Tweet
The hijacking of a nation, part 1: The foreign agent factor
By Sibel Edmonds
Online Journal Guest Writer
Nov 17, 2006, 00:50
In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America
must be constantly vigilant against "the insidious wiles of foreign
influence . . . since history and experience prove that foreign
influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."
Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican
government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision
making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It
does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated
and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that
come in the form of financial gain and positions of power.
Foreign governments and foreign-owned private interests have long sought
to influence U.S. public policy. Several have accomplished this goal;
those who are able and willing to pay what it takes. Those who buy
themselves a few strategic middlemen, commonly known as pimps, while in
DC circles referred to as foreign registered agents and lobbyists, who
facilitate and bring about desired transactions. These successful
foreign entities have mastered the art of 'covering all the bases' when
it comes to buying influence in Washington, DC. They have the required
recipe down pat: get yourself a few 'Dime a Dozen Generals,' bid high in
the 'former statesmen lobby auction,' and put in your pocket one or two
'ex-congressmen turned lobbyists' who know the ropes when it comes to
pocketing a few dozen who still serve.
The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens
when the active and powerful foreign entities' objectives are in direct
conflict with our nation's objectives and its interests and security;
and when this is the case, who pays the ultimate price and how. There is
no need for assumptions of hypothetical situations to answer these
questions, since throughout recent history we have repeatedly faced the
dire consequences of the hijacking of our foreign and domestic policies
by these so-called foreign agents of foreign influence.
Let's illustrate this with the most important recent case, the
catastrophe endured by our people; the September Eleven terrorist
attacks. Let's observe how certain foreign interests, combined with
their U.S. agents and benefactors, overrode the interests and security
of the entire nation; how thousands of victims and their loved ones were
kicked aside to serve the interests of a few; foreign influence and its
agents.
Senator Graham's Revelation
It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support
network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and
that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional
investigation into that relationship.
In his book, "Intelligence Matters
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/200 4/11/11_401.html> ," Senator Bob
Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi
Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report
that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas
of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence
committees.
Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham's statement
<http://bbsnews.net/bw2003-07-25.html > from the July 24, 2003,
Congressional Record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional
Joint Inquiry into 9/11: "The most serious omission, in my view, is part
4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative
Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages
have almost been entirely censored. . . . The declassified version of
this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed
information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of
the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In
other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided
and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which
took over 3,000 lives."
In his book Graham reveals, "Our investigators found a CIA memo dated
August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible
evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi
government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state,
but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by
one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia." He
then cites another case, "We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close
relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network
that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went
through the Saudi Royal family."
The most explosive revelation in Graham's book is the following
statement with regard to the administration's attitude on page 216: "It
was as if the President's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with
America's safety." Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake
a review of the Riggs Bank records on the terrorists' money trail, to
look at other Saudi companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for
monitoring suspect Saudi interests in the United States; however, Graham
adds: "To my knowledge, none of these investigations have been completed
. . . Nor do we know anything else about what I believe to be a
state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely
undamaged, within the United States."
What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public
statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed 'secrecy and
classification,' is that the classification and cover up of those 27
pages is not about protecting 'U.S. national security, methods of
intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,' but to protect
certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of
certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own
people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically
pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be
identified.
In covering up Saudi Arabia's direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the
9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the Congress and the
Executive Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence
that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their
report ignores all the information provided by government officials to
Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by
other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al
Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and
State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades
of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect
Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest
security threat facing our nation and the world today?
Why is the United States willing to set aside its own security and
interests in order to advance the interests of another state?
How can a government that's been intent upon using the terrorist attacks
to carry out many unjustifiable atrocities, prevent bringing to justice
those who've been established as being directly responsible for it?
More importantly, how is this done in a nation that prides itself as one
that operates under governance of the people, by the people, for the
people?
How did our government bodies, those involved in drafting and
implementing our nation's policies, evolve into this foreign
influence-peddling operation?
In order to answer these questions one must first establish who stands
to lose and who stands to gain by protecting Saudi Arabia from being
exposed and facing consequences for its involvement in terrorist
networks activities. In addition to identifying the nations in question,
we must identify the interests as well as the actors; their agents.
Let's look at Saudi Arabia as one of the successful foreign nations that
have mastered the art of 'covering all the bases' when it comes to
buying and peddling influence in Washington, DC, and identify its hired
'agents' and 'agents by default.'
Foreign Agents by Default
Although when it comes to our complex diplomatic threading with Saudi
Arabia the easiest answer appears to be the 'oil factor,' upon further
inspection the Saudi's influence and role extends into other areas, such
as the Military Industrial Complex and the too familiar Lobbying Games.
According to the report
<http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_ arabia.htm> published by the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) <http://www.fas.org/> , Saudi
Arabia is America's top customer. Since 1990 the U.S. government,
through the Pentagon's arms export program, has arranged for the
delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales
<http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/handbook /WaysandMeans.html> to Saudi
Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to
the Saudi regime through the State Department's direct commercial sales
program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer; a compulsive
buyer of our weaponry. The list of U.S. sellers includes almost all the
major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.
The report by FAS establishes that despite the show of U.S. support
demonstrated by this astounding quantity of arms sales, Saudi Arabia's
human rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department's
2000 Human Rights Report
<http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/20 00/nea/index.cfm?docid=3D817> .
Saudi Arabia's position as a strategic Gulf ally has blinded U.S.
officials into approving a level and quality of arms exports that should
never have been allowed to a non-democratic country with such a poor
human rights record.
Further, there are indications of Saudi's active role as a player in the
nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi
<http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi _arabia.htm> , first secretary at
the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have
sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from
China, supported Pakistan's nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion
to Iraq's nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S.
government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic
missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia's case,
considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic
missiles of any developing country.
The Military Industrial Complex certainly seems to be a winner in having
the congressional report pertaining to the Saudi government's role in
supporting the 9/11 terrorist activities being classified. The exposure
would have meant grounds for U.S. sanctions and retributions; it would
have risked the loss of billions of dollars in revenue from its 'top
customer.' These companies don't even have to officially register as
foreign agents; after all, their strong loyalty and unbreakable bond
with foreign elements exists by default; it is called mutual benefit.
They are 'Foreign Agents by Default.'
This holds true for other parties and players involved within the MIC
network; the contractors and the investors. Let's look at one of these
famous and influential players; another foreign agent even if only by
default; a man who defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the
9/11 victims' family members; a man who happens to be the senior counsel
for the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is
the nation's 10th largest defense contractor with ties to the Saudi
Royal Family, Enron, Global Crossing, among others; James Baker; Papa
Bush's Secretary of State. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Baker
was reportedly
<http://www.democracynow.org/article .pl?sid=3D03/12/08/150250> at a
Carlyle investor conference with members of the Bin Laden family in the
Ritz Carlton in Washington, DC, while Bush Sr. was on the payroll of the
Carlyle group.
The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC-based private equity firm that
employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to
both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor
between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity
investigation <http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx ?aid=3D424>
into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report,
overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received
nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering
the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons
industry, Carlyle's investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy
Baker's far reaching influence within the Pentagon and Congress,
everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this
foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.
The political action committees (PACs) of the biggest defense companies
have given $14.2 million directly to federal candidates since Clinton's
first presidential bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
(CRP) <http://www.crp.org/> . In 1997 alone the defense industry spent
$49.5 million to lobby the nation's decision-makers.
Between 1998 and 2004, for the six-year period, Boeing Company spent
more than $57
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/profi le.aspx?act=3Dclients&year=3D2003&cl=3DL00 0796> million in lobbying. For the same period of time,
Lockheed Martin poured over $55
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/profi le.aspx?act=3Dclients&cl=3DL002072> million into lobbying activities. Northrop Grumman exceeded both
by investing $83
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/profi le.aspx?act=3Dclients&year=3D2003&cl=3DL00 2389> million in lobbying, and based on a report issued by
POGO <http://www.pogo.org/p/contracts/c/co-030611-no rthropgrumman.html>
, it contributed over $4 million to individuals and PACs.
With 'dime a dozen' generals on their boards of directors, numerous
high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the 'K
Street Lobby Quarter,' tens of millions of dollars in campaign
donations, and billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial
Complex surely had all the incentives to act just as foreign agents
would, and fight for their highly valued client; the Saudi Government.
They appear to have had all the reasons to ensure that the report would
not see the light of the day; no matter what the effect on the country,
its security, and its interests.
K Street Lobby Quarter
The fact that Saudi Arabia pours large sums into lobbying firms and
public relations companies with close ties to Congress does not come as
a big surprise. The FARA database <http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara>
under the DOJ website lists Qorvis Communications as one of Saudi
Arabia's registered foreign agents. In 2003, for only a six-month
period, Qorvis received more than $11 million from the Saudi government.
Another firm, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal LLP, another
registered foreign agent, received more than $840,000 for the same
six-month period, and the list goes on. Just for this six-month period
the government of Saudi Arabia paid a total of more than $14 million to
13 lobbying and public relations companies; all registered as foreign
agents.
Why do the Saudis spend nearly $20 million per year in lobbying
activities in the U.S. via their hired agents? What kind of return on
investment are they getting out of the United States Congress?
Let's take Loeffler's group and examine its value for the Saudi
government, since it was paid over $3 million in three years, between
2003 and 2005. The firm was founded by former Republican Congressman Tom
Loeffler <http://www.loefflerllp.com/TLG> of Texas. Loeffler served in
the Republican leadership as deputy whip, and as chief deputy whip
during his third and fourth term. He was a member of the powerful
Appropriations Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Budget
Committee. In the two Bush campaigns for governor, Loeffler, who
contributed $141,000, was the largest donor
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn /A31678-2004May16?language=3Dprinter> . In 1998, he served as national co-chair of the Republican
National Committee's "Team 100" program for donors of $100,000 or more,
and afterwards held the same title during George W. Bush's presidential
campaign. Loeffler's generosity extends to the members of congress as
well. In six years, he has given more than $185,000
<http://www.citizen.org/documents/Bank rollersFinal.pdf> to members of
Congress, 97 percent of it going to only Republican members. During the
same six-year period, Loeffler's firm received more than $18 million
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/p rofile.aspx?act=3Dfirms&year=3D2003&lo=3DL 002074> in lobbying fees.
The firm's managing director happens to be William L. Ball
<http://www.loefflerllp.com/TLG/ourpeople_ 1.asp?id=3D106> . Ball served
as chief of staff to Senators John Tower (R-TX) and Herman Talmadge
(D-GA). In 1985, he joined the Reagan administration as Assistant
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. Later he was assigned to the
White House to serve President Reagan as his chief liaison to the
Congress. Wallace Henderson is also a partner; he was chief counsel and
chief of staff to Representative W. J. Tauzin (R-LA), chief of staff to
U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-LA).
By having foreign agents such as the Loeffler Group, in addition to
their foreign agents by default, the MIC, the Saudis seem to have all
their bases covered. Former secretaries and deputy secretaries with open
access to the current ones, former congressmen and senators who used to
be positioned on strategically valuable committees and know the rules of
the congressional game, and millions of dollars available to be spent
and channeled and re-channeled to various PACs go a long way toward
ensuring results. Money counts. Money is needed to bring in votes.
Professional skills and discretion are required to get this money to
various final destinations. The registered foreign agents, the lobby
groups, are geared for this task. The client is happy in the end; so are
the foreign agents and the congressional actors.
Other Savvy Nations
Of course, the sanction and legitimization of far reaching foreign
influence and strongholds in the U.S., despite the many dire
consequences endured by its citizens, is not limited to the government
of Saudi Arabia. Numerous well-documented cases can be cited for others
such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Israel, to name a few.
I won't get into the details and history of my own case, where the
government invoked the State Secrets Privilege to gag my case and the
Congress in order to 'protect certain sensitive diplomatic relations.'
The country, the foreign influence, in this case was the Republic of
Turkey. The U.S. government did so despite the far reaching consequences
of burying the facts involved, and disregarded the interests and
security of the nation; all to protect a quasi ally engaged in numerous
illegitimate activities within the global terrorist networks, nuclear
black market and narcotics activities; an ally who happens to be another
compulsive and loyal buyer of the Military Industrial Complex; an ally
who happens to be another savvy player in recruiting top U.S. players as
its foreign agents and spending million of dollars per year on the
lobbying groups headed by many 'formers.' Turkey's agent list includes
generals such as Joseph Ralston and Brent Scowcroft, former statesmen
such as William Cohen and Marc Grossman, and of course famous
ex-congressmen such as Bob Livingston and Stephen Solarz. Turkey, too,
seems to have all its bases covered.
Another well-known and documented case involves Pakistan. Over two
decades ago Richard Barlow
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature /2002/01/political_intel.html> ,
an intelligence analyst working for then-Secretary of Defense Dick
Cheney, issued a startling report. After reviewing classified
information from field agents, he had determined that Pakistan, despite
official denials, had built a nuclear bomb. In the March 29, 1993, issue
of the New Yorker
<http://www.newyorker.com/archive/conten t/articles/040119fr_archive02?040119fr_archive02&g t; , Seymour Hersh noted that "even as Barlow began his
digging, some senior State Department officials were worried that too
much investigation would create what Barlow called embarrassment for
Pakistan." Barlow's conclusion was politically inconvenient. A finding
that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a
congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, and it would have
killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad. A few
months later, a Pentagon official downplayed Pakistan's nuclear
capabilities in his testimony to Congress. When Barlow protested to his
superiors, he was fired. A few years later, the Executive Branch would
slap Barlow with the State Secrets Privilege.
As we all now know, Pakistan provided direct nuclear assistance to Iran
and Libya. During the Cold War, the U.S. put up with Pakistani lies and
deception about their nuclear activities, it did not enforce its
restrictions on Pakistan's nuclear program when it counted, and as a
result Pakistan ended up with a U.S.-made nuclear weapons system. Yet
again, after 9/11, the Bush administration issued a waiver ending the
implementation of almost all sanctions on Pakistan because of the
perceived need for Pakistani assistance in the fight against Al Qaeda
and the Taliban, who ironically were brought to power by direct U.S.
support in the 1980s in the first place.
Weiss <http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn =3Dmj04weiss> , in
the May-June 2004 issue of the Bulletin states: "We are essentially back
where we were with Pakistan in the 1980s. It is apparent that it has
engaged in dangerous nuclear mischief with North Korea, Iran, and Libya
(and perhaps others), but thus far without consequences to its
relationship with the United States because of other, overriding foreign
policy considerations -- not the Cold War this time, but the war on
terrorism." He continues: "But now there is a major political
difference. It was one thing for Pakistan, a country with which the
United States has had good relations generally, to follow India and
produce the bomb for itself. It is quite another for Pakistan to help
two-thirds of the "axis of evil" to get the bomb as well."
FARA & LDA
An agent of a 'foreign principal' is defined as any individual or
organization which acts at the order, request, or under the direction or
control of a foreign principal, or whose activities are directed by a
foreign principal who engages in political activities, or acts in a
public relations capacity for a foreign principal, or solicits or
dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign
principal, or represents the interests of a foreign principal before any
agency or official of the U.S. government.
In 1938, in response to the large number of German propaganda agents in
the pre-WWII U.S., the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)
<http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara> was established to ensure that the
American public and its lawmakers know the source of propaganda intended
to sway public opinion, policy, and laws. The act requires every agent
of a foreign principal to register with the Department of Justice and
file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures
on behalf of the foreign principal. Any agent testifying before a
committee of Congress must furnish the committee with a copy of his most
recent registration statement. The agent must keep records of all his
activities and permit the attorney general to inspect them. However, as
is the case with many laws, the act is filled with exemptions and
loopholes that allow minimization of, and in some cases complete escape
from, warranted scrutiny.
There are a number of exemptions. For example, persons whose activities
are of a purely commercial nature or of a religious, academic, and
charitable nature are exempt. Any agent who is engaged in lobbying
activities and is registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act
<http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislati ve/g_three_sections_with_teasers/lobbyingdisc.htm& gt; (LDA) is exempt. The LDA of 1995 was passed after
decades of effort to make the regulation and disclosure of lobbying the
federal government more effective. However, LDA also has serious and
important loopholes and limitations
<http://www.lobbyinginfo.org/laws/p age.cfm?pageid=3D15> that can be
summed up as: Inadequate Disclosure, Inadequate Enforcement, and
Inadequate Regulation of Conduct. The recent congressional scandals make
this point very clear.
In addition, neither act deals with an important issue: Conflict of
Interest. Many of these agents, with their loyalty to the foreign hand
that feeds them, end up being appointed to various positions,
commissions and special envoys by our government. Recall Kissinger and
his appointment to head the 9/11 Commission, and of course the recent
revelation by Woodward on his advisory position to the current White
House. Take a look at Jimmy Baker's current appointment on the Iraq
commission. Same goes for the father of all the 'dime a dozen generals,'
Brent Scowcroft, and one of his new protégés, General Joseph
Ralston. In short, neither FARA nor LDA creates meaningful oversight,
control, or enforcement; neither deals with conflict of interest issues,
and neither provides any deterrence or consequences for unethical or
illegal conduct.
It used to be congressional 'pork projects' and 'corporate influence'
that raised eyebrows now and then; here and there. Gone are those days.
Today the unrestricted and uncontrollable money game and influence
peddling tricks within the major decision-making and policy producing
bodies of the U.S. government have reached new heights; yet, no raised
eyebrows are registered. Sadly, today, a new version of 'The Manchurian
Candidate' would have to be produced as a documentary.
The other day I received a request to sign on to a petition put forth by
a group of 9/11 family members urging the Congress to reopen the
investigations of 9/11 and declassify the infamous 27 pages which deal
with foreign governments, U.S. allies, that provided support for those
who carried out the attacks on our nation. My heart goes out to them. I
do sympathize with them. I am known to take on similar propositions and
methods of activism myself. However, looking at the realities, seeing
what it takes to get things done in Washington, realizing how this beast
works in the Real Sin City, I would encourage them to look at the root
cause, rather than the symptoms. There are only two ways I can see that
can bring about what they have been fighting for and what the majority
of us desire to see in terms of bringing about Truth, Oversight, and
Accountability; Justice.
The family members, and their supporters, us, either have to tackle the
major cause; the corruption of our government officials via unrestricted
and undisciplined 'revolving doors' and 'foreign influence and lobby'
practices, and push for expedient meaningful reforms by the new
ambitious Congress, and have them prove to us their worth. Or, they may
as well give up their long-held integrity, go bid high for one or two
former statesmen, hire a few dime a dozen generals, and buy themselves a
couple of ex-congressmen turned lobbyists; that will do the job.
Copyright © 2006 National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
Information in this release may be freely distributed and published
provided that all such distributions make appropriate attribution to the
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
Sibel Edmonds <http://nswbc.org/nswbc_staff.htm> is the founder and
director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC
<http://nswbc.org/> ). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for
the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported
serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking
of intelligence that had national security implications. After she
reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the
FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court
proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of "State
Secret Privilege"; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and
prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive
re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in
Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and
International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in
Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN
American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First
Amendment Award.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
By Sibel Edmonds
Online Journal Guest Writer
Nov 17, 2006, 00:50
In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America
must be constantly vigilant against "the insidious wiles of foreign
influence . . . since history and experience prove that foreign
influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."
Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican
government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision
making and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It
does so not secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated
and legitimized by highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that
come in the form of financial gain and positions of power.
Foreign governments and foreign-owned private interests have long sought
to influence U.S. public policy. Several have accomplished this goal;
those who are able and willing to pay what it takes. Those who buy
themselves a few strategic middlemen, commonly known as pimps, while in
DC circles referred to as foreign registered agents and lobbyists, who
facilitate and bring about desired transactions. These successful
foreign entities have mastered the art of 'covering all the bases' when
it comes to buying influence in Washington, DC. They have the required
recipe down pat: get yourself a few 'Dime a Dozen Generals,' bid high in
the 'former statesmen lobby auction,' and put in your pocket one or two
'ex-congressmen turned lobbyists' who know the ropes when it comes to
pocketing a few dozen who still serve.
The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens
when the active and powerful foreign entities' objectives are in direct
conflict with our nation's objectives and its interests and security;
and when this is the case, who pays the ultimate price and how. There is
no need for assumptions of hypothetical situations to answer these
questions, since throughout recent history we have repeatedly faced the
dire consequences of the hijacking of our foreign and domestic policies
by these so-called foreign agents of foreign influence.
Let's illustrate this with the most important recent case, the
catastrophe endured by our people; the September Eleven terrorist
attacks. Let's observe how certain foreign interests, combined with
their U.S. agents and benefactors, overrode the interests and security
of the entire nation; how thousands of victims and their loved ones were
kicked aside to serve the interests of a few; foreign influence and its
agents.
Senator Graham's Revelation
It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support
network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and
that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional
investigation into that relationship.
In his book, "Intelligence Matters
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/200 4/11/11_401.html> ," Senator Bob
Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi
Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report
that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas
of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence
committees.
Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham's statement
<http://bbsnews.net/bw2003-07-25.html > from the July 24, 2003,
Congressional Record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional
Joint Inquiry into 9/11: "The most serious omission, in my view, is part
4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative
Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages
have almost been entirely censored. . . . The declassified version of
this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed
information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of
the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In
other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided
and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which
took over 3,000 lives."
In his book Graham reveals, "Our investigators found a CIA memo dated
August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible
evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi
government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state,
but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by
one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia." He
then cites another case, "We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close
relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network
that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went
through the Saudi Royal family."
The most explosive revelation in Graham's book is the following
statement with regard to the administration's attitude on page 216: "It
was as if the President's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with
America's safety." Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake
a review of the Riggs Bank records on the terrorists' money trail, to
look at other Saudi companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for
monitoring suspect Saudi interests in the United States; however, Graham
adds: "To my knowledge, none of these investigations have been completed
. . . Nor do we know anything else about what I believe to be a
state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely
undamaged, within the United States."
What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public
statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed 'secrecy and
classification,' is that the classification and cover up of those 27
pages is not about protecting 'U.S. national security, methods of
intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,' but to protect
certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of
certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own
people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically
pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be
identified.
In covering up Saudi Arabia's direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the
9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the Congress and the
Executive Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence
that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their
report ignores all the information provided by government officials to
Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by
other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al
Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and
State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades
of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect
Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest
security threat facing our nation and the world today?
Why is the United States willing to set aside its own security and
interests in order to advance the interests of another state?
How can a government that's been intent upon using the terrorist attacks
to carry out many unjustifiable atrocities, prevent bringing to justice
those who've been established as being directly responsible for it?
More importantly, how is this done in a nation that prides itself as one
that operates under governance of the people, by the people, for the
people?
How did our government bodies, those involved in drafting and
implementing our nation's policies, evolve into this foreign
influence-peddling operation?
In order to answer these questions one must first establish who stands
to lose and who stands to gain by protecting Saudi Arabia from being
exposed and facing consequences for its involvement in terrorist
networks activities. In addition to identifying the nations in question,
we must identify the interests as well as the actors; their agents.
Let's look at Saudi Arabia as one of the successful foreign nations that
have mastered the art of 'covering all the bases' when it comes to
buying and peddling influence in Washington, DC, and identify its hired
'agents' and 'agents by default.'
Foreign Agents by Default
Although when it comes to our complex diplomatic threading with Saudi
Arabia the easiest answer appears to be the 'oil factor,' upon further
inspection the Saudi's influence and role extends into other areas, such
as the Military Industrial Complex and the too familiar Lobbying Games.
According to the report
<http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_ arabia.htm> published by the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) <http://www.fas.org/> , Saudi
Arabia is America's top customer. Since 1990 the U.S. government,
through the Pentagon's arms export program, has arranged for the
delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales
<http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/handbook /WaysandMeans.html> to Saudi
Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to
the Saudi regime through the State Department's direct commercial sales
program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer; a compulsive
buyer of our weaponry. The list of U.S. sellers includes almost all the
major players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.
The report by FAS establishes that despite the show of U.S. support
demonstrated by this astounding quantity of arms sales, Saudi Arabia's
human rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department's
2000 Human Rights Report
<http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/20 00/nea/index.cfm?docid=3D817> .
Saudi Arabia's position as a strategic Gulf ally has blinded U.S.
officials into approving a level and quality of arms exports that should
never have been allowed to a non-democratic country with such a poor
human rights record.
Further, there are indications of Saudi's active role as a player in the
nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi
<http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi _arabia.htm> , first secretary at
the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have
sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from
China, supported Pakistan's nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion
to Iraq's nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S.
government vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic
missiles by non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia's case,
considering the fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic
missiles of any developing country.
The Military Industrial Complex certainly seems to be a winner in having
the congressional report pertaining to the Saudi government's role in
supporting the 9/11 terrorist activities being classified. The exposure
would have meant grounds for U.S. sanctions and retributions; it would
have risked the loss of billions of dollars in revenue from its 'top
customer.' These companies don't even have to officially register as
foreign agents; after all, their strong loyalty and unbreakable bond
with foreign elements exists by default; it is called mutual benefit.
They are 'Foreign Agents by Default.'
This holds true for other parties and players involved within the MIC
network; the contractors and the investors. Let's look at one of these
famous and influential players; another foreign agent even if only by
default; a man who defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the
9/11 victims' family members; a man who happens to be the senior counsel
for the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is
the nation's 10th largest defense contractor with ties to the Saudi
Royal Family, Enron, Global Crossing, among others; James Baker; Papa
Bush's Secretary of State. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Baker
was reportedly
<http://www.democracynow.org/article .pl?sid=3D03/12/08/150250> at a
Carlyle investor conference with members of the Bin Laden family in the
Ritz Carlton in Washington, DC, while Bush Sr. was on the payroll of the
Carlyle group.
The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC-based private equity firm that
employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to
both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor
between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity
investigation <http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx ?aid=3D424>
into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report,
overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received
nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering
the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons
industry, Carlyle's investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy
Baker's far reaching influence within the Pentagon and Congress,
everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this
foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.
The political action committees (PACs) of the biggest defense companies
have given $14.2 million directly to federal candidates since Clinton's
first presidential bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
(CRP) <http://www.crp.org/> . In 1997 alone the defense industry spent
$49.5 million to lobby the nation's decision-makers.
Between 1998 and 2004, for the six-year period, Boeing Company spent
more than $57
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/profi le.aspx?act=3Dclients&year=3D2003&cl=3DL00 0796> million in lobbying. For the same period of time,
Lockheed Martin poured over $55
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/profi le.aspx?act=3Dclients&cl=3DL002072> million into lobbying activities. Northrop Grumman exceeded both
by investing $83
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/profi le.aspx?act=3Dclients&year=3D2003&cl=3DL00 2389> million in lobbying, and based on a report issued by
POGO <http://www.pogo.org/p/contracts/c/co-030611-no rthropgrumman.html>
, it contributed over $4 million to individuals and PACs.
With 'dime a dozen' generals on their boards of directors, numerous
high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the 'K
Street Lobby Quarter,' tens of millions of dollars in campaign
donations, and billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial
Complex surely had all the incentives to act just as foreign agents
would, and fight for their highly valued client; the Saudi Government.
They appear to have had all the reasons to ensure that the report would
not see the light of the day; no matter what the effect on the country,
its security, and its interests.
K Street Lobby Quarter
The fact that Saudi Arabia pours large sums into lobbying firms and
public relations companies with close ties to Congress does not come as
a big surprise. The FARA database <http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara>
under the DOJ website lists Qorvis Communications as one of Saudi
Arabia's registered foreign agents. In 2003, for only a six-month
period, Qorvis received more than $11 million from the Saudi government.
Another firm, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal LLP, another
registered foreign agent, received more than $840,000 for the same
six-month period, and the list goes on. Just for this six-month period
the government of Saudi Arabia paid a total of more than $14 million to
13 lobbying and public relations companies; all registered as foreign
agents.
Why do the Saudis spend nearly $20 million per year in lobbying
activities in the U.S. via their hired agents? What kind of return on
investment are they getting out of the United States Congress?
Let's take Loeffler's group and examine its value for the Saudi
government, since it was paid over $3 million in three years, between
2003 and 2005. The firm was founded by former Republican Congressman Tom
Loeffler <http://www.loefflerllp.com/TLG> of Texas. Loeffler served in
the Republican leadership as deputy whip, and as chief deputy whip
during his third and fourth term. He was a member of the powerful
Appropriations Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Budget
Committee. In the two Bush campaigns for governor, Loeffler, who
contributed $141,000, was the largest donor
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn /A31678-2004May16?language=3Dprinter> . In 1998, he served as national co-chair of the Republican
National Committee's "Team 100" program for donors of $100,000 or more,
and afterwards held the same title during George W. Bush's presidential
campaign. Loeffler's generosity extends to the members of congress as
well. In six years, he has given more than $185,000
<http://www.citizen.org/documents/Bank rollersFinal.pdf> to members of
Congress, 97 percent of it going to only Republican members. During the
same six-year period, Loeffler's firm received more than $18 million
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/p rofile.aspx?act=3Dfirms&year=3D2003&lo=3DL 002074> in lobbying fees.
The firm's managing director happens to be William L. Ball
<http://www.loefflerllp.com/TLG/ourpeople_ 1.asp?id=3D106> . Ball served
as chief of staff to Senators John Tower (R-TX) and Herman Talmadge
(D-GA). In 1985, he joined the Reagan administration as Assistant
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. Later he was assigned to the
White House to serve President Reagan as his chief liaison to the
Congress. Wallace Henderson is also a partner; he was chief counsel and
chief of staff to Representative W. J. Tauzin (R-LA), chief of staff to
U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-LA).
By having foreign agents such as the Loeffler Group, in addition to
their foreign agents by default, the MIC, the Saudis seem to have all
their bases covered. Former secretaries and deputy secretaries with open
access to the current ones, former congressmen and senators who used to
be positioned on strategically valuable committees and know the rules of
the congressional game, and millions of dollars available to be spent
and channeled and re-channeled to various PACs go a long way toward
ensuring results. Money counts. Money is needed to bring in votes.
Professional skills and discretion are required to get this money to
various final destinations. The registered foreign agents, the lobby
groups, are geared for this task. The client is happy in the end; so are
the foreign agents and the congressional actors.
Other Savvy Nations
Of course, the sanction and legitimization of far reaching foreign
influence and strongholds in the U.S., despite the many dire
consequences endured by its citizens, is not limited to the government
of Saudi Arabia. Numerous well-documented cases can be cited for others
such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Israel, to name a few.
I won't get into the details and history of my own case, where the
government invoked the State Secrets Privilege to gag my case and the
Congress in order to 'protect certain sensitive diplomatic relations.'
The country, the foreign influence, in this case was the Republic of
Turkey. The U.S. government did so despite the far reaching consequences
of burying the facts involved, and disregarded the interests and
security of the nation; all to protect a quasi ally engaged in numerous
illegitimate activities within the global terrorist networks, nuclear
black market and narcotics activities; an ally who happens to be another
compulsive and loyal buyer of the Military Industrial Complex; an ally
who happens to be another savvy player in recruiting top U.S. players as
its foreign agents and spending million of dollars per year on the
lobbying groups headed by many 'formers.' Turkey's agent list includes
generals such as Joseph Ralston and Brent Scowcroft, former statesmen
such as William Cohen and Marc Grossman, and of course famous
ex-congressmen such as Bob Livingston and Stephen Solarz. Turkey, too,
seems to have all its bases covered.
Another well-known and documented case involves Pakistan. Over two
decades ago Richard Barlow
<http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature /2002/01/political_intel.html> ,
an intelligence analyst working for then-Secretary of Defense Dick
Cheney, issued a startling report. After reviewing classified
information from field agents, he had determined that Pakistan, despite
official denials, had built a nuclear bomb. In the March 29, 1993, issue
of the New Yorker
<http://www.newyorker.com/archive/conten t/articles/040119fr_archive02?040119fr_archive02&g t; , Seymour Hersh noted that "even as Barlow began his
digging, some senior State Department officials were worried that too
much investigation would create what Barlow called embarrassment for
Pakistan." Barlow's conclusion was politically inconvenient. A finding
that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a
congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, and it would have
killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad. A few
months later, a Pentagon official downplayed Pakistan's nuclear
capabilities in his testimony to Congress. When Barlow protested to his
superiors, he was fired. A few years later, the Executive Branch would
slap Barlow with the State Secrets Privilege.
As we all now know, Pakistan provided direct nuclear assistance to Iran
and Libya. During the Cold War, the U.S. put up with Pakistani lies and
deception about their nuclear activities, it did not enforce its
restrictions on Pakistan's nuclear program when it counted, and as a
result Pakistan ended up with a U.S.-made nuclear weapons system. Yet
again, after 9/11, the Bush administration issued a waiver ending the
implementation of almost all sanctions on Pakistan because of the
perceived need for Pakistani assistance in the fight against Al Qaeda
and the Taliban, who ironically were brought to power by direct U.S.
support in the 1980s in the first place.
Weiss <http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn =3Dmj04weiss> , in
the May-June 2004 issue of the Bulletin states: "We are essentially back
where we were with Pakistan in the 1980s. It is apparent that it has
engaged in dangerous nuclear mischief with North Korea, Iran, and Libya
(and perhaps others), but thus far without consequences to its
relationship with the United States because of other, overriding foreign
policy considerations -- not the Cold War this time, but the war on
terrorism." He continues: "But now there is a major political
difference. It was one thing for Pakistan, a country with which the
United States has had good relations generally, to follow India and
produce the bomb for itself. It is quite another for Pakistan to help
two-thirds of the "axis of evil" to get the bomb as well."
FARA & LDA
An agent of a 'foreign principal' is defined as any individual or
organization which acts at the order, request, or under the direction or
control of a foreign principal, or whose activities are directed by a
foreign principal who engages in political activities, or acts in a
public relations capacity for a foreign principal, or solicits or
dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign
principal, or represents the interests of a foreign principal before any
agency or official of the U.S. government.
In 1938, in response to the large number of German propaganda agents in
the pre-WWII U.S., the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)
<http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara> was established to ensure that the
American public and its lawmakers know the source of propaganda intended
to sway public opinion, policy, and laws. The act requires every agent
of a foreign principal to register with the Department of Justice and
file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures
on behalf of the foreign principal. Any agent testifying before a
committee of Congress must furnish the committee with a copy of his most
recent registration statement. The agent must keep records of all his
activities and permit the attorney general to inspect them. However, as
is the case with many laws, the act is filled with exemptions and
loopholes that allow minimization of, and in some cases complete escape
from, warranted scrutiny.
There are a number of exemptions. For example, persons whose activities
are of a purely commercial nature or of a religious, academic, and
charitable nature are exempt. Any agent who is engaged in lobbying
activities and is registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act
<http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislati ve/g_three_sections_with_teasers/lobbyingdisc.htm& gt; (LDA) is exempt. The LDA of 1995 was passed after
decades of effort to make the regulation and disclosure of lobbying the
federal government more effective. However, LDA also has serious and
important loopholes and limitations
<http://www.lobbyinginfo.org/laws/p age.cfm?pageid=3D15> that can be
summed up as: Inadequate Disclosure, Inadequate Enforcement, and
Inadequate Regulation of Conduct. The recent congressional scandals make
this point very clear.
In addition, neither act deals with an important issue: Conflict of
Interest. Many of these agents, with their loyalty to the foreign hand
that feeds them, end up being appointed to various positions,
commissions and special envoys by our government. Recall Kissinger and
his appointment to head the 9/11 Commission, and of course the recent
revelation by Woodward on his advisory position to the current White
House. Take a look at Jimmy Baker's current appointment on the Iraq
commission. Same goes for the father of all the 'dime a dozen generals,'
Brent Scowcroft, and one of his new protégés, General Joseph
Ralston. In short, neither FARA nor LDA creates meaningful oversight,
control, or enforcement; neither deals with conflict of interest issues,
and neither provides any deterrence or consequences for unethical or
illegal conduct.
It used to be congressional 'pork projects' and 'corporate influence'
that raised eyebrows now and then; here and there. Gone are those days.
Today the unrestricted and uncontrollable money game and influence
peddling tricks within the major decision-making and policy producing
bodies of the U.S. government have reached new heights; yet, no raised
eyebrows are registered. Sadly, today, a new version of 'The Manchurian
Candidate' would have to be produced as a documentary.
The other day I received a request to sign on to a petition put forth by
a group of 9/11 family members urging the Congress to reopen the
investigations of 9/11 and declassify the infamous 27 pages which deal
with foreign governments, U.S. allies, that provided support for those
who carried out the attacks on our nation. My heart goes out to them. I
do sympathize with them. I am known to take on similar propositions and
methods of activism myself. However, looking at the realities, seeing
what it takes to get things done in Washington, realizing how this beast
works in the Real Sin City, I would encourage them to look at the root
cause, rather than the symptoms. There are only two ways I can see that
can bring about what they have been fighting for and what the majority
of us desire to see in terms of bringing about Truth, Oversight, and
Accountability; Justice.
The family members, and their supporters, us, either have to tackle the
major cause; the corruption of our government officials via unrestricted
and undisciplined 'revolving doors' and 'foreign influence and lobby'
practices, and push for expedient meaningful reforms by the new
ambitious Congress, and have them prove to us their worth. Or, they may
as well give up their long-held integrity, go bid high for one or two
former statesmen, hire a few dime a dozen generals, and buy themselves a
couple of ex-congressmen turned lobbyists; that will do the job.
Copyright © 2006 National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
Information in this release may be freely distributed and published
provided that all such distributions make appropriate attribution to the
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
Sibel Edmonds <http://nswbc.org/nswbc_staff.htm> is the founder and
director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC
<http://nswbc.org/> ). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for
the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported
serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking
of intelligence that had national security implications. After she
reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the
FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court
proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of "State
Secret Privilege"; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and
prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive
re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in
Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and
International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in
Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN
American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First
Amendment Award.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal