, acting as though Iraq was an
ally of the United States, when in fact, preparations for a war
against the country were already underway.
Then, on Oct. 26, 1989, slightly more than three weeks after Bush
declared Iraq a friendly state, Baker called Secretary of
Agriculture Clayton Yeutter with a request that the agricultural
trade credits for Iraq be increased. In response, Yeutter ordered
his department to provide $1 billion in insured trade credits for
the Baghdad government, even though the Treasury Department
Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger assured the Treasury that the money was needed for "geopolitical reasons":
ability to influence Iraqi behavior in areas from Lebanon to the
Middle East peace process (an oblique reference to Israel), is
enhanced by expanded trade," said Eagleburger.
However, this was not enough to allay a suspicious and hostile
element of the Democrats in Congress, possibly reacting to
intelligence information received from Israel. In January of 1990,
Congress barred loans to Iraq and eight other countries
congressional investigators said were hostile toward the United
States. This was a setback for the major plan to go to war against
Iraq, which Bush did not trust Congress to know. So, on January
17,1990, he exempted Iraq from the congressional ban.
Possibly fearing that Congressional intervention might upset war
plans, State Department specialist John Kelly fired off a memo to
Undersecretary of State for Policy Robert Kimit, in which the
Agriculture Department was castigated for its tardiness in moving on
the loans to Iraq. This February, 1990 incident is of major
importance in proving that the president was anxious to complete
stocking Iraq with arms and technology so that the timetable for war
would not fall.
On February 6, James Kelly, a lawyer for the New York Federal
Reserve Bank who was responsible for regulating BNL operations in
the United States, wrote a memo which ought to have caused a great
deal of alarm: A planned trip to Italy by Federal Reserve criminal
investigators was put off. The BNL had cited concerns regarding the
Italian press. A trip to Istanbul was put off at the request of
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.
Kelly's February, 1990 memo said in part:
"...A key component of the
relationship and failure to approve the loans will feed Saddam's
paranoia and accelerate his swing against us."
If we did not already
know about the war planned against Iraq, the latter statement would
appear to be an amazing one. How could the United States go on
arming President Hussein if it feared that he would "swing against
us"? Logically, the proper course of action would have been to
suspend the credits rather than arm a nation that the State
Department believed might turn against us.
March of 1990 brought some surprising developments. Documents
produced in federal court in Atlanta showed that Reinaldo
Petrignani, Italy's ambassador to Washington, told Thornburgh that
incriminating Italian officials in the BNL investigation would be
"tantamount to a slap in the face for the Italians." This
conversation was subsequently denied as having taken place by both
Petrignani and Thornburgh. It proved one thing: the deep involvement
of the Bush administration in the BNL loans to Iraq.
In April of 1990, the Interagency Deputies Committee of the National
Security Council, headed by Deputy National Security Adviser Rob
ert Gates, met at the White House for discussions about a possible
change in U.S. attitude toward Iraq — yet another twist in the
cyclone of diplomacy by deception.
In yet another unexpected turn of events that same month, apparently
not anticipated by Bush or the NSA, the Treasury Department balked
at the Agriculture Department's $500 million commodity trade credits, refusing to allow it to go through. In May of 1990, the
Treasury Department let it be known that it had received a memo from
the NSA objecting to its move. The memo said that NSA staff wanted
to prevent Agricultural credits "from being cancelled, as this would
exacerbate the already strained foreign policy relations with Iraq."
By July 25,1990, probably earlier than the Committee of 300
preferred, the trap was sprung. Spurred on by a mounting number of
setbacks, President Bush authorized U.S. ambassador April Glaspie to
meet with President Hussein. The purpose of the meeting was to
reassure President Saddam Hussein that the United States had no
quarrel with him and would not intervene in any inter-Arab border
disputes, according to a number of as yet unreleased State
Department cables which Rep. Henry Gonzalez was able to obtain. This
was a clear reference to Iraq's dispute with Kuwait over the Rumalia
The Iraqis took Glaspie's words as a signal from Washington that
they could send their army into Kuwait, thereby buying right into
the plot As Ross Perot stated during the November 1992 elections:
suggest that in a free society owned by the people, the American
people ought to know what we told Ambassador Glaspie to tell Saddam
Hussein, because we spent a lot of money and risked lives and lost
lives in that effort and did not accomplish most of our objectives."
Meanwhile Glaspie disappeared from view and was sequestered to a
secret location shortly after the news broke about her part in the
diplomacy by deception practiced against Iraq. Finally, after much
media prodding, and flanked by a couple of liberal Senators, who
acted as if Glaspie was a wallflower in need of great chivalry, she
appeared before a Senate Committee and denied everything. Shortly
afterward, Glaspie "resigned" from the State Department, and no
doubt now lives in comfortable obscurity from which she ought to be
wrenched, placed under oath in a court of law and forced to testify
to the truth of how the Bush administration calculatingly deceived
not only Iraq, but also this nation.
On July 29,1990, four days after Glaspie met with the Iraqi
president, Iraq began moving its army toward the border with Kuwait.
Continuing with the deception, Bush sent a team to Capitol Hill to
testify against imposing sanctions against Iraq, thereby adding to
President Hussein's belief thath is impending invasion of Iraq would
be winked at by Washington.
Two days later, on Aug. 2,1990, the Iraqi Army crossed the
artificially created border of Kuwait Also during August the CIA, in
a top secret report, told Bush that Iraq was not going to invade
Saudi Arabia, and that the Iraqi military had not made any
contingency plans to do so.
In September of 1990, Italian Ambassador Rinaldo Petrignani
accompanied by a number of BNL officials, met with Justice
Department prosecutors and investigators. At the meeting, Petrignani
said that the BNL was,
"the victim of a terrible fraud—the bank's
good name is of great importance, as the Italian state is a majority
This came to light in documents turned over to the House
Banking Committee's chairman, Henry Gonzalez.
To experienced watchers, this meant one thing: a plot was in motion
to let the real culprits in Rome and Milan off the hook and shift
blame to the local fall guy. No wonder a "not guilty" attitude was
adopted: subsequently incontrovertible evidence surfaced that the
loans made by the BNL's Atlanta branch had the full blessing of the
head office of the BNL in Rome and Milan.
On Sept 11,1990, Bush called for a joint session of Congress and
stated falsely that on Aug. 5,1990, Iraq had 150,000 troops and 1500
tanks in Kuwait, poised to strike at Saudi Arabia. Bush based his
statement on false information relayed from the Defense Department.
The claim was that 120,000 Iraqi troops and 850 tanks were in Kuwait.
The Defense Department must have known this information was false,
otherwise its KH11 and KH12 satellites were malfunctioning, and we
know that they were not. Apparently Bush needed to exaggerate to
convince Congress that Iraq presented a threat to Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, the Russian military released its own satellite pictures
showing the exact troop strength in Kuwait As a cover up for Bush,
Washington held out that the satellite pictures were from a commercial satellite company that had been sold to ABC television, among
others. By turning the satellite pictures over to a commercial
company, Russia engaged in a bit of deception of its own. Clearly,
the Defense Department and the president had been lying to the
American people, and were now caught out in their lies.
By now, Chairman Gonzalez was asking embarrassing questions about
the Bush administration's possible involvement in the BNL scandal.
In September of 1990, the assistant attorney general for legislative
affairs wrote a memo to the attorney general which said:
attempt to thwart any further congressional enquiry by the House
banking Committee into (BNL) loans is to have you contact Chairman
On Sept. 26, a few days after he received the memo was, Thornburgh
phoned Gonzalez and told him not to investigate the BNL matter
because of national security issues involved. Gonzalez bluntly re
fused to call off the House Banking Committee investigation of BNL.
Thornburgh later denied ever having told Gonzalez to leave BNL
alone. Gonzalez soon got hold of a memo written by the State
Department dated Dec. 18, which exposed Thornburgh's "national
security" plea. The memo also stated that the Justice Department's
investigation of BNL didn't raise any national security issue or
Further, the Defense Intelligence Agency announced that its teams in
Italy had learned that BNL's Brescia branch loaned Iraq $255 million
to buy land mines from an Italian manufacturer. The day the "allied
victory" in the Gulf War was announced, the Justice Department
indicted the fall guy for the BNL scandal, as expected. Christopher Drogoul was accused of illegally loaning Iraq in excess of $5
billion and accepting kick-backs of up to $2.5 million. Few believed
that an obscure loan officer at a small branch of an Italian
state-owned bank would have had authority to enter into transactions
of such magnitude on his own volition.
From the period January to April of 1990, as more and more pressure
built up for the Bush administration to explain the glaring
in the BNL scandal, the National Security Council took steps to
close ranks. On April 8, Nicolas Rostow, the NSC's general counsel,
organized a top-level meeting to explore ways of fending off the
pressing requests for documentation from, among others, House
Banking Committee Chairman Gonzalez.
The meeting was attended by C. Boyden Gray, legal counsel to Bush,
Fred Green, National Security Agency counsel, CIA general counsel
Elizabeth Rindskopf and a whole slew of lawyers representing the
Agriculture, Defense, Justice, Treasury, Energy and Commerce Departments. Rostow opened the meeting by warning that Congress seemed
intent on probing the Bush administration's relations with Iraq
before the war.
Rostow told the lawyers that,
"the National Security Council is
providing coordination for the administration's response to congressional documents requests for Iraq-related material," adding
congressional requests for documents should be checked for "issues
of executive privilege, national security, etc. Alternatives to
providing documents should be explored."
This information was
eventually obtained by Gonzalez.
Cracks were now starting to appear in an otherwise solid administration stonewalling policy. On June4, 1990, officials at the
Commerce Department admitted that they had deleted information on
export documents to obscure the fact that the department had in deed
granted the export licenses for shipments of military hardware and
technology to Iraq.
Even larger cracks began to appear in July, when Stanley Moskowitz,
the CIA's liaison to Congress, reported that the BNL bank officials
in Rome not only were fully aware of what had transpired at the
Atlanta branch long before the indictment of Drogoul was handed
down, but had in fact signed and approved the loans for Iraq. This
was a direct contradiction of Ambassador Petrignani's statement to
the Justice Department that the BNL's Rome office knew nothing about
the Iraq loans made by its Atlanta branch.
In May of 1992, in yet another a surprising turn, Attorney General
William Barr wrote a letter to Gonzales in which he charged Gonzalez
with harming "national security interests" by revealing the
administration's policy toward Iraq. In spite of the serious charge,
Barr provided no confirmation to back the allegation. Clearly, the
president was rattled, and the November elections were just around
the corner. This point was not lost on Gonzalez, who called Barr's
charge "politically motivated."
On June 2,1992, Drougal pleaded guilty to bank fraud. An unhappy
Judge Marvin Shoobasked the Justice Department to appoint a special
prosecutor to investigate the BNL case in its entirety. But on July
24, 1992, the attack on Gonzalez resumed with a letter from CIA
Director Robert Gates. He criticized the chairman for disclosing the
fact that the CIA and a number of other U.S. intelligence agencies
knew about the Bush administration's pre-Gulf War relationship with
Iraq. Later that month. Gates' letter was released by the House
Banking Committee for publication.
By August, the former chief of the Atlanta office of the FBI openly
accused the Justice Department of dragging its feet and delaying
indictments for nearly a year in the BNL affair. And on Aug. 10
1992, Barr refused to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate
the Bush administration's pre-Gulf War relationship with Iraq, as
requested by the House Judiciary Committee.
Then, on Sept 4, Barr wrote a letter to the House Banking Committee
stating that he would not comply with the Committee's subpoenas for
BNL documents and related information. It soon became evident that
Barr must have instructed all government departments to refuse to
cooperate with the House Banking Committee, because four days after
Barr's letter was released, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency,
the Customs Service, the Commerce Department and the National
Security Agency all stated that their intention was not to comply
with subpoenas for information and documents on the BNL issue.
Gonzalez carried the battle to the floor of the House and disclosed
that based on the CIA's own July 1991 report it was clear that BNL's
top management in Rome knew of, and had approved the Atlanta-branch
loans to Iraq. Federal prosecutors in Atlanta were floored by the
highly damaging information.
On Sept. 17,1991, in an obvious damage control measure, the CIA and
the Justice Department agreed to tell federal prosecutors in Atlanta
that the only information they had on BNL had already been made
publicly available, which was a blatant and reckless falsehood with
shattering ramifications. The scramble to exculpate themselves and
their departments is what led to all the finger pointing and
internal fighting that showered all the news stations just before
With the knowledge that he had spent most of his last 100 days in
office desperately trying to keep the lid on the scandals erupting
all around him, Bush got a life-line thrown to him: the media agreed
not to report the details of the plot. The "national security"
smokescreen had done the job.
In an ongoing effort to put distance between itself and the other
parties involved in the BNL-Iraq-gate cover-up, the Justice Department
agreed that it would soon release highly damaging documents showing
the CIA's prior knowledge of the BNL's Rome office "green light" for
loans for Iraq. The information was subsequently released to Judge Shoob, whose earlier doubts about the indictment of Drougal appeared to be vindicated.
Then, on Sept 23, 1992, Gonzalez announced that he had received
classified documents which clearly showed that in January of 1991,
the CIA knew about the BNL's high-level approval of the loans for
Iraq. In his letter, Gonzalez expressed concern over Gates' lies to
federal prosecutors in Atlanta regarding the BNL's Rome office not
being aware of what its Atlanta branch was doing.
The Senate Intelligence Committee also accused Gates of misleading
the Justice Department, federal prosecutors and Judge Shoob about
the extent of CIA knowledge of BNL events. The Justice Department
allowed Drogoul to withdraw his guilty plea on Oct. 1.. The lone
battle, waged and won by the chairman of the House Banking Committee
against the Bush administration was ignored by the median deference
to the wishes of the Republican election committee and to protect
Bush, one of its favorite sons.
Judge Shoob excused himself from the BNL case a few days later. He
said that he had concluded that,
"it is likely that the U.S.
intelligence agencies were aware of BNL-Atlanta's relations with
Iraq... The CIA continues to be uncooperative in attempts to
discover information about its knowledge of or involvement in the
funding of Iraq by BNL Atlanta."
The source of this information
could not originally be revealed, but the gist of it later appeared
in a report published by the New York Times.
A major development occurred when Sen. David Boren accused the CIA
of a cover-up and of lying to Justice Department officials. In its
response, the CIA admitted that it gave the wrong information to the
Justice Department in its September report-hardly any great admission, as Gonzalez, among others, already had proof of this. The CIA
claimed it was an honest mistake. There was "no attempt to mislead
anyone or cover-up anything" the agency contended. The CIA also
reluctantly acknowledged that it had not released all of the
documents it had on BNL.
The very next day, CIA chief counsel Rindskopf (who participated in
the 1991 damage control briefing held by Nicolas Rostow of the
National Security Agency), picked up the "honest mistake" refrain,
calling it a "certainly regrettable mistake" brought on by a faulty
filing system. Was it the best excuse that the chief lawyer for the
CIA could come up with? Neither Sen. Boren or Rep. Gonzalez were
It should be recalled that the real purpose of the 1991 meeting
called by Nicholas Rostow was to control the access to all
government documents and information that would show the true
relationship between the Bush administration and the Baghdad
government Obviously those responsible for trying to break through
the wall placed around such information had every right to be highly
The damage control efforts instituted by Rostow took another
pounding on Oct. 8, 1992, when CIA officials were called upon to
testify before a closed-door session of the Senate Intelligence
Committee. According to information received from sources close to
the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA officials had an
uncomfortable time of it, eventually trying to pin blame on the
State Department, claiming that they withheld information, and then
gave misleading information on BNL-Atlanta at the insistence of a
senior official of the Justice Department All they had done, CIA
officials said, was what the Justice Department told them to do.
An official denial was issued on Oct. 9,1992, with the State Department refusing to take responsibility for having asked the CIA to
withhold relevant BNL documents from the Atlanta prosecutors. The
Justice Department then delivered its own broadside, accusing the
CIA of delivering some classified documents in a disorganized manner
while withholding others. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee
agreed to launch its own investigation into these charges and
By now, it was becoming clear that all the parties who attended the
April 8, 1991 meeting were scrambling to distance themselves from
the matter. Then, on Oct. 10, the FBI announced that it, too, would
investigate the BNL-Atlanta case. The CIA denied it had ever
admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee that it had withheld
information at the special request of the Justice Department
These strange events were proceeding in such rapid succession that
daily announcements of accusations by one government agency or
another continued through Oct 14, 1992. The Justice Department
announced on Oct 11 that its Office of Professional Responsibility
would lead an investigation of itself and of the CIA, and that the
FBI would help. Assistant Attorney General Robert S. Meuller III,
the Justice Department spokesman for its Public Integrity Section,
was placed in charge. Information said to have originated from Sen.
David Boren's office appeared to indicate that Meuller was directly
On Oct. 12, 1992, just two days after the FBI had announced that it
would conduct its own investigation of the BNL case, ABC News
charged that it had received information indicating that William
Sessions, head of the FBI, was under investigation by the Justice
Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The accusations
charged Sessions with the improper use of government airplanes,
having a fence built around his house at government expense and
abuse of telephone privileges — none of which were in any way linked
to the BNL case.
The ABC news report came on the heels of the Oct. 10 announcement by
the FBI that it would investigate the BNL case, and was an attempt
to pressure Sessions into calling off the promised FBI
investigation. Sen. Boren told newsmen:
"The timing of the
accusations against Judge Sessions makes me wonder if an attempt is
being made to pressure him not to conduct an independent
Others pointed to a statement made by Sessions on Oct. 11 that his
investigation would not seek help from Justice Department officials,
who themselves, might be the subject of investigation. "The Justice
Department will not participate in the (FBI) inquiry and the FBI
will not share information," Sessions said. In the final days of his
bid for reelection, Bush continued to flatly deny that he had any
knowledge of or personal involvement in the Iraq-gate or Iran/Contra
Things took a turn for the worse for the president when on Oct. 12,
1992, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, a member of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, wrote to Attorney General Barr and asked for a
special prosecutor to be appointed:
"...Since very high-level
officials may well have been knowledgeable of or involved in an
effort to absolve BNL-Rome of complicity in the activities of
BNL-Atlanta, no arm of the executive branch can investigate U.S.
government conduct in this case without at least the appearance of a
conflict of interest."
Metzenbaum's letter stated that there were indications of "secret
U.S. government involvement in arms sales to Iraq," which came out
of court proceedings in Atlanta. Gonzalez fired off a stinging
letter to Barr requesting that a special prosecutor be appointed to
"address the repeated clear failures and obstruction of the
leadership of the Justice Department. The best way to accomplish
this is to do the right thing and submit your resignation," Gonzalez
Then on Oct 14, Sen. Boren wrote to Barr telling him to appoint a
special independent prosecutor:
"A truly independent investigation
is required to determine whether federal crimes were committed in
the government's handling of the BNL case."
Boren went on to say
that both the Justice Department and the CIA had engaged in a
cover-up of the BNL case. The very next day, the CIA released a cable
from its station chief in Rome, which quoted an unidentified source
as charging that high officials in Italy and the United States were
bribed, apparently to keep them from saying what they knew about the
This was followed by a five-day lull in the firestorm surrounding
the Bush administration until the Senate Select Committee began its
investigation into charges that the CIA and the NSA used front
companies to supply Iraq with military hardware and technology in
breach of federal law. Some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary
Committee also called for Barr to appoint an independent prosecutor,
which he again refused to do.
Bush struggled for his political life as special prosecutor Lawrence
Walsh handed down an indictment against former Secretary of Defense
Caspar Weinberger, accusing him of lying to Congress. Sources in
Washington said, "there was pandemonium in the White House."
Weinberger, meanwhile, indicated that he would not play the role of
fall guy for the president According to one source, C. Boyden Gray
told the president that the only course of action open to him was to
So, on Christmas Eve, 1992, Bush pardoned Weinberger and five other
key players in the Iran/Contra scandal: Former national Security
Adviser Robert McFarlane, CIA's Clair George, Duane Clarridge and
Alan Fiers, and former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams.
Walsh was quick to express his anger to the news media.
"demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office-deliberately
abusing the public trust without consequences...The Iran/Contra
cover-up, which has continued for six years, has now been
completed... This office was informed only within the past two
weeks, on Dec. 11, 1992, that President Bush had failed to produce
to investigators his highly relevant contemporaneous notes (the Bush
diary) despite repeated requests for such documents... In the light of
President Bush's own misconduct in withholding his daily diary, we
are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who have
lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations."
Perhaps Walsh did not know what he was up against: nor that the
cover-up had been going for a much longer time than he suspected. The
case of the Israeli agent Ben-Menashe is one in point. The House
October Surprise Task Force did not see fit to call Ben-Menashe as a
witness. Had the committee done so, they would have heard that
Ben-Menashe told "Time" correspondent Rajai Samghabadi about a vast
"off the books" arms trade going on between Israel and Iran back in
During Ben-Menashe's trial in 1989,at which Samghabadi testified for
him, it came out that the story of a huge illicit arms sale by
Israel to Iran was repeatedly offered to "Time" magazine, who
refused to print it, even though it had been substantiated by Bruce
Van Voorst, a former CIA agent working for "Time." Walsh did not
appear to know that the Eastern Liberal Establishment, run by the
Committee of 300, is unconcerned about the law, because, they say
they are the law.
Walsh came up against the same brick wall that Sen. Eugene McCarthy
had run into when he attempted to get William Bundy before his
committee and only got as far as John Foster Dulles. It was not
surprising that Walsh would come up short, especially in going after
Skull and Bonesman. McCarthy had attempted to get Dulles to
testify about certain CIA activities, but Dulles refused to
Will R. James Woolsey, the man appointed by Clinton to run the CIA,
do anything to bring the guilty to justice? Woolsey has credentials
which include membership in the National Security Club, serving
under Henry Kissinger as a National Security Council staffer, and as
Under Secretary of the Navy in the Carter administration. He also
served on numerous commissions and became a close associate of Les Aspin and Albert Gore.
Woolsey has another close friend in Dave McMurdy of the House
Intelligence Committee and also a key Clinton adviser. A lawyer by
profession, Woolsey was a partner in the establishment law firm of
Shae and Gardner, during which time he acted as a foreign agent —
without registering as such with the Senate. Woolsey also long
enjoyed a client-attorney relationship with a top CIA official.
One of Woolsey's most notable clients was Charles Allen, a national
intelligence officer at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
Allen was accused by his boss, William Webster, in an internal
investigation report of the Iran/Contra scandal of hiding evidence.
It seems that Allen never handed over all of his files about
dealings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, ago-between in the Iran/Contra
affair. Webster threatened Allen, who turned to Woolsey for help
saying he had made "a simple mistake."
When Sessions discovered that
Allen was being represented by Woolsey, he dropped the matter.
who were close to the issue say that with Woolsey at the helm of the
CIA, others who were not pardoned by Bush will find an "open door"
Back to Contents