Category "Bush League"

Twisted Sisters - Analysis of Lynne Cheney’s ‘Lesbian’ Novel

January 10th, 2005 by Andy in Bush League

“Twisted Sisters” is quite the appropopriate moniker for this wonderfully humorous and insightful analysis of the out-of-print dramatic fiction narrative by none other than Lynne Cheney, wife of America’s Co-President Dick Cheney. This is something else. Can you imagine the sounds from the shrieking gates of hell that is America’s conservative reich-wing media if this wonderful piece of literature had been drafted by, say, Hillary Clinton?

Highly recommended…

Years before she rode into Washington on her white horse, six-shooters loaded with righteous indignation, to clear the varmints out, Mrs. Cheney amused herself by writing fiction. Sadly, most of it has been languishing in obscurity; her novels are out of print, and her official biography at whitehouse.gov, which mentions many of the books she’s written in support of her intellectual-cleansing project, omits any mention of her distinguished career as a novelist. But true devotees of Mrs. Cheney’s work have at least rescued one of her novels from the remainder bin of history.

This would be Sisters, published in 1981 by Signet as part of their New American Century - I’m sorry, New American Library imprint. After disappearing without a trace, the book made headlines briefly when its publishers considered re-issuing it once Cheney rose to her current Olympian heights. Alas, Cheney convinced them to reconsider, claiming the novel was “not her best work.”

Not being familiar with the rest of Mrs. Cheney’s oeuvre I am in no position to judge; however, Mrs. Cheney’s embarrassment probably had more to do with the book’s content than with any imperfections of style or form. Sisters includes a storyline involving a love affair between the protagonist’s sister and her former schoolmarm - a topic hardly liable to endear Mrs. Cheney to the cadre of religious-right fanatics who now own her husband’s miserable carcass.

Actually, the religious right would be no more pleased with the heterosexual plot line. Though decidedly not a lesbian, the novel’s protagonist, Sophie Dymond, is meant to be a thoroughly liberated woman. On her way to becoming the owner of a large publishing empire, Sophie has, among other things, run away from her convent school with an acting troupe, spent several years in a menage a trois with her first husband and her lover, divorced said first husband in order to marry said lover, and become a dedicated user and tireless advocate of contraception.

I say “meant to be” because, though it grieves me to report this, the impression you would get of this novel from reading about it in the papers is woefully inaccurate. Sisters is not, in fact, a “racy” novel. Nor is it, as the blurb writers would have you believe, “the novel of a strong and beautiful woman who broke all the rules of the American frontier.” The most valuable thing this book has to offer us is an answer to an important question: how could a career woman like Lynne Cheney, who has benefited so much from the feminist movement that was an integral part of that “liberal agenda” constantly menacing us from the direction of Massachusetts, allow herself to be made the tool of a radical right-wing movement that seeks to bundle women like her back into the kitchen?

You can see the answer all over Sisters, which acknowledges its debt to feminist scholarship and then proceeds to showcase Lynne Cheney’s extreme discomfort with most of the implications of the feminist movement.

In Sisters, Cheney betrays herself as simultaneously fascinated and threatened by all the aspects of the women’s liberation movement that threatened the system into which she had married. In the end, the ‘bad’ elements of feminism - lesbianism, militancy, solidarity across class and cultural distinctions, and anti-capitalism - are contained and neutralized by the plot, which punishes and silences the sister who was tempted by such things, and rewards the sister who knows that she should demand nothing more than the freedom to realize her own personal (hetero)sexual liberation and professional ambitions.

Read the complete review of Lynn Cheney’s novel here…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/37.html

James Baker’s Double Life

October 20th, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

James Baker’s Double Life
By Naomi Klein

This is another great work by author and journalist Naomi Klein from The Nation. This is a well-researched piece that goes into many more of the strings and connections that are at work behind the international syndicate that is The Bush League.

When President Bush appointed former Secretary of State James Baker III as his envoy on Iraq’s debt on December 5, 2003, he called Baker’s job “a noble mission.” At the time, there was widespread concern about whether Baker’s extensive business dealings in the Middle East would compromise that mission, which is to meet with heads of state and persuade them to forgive the debts owed to them by Iraq. Of particular concern was his relationship with merchant bank and defense contractor the Carlyle Group, where Baker is senior counselor and an equity partner with an estimated $180 million stake.

Until now, there has been no concrete evidence that Baker’s loyalties are split, or that his power as Special Presidential Envoy - an unpaid position - has been used to benefit any of his corporate clients or employers. But according to documents obtained by The Nation, that is precisely what has happened. Carlyle has sought to secure an extraordinary $1 billion investment from the Kuwaiti government, with Baker’s influence as debt envoy being used as a crucial lever.

The secret deal involves a complex transaction to transfer ownership of as much as $57 billion in unpaid Iraqi debts. The debts, now owed to the government of Kuwait, would be assigned to a foundation created and controlled by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle Group, the Albright Group (headed by another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright) and several other well-connected firms. Under the deal, the government of Kuwait would also give the consortium $2 billion up front to invest in a private equity fund devised by the consortium, with half of it going to Carlyle.

The Nation has obtained a copy of the confidential sixty-five-page “Proposal to Assist the Government of Kuwait in Protecting and Realizing Claims Against Iraq,” sent in January from the consortium to Kuwait’s foreign ministry, as well as letters back and forth between the two parties. In a letter dated August 6, 2004, the consortium informed Kuwait’s foreign ministry that the country’s unpaid debts from Iraq “are in imminent jeopardy.” World opinion is turning in favor of debt forgiveness, another letter warned, as evidenced by “President Bush’s appointment…of former Secretary of State James Baker as his envoy to negotiate Iraqi debt relief.” The consortium’s proposal spells out the threat: Not only is Kuwait unlikely to see any of its $30 billion from Iraq in sovereign debt, but the $27 billion in war reparations that Iraq owes to Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion “may well be a casualty of this U.S. [debt relief] effort.”

In the face of this threat, the consortium offers its services. Its roster of former high-level US and European politicians have “personal rapport with the stakeholders in the anticipated negotiations” and are able to “reach key decision-makers in the United Nations and in key capitals,” the proposal states. If Kuwait agrees to transfer the debts to the consortium’s foundation, the consortium will use these personal connections to persuade world leaders that Iraq must “maximize” its debt payments to Kuwait, which would be able to collect the money after ten to fifteen years. And the more the consortium gets Iraq to pay during that period, the more Kuwait collects, with the consortium taking a 5 percent commission or more.

Read the full article here…
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/klein

The Bush Family Fortune

October 2nd, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

The Bush Family Fortune
By James Ridgeway
Mondo Washington

September 28th, 2004

Gramps made nice with some not very nice people in the ’30s

Within the chainsaw-wielding Texas rancher, the blue blood of Connecticut runs deep. But not so many people know that there are a couple of rocks to be turned over in the Bush family history.

Prescott Bush, sometimes described as a progressive Republican senator from Connecticut and often described as the man who looked like he should be president, turns out to have been a creepy front man for industrialists who bankrolled and built the Nazi war machine.
Over the weekend, The Guardian (U.K.) set out in a lengthy story based on files in the National Archives the story of how in the ’30s, young Prescott Bush, with the help of his father, got together with Averill Harriman, son of the railroad scion E.H. Harriman, and set up a company called UBC (Union Banking Corporation). Bush was a founder and director and owned one share, valued at $125. As it turned out, UBC was an American shell company for the Thyssen family interests. The Thyssens were a preeminent German business family that dominated the nation’s iron and steel and coal businesses and were crucial to bankrolling and building the Nazi war machine. UBC was a shell, owned by a Netherlands bank, with anonymous real owners who, on further inspection, turned out to be the Thyssens.

Young Fritz Thyssen was infatuated with Hitler and joined the Nazi party in 1931. When the Nazis were having a hard time, he bailed them out financially. By the late ’30s, along with Harriman’s Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest investment bank, Bush had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal, and U.S. treasury bonds to Germany. In addition, it appears that Bush may have had ties to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company, which during the war used slave labor from the Nazis’ concentration camps. He might also have been involved through the Thyssens in another company that was linked to the chemical giant I.G. Farben, which used slave labor.

There was nothing illegal or even unusual about doing business with the Germans in the ’30s before war broke out; numerous American companies had holdings in Germany during that era. The issue with Prescott Bush is whether he had actually owned shares in the Thyssen enterprise or was just holding them in a shell for the German owners. U.S. investigations never answered the question, and no one ever brought any charges.

John Loftus, a former U.S. attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the ’70s, is working on a novel that relates to some of the material he found about the Bushes. He told The Guardian, “You can’t blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did,bought Nazi stocks,but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today? This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich’s defense industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted.”

Loftus, who is vice chairman of a Holocaust museum in Saint Petersburg, Florida, added, “The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen. At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn’t until the Nazis took over Holland that they realized that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely belie that, it’s absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were.”

——————————————————–

Additional reporting: Laurie Anne Agnese and David Botti

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

How Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitler’s Rise to Power

September 28th, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

How Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitler’s Rise to Power
By Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell
September 25th, 2004

The Guardian U.K.

Rumours of a link between the U.S. first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today’s president

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush’s behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the “Bush/Nazi” connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis’ plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush’s dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush’s business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Tantalising

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler’s efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen’s international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush’s links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen’s American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush’s involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush’s ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that “since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country’s war effort”.

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking. One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush’s father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany’s most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany’s first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany’s economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America’s best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled “Hitler’s Angel Has $3m in US Bank”. UBC’s huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a “secret nest egg” hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC’s business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn’t actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC’s president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: “Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest.”

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen’s Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen’s steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush’s name, and wrote: “Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC,” according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

Red-handed

Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler’s rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen’s partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick’s plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while “American interests” held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH’s involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush’s friend and fellow “bonesman” Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. “The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected,” wrote Knight. “After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors.”

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

“SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939,” says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of “state sovereignty”.

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: “President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton’s signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family.”

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states: “From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented.”

The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: “If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation.”

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer’s book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush’s business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

“You can’t blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?” he said.

“This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich’s defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted,” said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

“The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen,” said Loftus. “At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn’t until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it’s absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were.”

“There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it,” said Loftus. “As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany.”

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. “My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn’t care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks.”

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in “the banking and intelligence communities” and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline “Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush’s Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor”. He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that “the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes”.

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as “traitors to the truth”.

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

Biography

Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story. Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush. Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz. The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would “deal honestly with Prescott Bush’s alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations”.

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages. The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that “a person of less established ethics would have panicked … Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was ‘an unpaid courtesy for a client’ … Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents. Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill.”

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman’s “performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends”.

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that “rumours about the alleged Nazi ‘ties’ of the late Prescott Bush … have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated … Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser.”

However, one of the country’s oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Bush Tried To Install Crony At Florida Election Board

September 4th, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

Bush Tried To Install Crony At Florida Election Board
The Daily Mis-Lead
September 2nd, 2004

President Bush has said “Every registered voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and elections are honest.”[1] But according to a new report, the President is doing all he can to once again rig the election in Florida.

According to the Miami Daily Business Review, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) appointee at the Broward County Board of Elections hired a law firm headed by two close cronies of President Bush to fight any charges against it during the 2004 election.
Specifically, the Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes hired the law firm Blosser & Sayfie.[2] Justin Sayfie “is a former spokesman for Gov. Bush and currently is co-chair of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign in Broward County.” He is also a Bush Ranger (aka. someone who has raised more than $100,000 for the President’s campaign).[3] James Blosser is also “a top fund-raiser for President Bush’s re-election campaign.”[4] Many observers expect the election will be extremely close in Florida and predict it will touch off litigation. County election supervisors and their legal teams could play a key role in deciding the election.

While Snipes has since been forced to fire the law firm,[5] it shows just how far the Bushes are willing to go to throw the Florida election again. Earlier this summer, Jeb Bush attempted to purge thousands of voters from the Florida voting rolls, but was stopped after public pressure overwhelmed the effort.[6] Additionally, Florida GOP operatives are going to naturalization offices to give new immigrants voter registration forms which are already pre-marked to register the voter as a Republican.[7]

Sources:

1. “President Signs Historic Election Reform Legislation into Law,” WhiteHouse.gov, 10/29/02
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1202081&l=53257
2. “Elections Supervisor Rapped for Hiring Lawyers With Bush Ties,” Law.com, 8/30/04
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1202081&l=53258
3. “Top Fundraisers Earn Right to Party,” Los Angeles Times, 8/31/04
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1202081&l=53259
4. “Elections Supervisor Rapped for Hiring Lawyers With Bush Ties,” Law.com, 8/30/04
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1202081&l=53258
5. “Broward elections supervisor fires lawyer over firm’s connection to President Bush,” Sun-Sentinel, 8/28/04
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1202081&l=53260
6. “State ceases felon voting purge,” Miami Herald, 8/14/04
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1202081&l=53261
7. National Public Radio, 7/25/04

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Confessions Of A White House Insider

August 6th, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

Confessions Of A White House Insider
By John F. Dickerson
Time Magazine

January 11th, 2004

A book about Treasury’s Paul O’Neill paints a presidency where ideology and politics rule the day

If anyone would listen to him, Paul O’Neill thought, Dick Cheney would. The two had served together during the Ford Administration, and now as the Treasury Secretary fought a losing battle against another round of tax cuts, he figured that his longtime colleague would give him a hearing.

O’Neill had been preaching that a fiscal crisis was looming and more tax cuts would exacerbate it. But others in the White House saw a chance to capitalize on the historic Republican congressional gains in the 2002 elections. Surely, Cheney would not be so smug. He would hear O’Neill out. In an economic meeting in the Vice President’s office, O’Neill started pitching, describing how the numbers showed that growing budget deficits threatened the economy. Cheney cut him off. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said. O’Neill was too dumbfounded to respond. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms. This is our due.”
A month later, Paul O’Neill was fired, ending the rocky two-year tenure of Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, who became known for his candid statements and the controversies that followed them. Rarely had a person who spoke so freely been embedded so high in an Administration that valued frank public remarks so little.

Now O’Neill is speaking with the same bracing style in a book written by Pulitzer prizewinning journalist Ron Suskind. The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill traces the former Alcoa CEO’s rise and fall through the Administration: from his return to Washington to work for his third President, whom he believed would govern from the sensible center, through O’Neill’s disillusionment, to his firing, executed in a surreal conversation with Cheney, a man he once considered a fellow traveler. Suskind had access not only to O’Neill but also to the saddlebags he took with him when he left town, which included a minute-by-minute accounting of his 23 months in office and 19,000 pages of documents on CD-ROM.

So, what does O’Neill reveal? According to the book, ideology and electoral politics so dominated the domestic-policy process during his tenure that it was often impossible to have a rational exchange of ideas. The incurious President was so opaque on some important issues that top Cabinet officials were left guessing his mind even after face-to-face meetings. Cheney is portrayed as an unstoppable force, unbowed by inconvenient facts as he drives Administration policy toward his goals.

O’Neill’s tone in the book is not angry or sour, though it prompted a tart response from the Administration. “We didn’t listen to him when he was there,” said a top aide. “Why should we now?”

But the book is blunt, and in person O’Neill can be even more so. Discussing the case for the Iraq war in an interview with TIME, O’Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, says the focus was on Saddam from the early days of the Administration. He offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. “In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction,” he told TIME. “There were allegations and assertions by people.

But I’ve been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence.” A top Administration official says of the wmd intelligence: “That information was on a need- to-know basis. He wouldn’t have been in a position to see it.”

From his first meeting with the President, O’Neill found Bush unengaged and inscrutable, an inside account far different from the shiny White House brochure version of an unfailing leader questioning aides with rapid-fire intensity. The two met one-on-one almost every week, but O’Neill says he had trouble divining his boss’s goals and ideas. Bush was a blank slate rarely asking questions or issuing orders, unlike Nixon and Ford, for whom O’Neill also worked. “I wondered from the first, if the President didn’t know the questions to ask,” O’Neill says in the book, “or if he did know and just not want to know the answers? Or did his strategy somehow involve never showing what he thought? But you can ask questions, gather information and not necessarily show your hand. It was strange.” In larger meetings, Bush was similarly walled off. Describing top-level meetings, O’Neill tells Suskind that during the course of his two years the President was “like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people.”

In his interview with TIME, O’Neill winces a little at that quote. He’s worried it’s too stark and now allows that it may just be Bush’s style to keep his advisers always guessing. In Suskind’s book, O’Neill’s assessment of Bush’s executive style is a harsh one: it is portrayed as a failure of leadership. Aides were left to play “blind man’s bluff,” trying to divine Bush’s views on issues like tax policy, global warming and North Korea. Sometimes, O’Neill says, they had to float an idea in the press just to scare a reaction out of him. This led to public humiliation when the President contradicted his top officials, as he did Secretary of State Colin Powell on North Korea and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman on global warming. O’Neill came to believe that this gang of three beleaguered souls,only Powell remains,who shared a more nonideological approach were used for window dressing. We “may have been there, in large part, as cover,” he tells Suskind.

If the President was hard to read, the White House decision-making process was even more mysterious. Each time O’Neill tried to gather data, sift facts and insert them into the system for debate, he would find discussion sheared off before it could get going. He tried to build fiscal restraint into Bush’s tax plan but was thwarted by those who believed, as he says, that “tax cuts were good at any cost.” He was losing debates before they had begun. The President asked for a global-warming plan one minute and then while it was being formulated, announced that he was reversing a campaign pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions and pulling out unceremoniously from the Kyoto global- warming treaty, short-circuiting his aides’ work. The President was “clearly signing on to strong ideological positions that had not been fully thought through,” says O’Neill. As for the appetite for new ideas in the White House, he told Suskind, “that store is closed.”

To grope his way out of the wilderness, O’Neill turned to his old friends from the Ford Administration, Alan Greenspan and Dick Cheney. According to the book, Greenspan agreed with many of his proposals but could not do much from his Delphian perch. When O’Neill sought guidance from the Vice President about how to install a system that would foster vigorous and transparent debate, he got grumbles and silence but little sympathy. Soon O’Neill concluded that his powerful old colleague was rowing in a different direction.”I realized why Dick just nodded along when I said all of this, over and over, and nothing ever changed,” he says in the book. “This is the way Dick likes it.”

Where ideology did not win, electoral politics did. Overruling many of his advisers, the President decided to impose tariffs on imported steel to please voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio.

When the corporate scandals rocked Wall Street, O’Neill and Greenspan devised a plan to make CEOs accountable. Bush went with a more modest plan because “the corporate crowd,” as O’Neill calls it in the book, complained loudly and Bush could not buck that constituency. “The biggest difference between then and now,” O’Neill tells Suskind about his two previous tours in Washington, “is that our group was mostly about evidence and analysis, and Karl (Rove), Dick (Cheney), Karen (Hughes) and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics. It’s a huge distinction.”

A White House that seems to pick an outcome it wants and then marshal the facts to meet it seems very much like one that might decide to remove Saddam Hussein and then tickle the facts to meet its objective. That’s the inescapable conclusion one draws from O’Neill’s description of how Saddam was viewed from Day One. Though O’Neill is careful to compliment the cia for always citing the caveats in its findings, he describes a White House poised to overinterpret intelligence. “From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country,” he tells Suskind. “And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, ‘Fine. Go find me a way to do this.’”

Cheney helped bring O’Neill into the Administration, acting as a shoehorn for O’Neill, who didn’t know the President but trusted the wise counselor beside him. So it was perhaps fitting that Cheney would take O’Neill out. Weeks after Bush had assured O’Neill that rumored staff changes in the economic team did not mean his job was in peril, Cheney called. “Paul, the President has decided to make some changes in the economic team. And you’re part of the change,” he told O’Neill. The bloodless way he was cut loose by his old chum shocked O’Neill, Suskind writes, but what came after was even more shocking. Cheney asked him to announce that it was O’Neill’s decision to leave Washington to return to private life. O’Neill refused, saying “I’m too old to begin telling lies now.”

Suskind’s book,informed by interviews with officials other than O’Neill,is only a partial view of the Bush White House. Bush’s role on key topics like education, stem-cell research and aids funding is not explored. Bush’s role as a military leader after 9/11 is discussed mostly through O’Neill’s effort to stop terrorist funding. Bush comes across as mildly effective and pleased with O’Neill’s work. The book does not try to cover how Bush engaged with his war cabinet during the Afghan conflict or how his leadership skills were deployed in the making of war. On the eve of the Iraq war, however, O’Neill does tell Suskind that he marvels at the President’s conviction in light of what he considers paltry evidence: “With his level of experience, I would not be able to support his level of conviction.”

There is no effort to offer an opposing analysis of O’Neill’s portrayal of his tenure. The book lists his gaffes,he ridiculed Wall Street traders, accused Democrats of being socialists and disparaged business lobbyists who were seeking a tax credit that the President supported,but it portrays these moments as examples of brave truth telling in a town that doesn’t like it. White House aides have a different view: It wasn’t just that O’Neill was impolitic, they say; his statements had real consequences,roiling currency markets and Wall Street. What O’Neill would call rigor, Bush officials say, was an excessive fussiness that led to policy gridlock and sniping within the economic team.

O’Neill says he hopes that straight talk about the broken decision-making process in the White House will highlight the larger political and ideological warfare that has gripped Washington and kept good ideas from becoming law. Perhaps naively or arrogantly, or both, he even believes it may help change the climate. Ask him what he hopes the book will accomplish, and he will talk about Social Security reform in earnest tones: tough choices won’t be made in Washington so long as it shuns honest dialogue, bipartisanship and intellectual thoroughness. O’Neill may not have been cut out for this town, but give him this: he does exhibit the sobriety and devotion to ideas that are supposed to be in vogue in the postironic, post- 9/11 age.

Loyalty is perhaps the most prized quality in the White House. In the book, O’Neill suggests a very dark understanding of what happens to those who don’t show it. “These people are nasty and they have a long memory,” he tells Suskind. But he also believes that by speaking out even in the face of inevitable White House wrath, he can demonstrate loyalty to something he prizes: the truth. “Loyalty to a person and whatever they say or do, that’s the opposite of real loyalty, which is loyalty based on inquiry, and telling someone what you really think and feel,your best estimation of the truth instead of what they want to hear.” That goal is worth the price of retribution, O’Neill says. Plus, as he told Suskind, “I’m an old guy, and I’m rich. And there’s nothing they can do to hurt me.”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The Great Escape: 300 Saudis In 55 Planes

July 4th, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

The Great Escape: 300 Saudis In 55 Planes
By Craig Unger
The New York Times

June 1st, 2004

…new evidence shows that the evacuation involved more than the departure of 142 Saudis on six charter flights that the commission is investigating. According to newly released documents, 160 Saudis left the United States on 55 flights immediately after 9/11 - making a total of about 300 people who left with the apparent approval of the Bush administration, far more than has been reported before.
Americans who think the 9/11 commission is going to answer all the crucial questions about the terrorist attacks are likely to be sorely disappointed - especially if they’re interested in the secret evacuation of Saudis by plane that began just after Sept. 11.

We knew that 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudis. We knew that Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, was behind 9/11. Yet we did not conduct a police-style investigation of the departing Saudis, of whom two dozen were members. of the bin Laden family. That is not to say that they were complicit in the attacks.

Unfortunately, though, we may never know the real story. The investigative panel has already concluded that there is “no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.” But the real point is that there were still some restrictions on American airspace when the Saudi flights began.

In addition, new evidence shows that the evacuation involved more than the departure of 142 Saudis on six charter flights that the commission is investigating. According to newly released documents, 160 Saudis left the United States on 55 flights immediately after 9/11 - making a total of about 300 people who left with the apparent approval of the Bush administration, far more than has been reported before. The records were released by the Department of Homeland Security in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative, nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington.

The vast majority of the newly disclosed flights were commercial airline flights, not charters, often carrying just two or three Saudi passengers. They originated from more than 20 cities, including Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit and Houston. One Saudi Arabian Airlines flight left Kennedy Airport on Sept. 13 with 46 Saudis. The next day, another Saudi Arabian Airlines flight left with 13 Saudis.

The panel has indicated that it has yet to find any evidence that the F.B.I. checked the manifests of departing flights against its terror watch list. The departures of additional Saudis raise more questions for the panel. Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, told The Hill newspaper recently that he took full responsibility for approving some flights. But we don’t know if other Bush administration officials participated in the decision.

The passengers should have been questioned about any links to Osama bin Laden, or his financing. We have long known that some faction of the Saudi elite has helped funnel money to Islamist terrorists - inadvertently at least. Prince Ahmed bin Salman, who has been accused of being an intermediary between Al Qaeda and the House of Saud, boarded one of the evacuation planes in Kentucky. Was he interrogated by the F.B.I. before he left?

If the commission dares to address these issues, it will undoubtedly be accused of politicizing one of the most important national security investigations in American history - in an election year, no less.

But if it does not, it risks something far worse - the betrayal of the thousands of people who lost their lives that day, not to mention millions of others who want the truth.

Craig Unger is the author of “House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties.”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Behind Every Bush There’s A Scandal

July 4th, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

Behind Every Bush There’s A Scandal
By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
The Free Press

February 21, 2004

So, Kevin Phillips’ thesis in his new book American Dynasty, is that the Bush family are long-standing war profiteers, Machiavellians and a WASP clan of financial hustlers. To be fair to the Bush family and to test Phillips’ thesis, the Free Press decided to investigate what a lesser-known Bush brother was up to recently. Neil Bush was our choice, since we figured he would be repentant after his embarrassing involvement as a director of the defunct Silverado Savings and Loan in Denver during the 1980s.
Recall that Neil, as a bank director, had a conflict of interest problem after voting to approve loans totaling $132 million from Silverado to his business partners. His partners, in turn, loaned him hundreds of thousands of dollars, which he only had to pay back if he made a profit. His punishment was banishment from investment banking for life. Of course, he did have that little problem after Silverado. According to the Dayton Daily News, he got a $2 million loan from the Small Business Association and “walked on it.”

Still, how bad could Neil be? He wasn’t orchestrating coups in Florida like brother Jeb; he didn’t lie to the whole world and wage a criminally aggressive wars to steal oil like George W.; and he didn’t benefit from the U.S. Patriot Act like brother Marvin P. Bush, who became a cofounder in Winston Partners, a firm investing in outsourcing offshore information technology (surveillance and spying, for short).

Perhaps Phillips had a point that the family is prone to nepotism, when it turned out that Neil was targeting schools in Florida to buy software from his company, Ignite. First, Florida Governor Jeb Bush made education testing a key component of his administration’s educational policy. Then the Associated Press (AP) exposed that Neil was peddling his test preparation software at $30 per Florida student. Who knows Neil’s motives? He might have just been trying to help deprived inner city children prepare for racially and culturally biased standardized exams.

Shocking revelations about Neil’s business and sex life made headlines last November. According to Neil’s own testimony in his divorce proceedings, he was in a semiconductor manufacturing business deal with the son of former Communist Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Their company, Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation promised to pay Neil $2 million in stock over five years for his work as a consultant and director. Neil admits he didn’t do much consulting or directing, but anonymous women kept coming to his hotel room in Taiwan and Hong Kong, knocking on his door and then having sex with him.

When his wife’s attorney asked him under oath: “Mr. Bush, you have to admit it’s a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door, and open it, and have a woman standing there and have sex with her.” Neil displayed that legendary Bush honesty by admitting, “It was very unusual.”

Neil also admitted that it was “correct” to conclude that he had “. . . absolutely no educational background in semiconductors. . .”

In January, the AP reported that Neil made at least $171,370 in one day by exercising stock options in a small U.S. high-tech firm. Neil claims that “my timing on this transaction was very fortunate” in reference to a July 19, 1999 purchase and quick sale of stock in Kopin Corp. of Taunton, Massachusetts. The sale, coincidentally, came on a day that the company’s stock priced soared after the company announced it had acquired a new Asian client.

Cashing in on a same morning quick stock buy and sell before the market crash is just another example of that blind Bush luck. No insider information here, like that nasty Martha Stewart. Just good old-fashioned Wall Street casino gambling, Texas-style. Bush was mum about whether his stock option came with sex from anonymous women. After all, he’s a family values guy.

Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press (http://freepress.org), a political science professor, and author of numerous articles and books.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

On Bush, Drugs and Hypocrisy

July 3rd, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

On Bush, Drugs and Hypocrisy
By Dr. Bob Fitrakis
The Free Press

April 15, 2004

When President George W. Bush signed the Drug-Free Communities Act in 2002, he asserted, “If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America.” During the 2002 Superbowl, in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush’s Office of National Drug Control Policy aired two TV ads asking the simple question, “Where do terrorists get their money?” The answer: “If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you.”
Many marijuana activists have argued that growing your own weed is counterterrorist activity. Still, this line of thinking concedes Bush’s simple-minded assertion.

The better response to the terrorist money question should be from Friends and Family of Bush (FOBs). The terrorist network responsible for 9/11 was primarily financed by opium profits from the Golden Crescent where Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran come together. The Reagan and Bush administration policy was to allow the opium lords to launder their drug money through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) as long as some of the proceeds went to finance the fight against the Soviet Union. Ironically, all of this is documented in a Senate Report, “The BCCI Affair,” chaired by Senator John Kerry.

The Bush family is close friends with Texas’ Bath brothers. James R. Bath was an investor in George W.’s Arbusto Oil Company. Bath was also an investor in BCCI. The Senate Report also documents that Sheikh Abdullah Bahksh of Saudi Arabia not only held 16% of the stock of Harken Energy, a company that later bought up George W.’s Spectrum 7 oil company, but also was a key investor in BCCI. George H.W. Bush, former director of the CIA, maintained ties with BCCI despite its narcotics trafficking during both the 1970s and 80s.

Legal documents show that James Bath served as the U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, brother of Osama, beginning in 1976, the same year that George the Elder took over the directorship of the CIA.

So, where did the terrorist money come from? The FOBs. A good book on the subject is False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire, by Peter Truell of the Wall Street Journal, and Larry Gurwin, award-winning business reporter. Another resource is Chapter eleven: “Making Afghanistan Safe for Opium” of Alexander Cockburn’s and Jeffrey St. Clair’s Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press.

Cynics might sneer that these connections are pre-1991, when Osama bin Laden broke with his CIA allies. Yet, the Bush family’s relationship with opium runners remains odd. Initially, Bush the Younger’s administration gave Afghanistan’s Taliban $43 million to eradicate opium crops. The fact that the Taliban was harboring Osama and were one of the most repressive regimes on Earth did not sit well with critics.

Following September 11, 2001, however, the Bush administration’s drug policy toward Afghanistan changed dramatically. The UN issued a report documenting continued opium production in Afghanistan and advised the U.S.-led coalition to act quickly to destroy the bumper crop of opium. The UN report determined that: “Afghanistan has been the main source of illicit opium: 70 percent of global illicit opium production in 2000 and up to 90 percent of heroin in European drug markets originated from Afghanistan.”

“The global importance of the ban on opium poppy cultivation and trafficking in Afghanistan is enormous,” concluded the UN report.

Charles R. Smith, writing for NewsMax.com, reported the grumblings from anonymous sources on Capitol Hill in late March 2002 when the Bush administration reversed its policy and decided not to push for the destruction of Afghanistan’s opium crops. The CIA argued that the destruction of the opium crop might destabilize General Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistani government. After all, Americans wouldn’t want that.

Musharraf is everything that Saddam longed to be, but could never accomplish. He’s a military dictator referred to by the American mainstream press as a “self-appointed” president. He has nuclear weapons; he harbors an effective terrorist network including Osama bin Laden and key Al Qaeda figures; he’s responsible for giving North Korea radioactive material to build their nuclear bombs; and despite all of this, he is still a friend of the U.S. and, more importantly, a FOB. By the way, scientists in his government offered Saddam Hussein nuclear material, which the Iraqi leader turned down, according to The New York Times.

Who are we to challenge the CIA? Wasn’t it necessary for them to allow their Contra allies to run cocaine into the United States in the 1980s? Wasn’t it the height of patriotism when they allowed Air America to transport opium into U.S. military bases in the 1960s and 70s? But all that concerned the Cold War, national security and geopolitical strategy.

But what about the President’s own actions in the war against drugs? In 1999, our President has steadfastly maintained that he hadn’t done cocaine in the last seven years, no wait, fifteen years, or possibly since 1974, all reported in Time magazine. As Governor of Texas, he announced that people “need to know that drug use has consequences.” Apparently, bad memory may be one of those consequences. As governor, Bush signed legislation that authorized judges to sentence first-time offenders with less than a gram of cocaine to a maximum 180 days in jail instead of automatic probation.

During the height of the notorious Blowgate scandal, George W. scrambled back to his ancestral home in Columbus, Ohio to proclaim “I’m going to tell people I made mistakes and that I’ve learned from my mistakes.” His mistakes most likely cost him his flight status in the National Guard when he failed to take a medical exam following the military’s adoption of a mandatory drug testing policy.

If hemp activists want to stop the insane and authoritarian War on Drugs, they’ve got to admit their mistakes. The movement’s biggest problem appears to be lack of connections with the CIA, bin Laden, the Bush family and other known terrorists.

Dr. Bob Fitrakis is Senior Editor of The Free Press (http://freepress.org), a political science professor, and author of numerous articles and books.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The Bush Pardons

June 27th, 2004 by Andy in Bush League

The Bush Pardons
By Joe Conason
Salon.com

February 27, 2001

They include a Watergate felon, a Cuban exile terrorist and a Pakistani heroin smuggler. But where was the outrage then?

Hearing all the indignant noise about the Clinton pardons, the average citizen might understandably think that the granting of presidential clemency had never been tainted by campaign contributions, political connections or insider access. That mistaken perception, promoted by lazy journalists and partisan pundits, is being exploited by Republicans on Capitol Hill (who are never, ever influenced by rich donors).
The truth — as anyone who glances back into the history of the first Bush administration can quickly learn — is that Clinton hasn’t done anything that his predecessor didn’t do first and, in some cases, worse.

The widely and justly criticized pardons of Caspar Weinberger and other Iran-Contra defendants by George Herbert Walker Bush should have been just the beginning of that story. Yet, for reasons best known to the incorruptible watchdogs of the Washington press corps, Poppy’s self-interested mercy upon Weinberger instigated no searching examination of the other pardons granted by the departing president. Indeed, the final dozen pardons given by Bush — including the unexplained release of a Pakistani heroin trafficker — received virtually no coverage at all.

The elder Bush delivered a few highly questionable pardons well before his last days in office. The very first of his presidency went to Armand Hammer, the legendary oilman best known for his relationships with Soviet leaders dating back to Lenin. In an investigation that grew out of Watergate, Hammer had pleaded guilty in 1975 to laundering $54,000 in illicit contributions to Nixon’s reelection war chest. By the summer of 1989, when Bush gave Hammer what he wanted, the aging chief of Occidental Petroleum had been pestering government officials on his own behalf for several years.

Considering his original offense, it was ironic that Hammer won what he called the “vindication” of a presidential pardon only months after he poured well over $100,000 into Republican Party coffers, and another $100,000 into the accounts of the Bush-Quayle Inaugural committee. (In author Edward Jay Epstein’s excellent biography of the oilman, there is a photograph of Hammer, his girlfriend and President Bush together at the White House in April 1990. Such visits were perks for members of Bush’s “Team 100,” as the GOP’s most generous donors were known.)

At the time, Hammer’s pardon made news, partly because his request had been turned down by President Reagan several months earlier. But nobody seemed to notice the nexus between the oilman’s generosity to Bush and the new president’s mercy upon Hammer.

The only hint of Hammer’s influence-buying came from former Watergate prosecutor Henry Ruth, who wasn’t consulted by the White House before Hammer’s pardon was granted. “My view of the pardon process is that it should be given only in extraordinary circumstances, and I haven’t heard of any” in Hammer’s case, Ruth told the Los Angeles Times. Ruth thought the undeserved favor had been given only because Hammer was “rich” and “powerful.”

Another intriguing fact went almost unnoticed back then, too. Hammer’s team of attorneys included not only a close friend of Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, but also a very close friend of Bush’s new White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, whose job included passing on pardon requests to the president. The Gray pal hired to help Hammer was a former Reagan Justice Department official named Theodore B. Olson. Now that Olson has been nominated as Bush’s solicitor general, perhaps he will offer insights on the history of presidential pardons during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Surely Olson would testify that campaign contributions and insider influence should have nothing to do with the process.

An even more dubious case than Hammer’s also reached Bush’s desk during the first year of his presidency. In 1989, prominent Cuban-Americans in Florida began agitating for the release of Orlando Bosch, a notorious anti-Castro terrorist then serving a prison term for entering the United States illegally. American intelligence and law enforcement authorities firmly believed that Bosch was responsible for far worse actions, including the 1976 explosion that brought down a Cuban airliner, killing all 76 civilians aboard, although Venezuelan prosecutors had failed to convict him of that terrible crime. There was certainly no question that Bosch was an advocate of terror and had been involved in numerous bombings.

The Justice Department wanted to deport Bosch because, according to the FBI, he had “repeatedly expressed and demonstrated a willingness to cause indiscriminate injury and death.” Freeing Bosch at a time when Washington was condemning terrorism abroad would obviously be hard to explain — had someone asked.

But Miami’s leading Republican contributors and politicians persistently lobbied Bush to free Bosch, insisting that the former pediatrician was really a noble freedom fighter. And in 1990, when Bosch was eventually released and permitted to reside in Florida under an extraordinary deal with the Bush Justice Department, much of the credit went to the alleged mass murderer’s best-connected White House lobbyist — a budding local politician named Jeb Bush. The Bush son who would be elected governor of Florida eight years later had, by 1990, already become wealthy in real estate and other deals with the same Cuban exile businessmen who wanted Bosch to be freed. Among Jeb’s business partners active in the Cuban-American National Foundation, the institutional advocate for Bosch, was one Armando Codina, also a regular GOP donor and activist. (Codina, however, tells Salon that he neither supported the release of Bosch, nor ever lobbied his business partner, Bush, on the issue.) According to the administration’s spokesmen, however, all those personal and financial ties were just a set of happy coincidences. Anyway, nobody in the mainstream media or on Capitol Hill got upset because the president’s son had opened prison doors for an unrepentant terrorist.

Flash forward to the very end of Poppy’s presidency, a few weeks after his Christmas Eve 1992 pardons of Weinberger and the other Iran-Contra defendants. On Jan. 18, 1993, the soon-to-be-former president signed a clemency order freeing Aslam Adam from Butner federal prison in North Carolina. A Pakistani national, Adam had by then served eight years of a 55-year sentence for smuggling $1.5 million worth of heroin into the United States. He wouldn’t have been eligible for parole for another two years.

Stunning as the commutation of Adam’s sentence was, even more bewildering was the lack of press interest or congressional concern about his case. It was mentioned in a single paragraph on an inside page of the Washington Post; the New York Times didn’t cover it at all; and nobody except the Charlotte Observer asked why. There was no further investigation until 1994, when Eric Nadler examined the Adam matter for Rolling Stone. All that Nadler could establish for certain was that Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., a stalwart friend of the Pakistani military regime and its domestic lobbyists, had interceded on Adam’s behalf with the Justice Department and prison officials.

It was worth mentioning, of course, that Bush, a former CIA director, may have had his own occult foreign policy or national security reasons for releasing Adam — but none ever came to light. And no one in Congress or the media ever demanded that Bush explain why he had freed a narcotics trafficker. Adam was sent home to Karachi, where his mother reportedly exclaimed, “God bless Bush! God bless Bush!”

Aside from Weinberger and company, Bush’s few pardons attracted little notice, but several of those he gave were as questionable as the most controversial Clinton pardons: a Watergate felon who donated huge amounts of money to the president and hired well-connected GOP lawyers; a Cuban exile terrorist whose case was advocated by the president’s son and the son’s business partners; and a Pakistani heroin dealer befriended by Jesse Helms.

So if and when Bill Clinton goes up to the Hill to testify on the subject of pardons, then perhaps his predecessor should be invited to discuss the same sore topic. The political influence of money and access is always troubling — but that influence isn’t much different in the pardon process now than when George H.W. Bush exercised those powers. The difference is that today, for reasons that have nothing to do with morality, we are suddenly paying attention.

Joe Conason writes about political issues for Salon News and other publications. For more columns by Conason, visit his column archive.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

« Previous ArticleNext Article »

Search Articles



USTV Recommended Read: