Rumsfield, Chaney, and Wolfowitz decided Bush's course in 1997.

[TossingSalads]

Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but what is bad is that they felt they had to lie to the American public to sell Iraq to them for all the wrong reasons ie, WMD a 911 connection, that they were an imminent threat to us etc. They also did it when they new they would get no opposition as everyone was still out for ARAB blood from 9/11.

In 1997 a group called the PNAC was formed. Project for the New American Century. Check it out for yourselves. I will post some of the stuff from this site, but it is pretty scary stuff. All the players in King Bush's regime were the organizers of the pnac.
These people were hot for a war with Iraq and laid out the reasons in 1997-1998. Some of it makes sense to me, but the fact that they needed to be dishonest with the public on why is what is shady.

http://www.newamericancentury.org

 

[TossingSalads]

Pnac statement of principles

Pnac statement of principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


? we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

 

[TossingSalads]

Letter from Pnac to Gingrich and Lott On Iraq in 1998

Letter from Pnac to Gingrich and Lott On Iraq in 1998

May 29, 1998

The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515-6501

The Honorable Trent Lott
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-208 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510-7010

Dear Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott:

On January 26, we sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our concern that the U.S. policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was failing. The result, we argued, would be that the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War. We recommended a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy: Instead of further, futile efforts to "contain" Saddam, we argued that the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power. The administration has not only rejected this advice but, as we warned, has begun to abandon its own policy of containment.

In February, the Clinton Administration embraced the agreement reached between the UN Secretary Koffi Annan and the Iraqi government on February 23. At the time of the agreement, the administration declared that Saddam had "reversed" himself and agreed to permit the UN inspectors full, unfettered, and unlimited access to all sites in Iraq. The administration also declared that the new organizational arrangements worked out by Mr. Annan and the Iraqis would not hamper in any way the free operation of UNSCOM. Finally, the administration stated that, should Iraq return to a posture of defiance, the international community would be united in support of a swift and punishing military action.

According to the UN weapons inspectors, Iraq has yet to provide a complete account of its programs for developing weapons of mass destruction and has continued to obstruct investigations. Sites opened to the inspectors after the agreement had "undergone extensive evacuation," according to the most recent UNSCOM report. UN weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has also pointed to significant problems in the new reporting arrangements worked out by Annan and the Iraqis, warning that these may have "important implications for the authority of UNSCOM and its chief inspectors." And, in the wake of these "Potemkin Village" inspections, the Iraqi government is now insisting that the inspections process be brought to an end and sanctions lifted - going so far as to threaten the U.S. and its allies should its demands not be met.

In the face of this new challenge from Saddam, however, the President's public response has been only to say that he is "encouraged" by Iraq's compliance with the UN inspections and to begin reducing U.S. military forces in the Gulf region. Unwilling either to adopt policies that would remove Saddam or sustain the credibility of its own policy of containment, the administration has placed us on a path that will inevitably free Saddam Hussein from all effective constraints. Even if the administration is able to block Security Council efforts to lift sanctions on Iraq this year, the massive expansion of the so-called "oil for food" program will have the effect of overturning the sanctions regime. It is now safe to predict that, in a year's time, absent a sharp change in U.S. policy, Saddam will be effectively liberated from constraints that have bound him since the end of the Gulf War seven years ago.

The American people need to be made aware of the consequences of this capitulation to Saddam:


-- We will have suffered an incalculable blow to American leadership and credibility; -- We will have sustained a significant defeat in our worldwide efforts to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Other nations seeking to arm themselves with such weapons will have learned that the U.S. lacks the resolve to resist their efforts;



-- The administration will have unnecessarily put at risk U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, who will be vulnerable to attack by biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons under Saddam Hussein's control; -- Our friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe will soon be subject to forms of intimidation by an Iraqi government bent on dominating the Middle East and its oil reserves; and



-- As a consequence of the administration's failure, those nations living under the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction can be expected to adopt policies of accommodation toward Saddam. This could well make Saddam the driving force of Middle East politics, including on such important matters as the Middle East peace process.


Mr. Speaker and Mr. Lott, during the most recent phase of this crisis, you both took strong stands, stating that the goal of U.S. policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime. And, at the time of the Annan deal, Senator Lott, you pointed out its debilitating weakness and correctly reminded both your colleagues and the nation that "We cannot afford peace at any price."

Now that the administration has failed to provide sound leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq. That responsibility is especially pressing when presidential leadership is lacking or when the administration is pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital American security interests. This is now the case. To Congress's credit, it has passed legislation providing money to help Iraq's democratic opposition and to establish a "Radio Free Iraq." But more needs to be done, and Congress should do whatever is constitutionally appropriate to establish a sound policy toward Iraq.

U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime. To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:


-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;



-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power



Although the Clinton Administration's handling of the crisis with Iraq has left Saddam Hussein in a stronger position that when the crisis began, the reality is that his regime remains vulnerable to the exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable alternative to his rule exists. In short, Saddam's continued rule in Iraq is neither inevitable nor likely if we pursue the policy outlined above in a serious and sustained fashion. If we continue along the present course, however, Saddam will be stronger at home, he will become even more powerful in the region, and we will face the prospect of having to confront him at some later point when the costs to us, our armed forces, and our allies will be even higher. Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott, Congress should adopt the measures necessary to avoid this impending defeat of vital U.S. interests.


Sincerely,

Elliot Abrams William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner

John R. Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz

R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[TossingSalads]

Letter from Pnac to Clinton in 98

Letter from Pnac to Clinton in 98

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein?s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of ?containment? of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq?s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam?s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world?s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[TossingSalads]

Pnac letter to Bush 9/20/91

Pnac letter to Bush 9/20/91

Notice Chaney aRummy and wolfowitz didn't put their name on this one.




September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to ?lead the world to victory? in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for ?a broad and sustained campaign? against the ?terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.? We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, ?go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world? and ?get it by its branch and root.? We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those ?other groups out there that mean us no good? and ?that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.?

In order to carry out this ?first war of the 21st century? successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future ?generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,? we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell?s recent statement that Saddam Hussein ?is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth?.? It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a ?safe zone? in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups ?that mean us no good? and ?that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.? Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America?s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations? aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.


Sincerely,

William Kristol

Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey

Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin

Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs

Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick

Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann

Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski

Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber

 

[TossingSalads]

1998 article from Pnac founder on how to oust Saddam

1998 article from Pnac founder on how to oust Saddam

A Way to Oust Saddam
Robert Kagan
Weekly Standard
September 28, 1998

Seven months after the Clinton administration backed down from its confrontation with Saddam Hussein, the disastrous consequences of that retreat are on full display. Whether or not Saddam makes good on his threat to throw out the U.N. weapons inspectors, he has now enjoyed almost two months without U.N. inspections. What does the administration believe he's been doing with all the free time?

Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has been warning Congress that the day is not far off -- maybe a matter of a few months -- when Saddam will suddenly present the United States and the world with a horrifying fait accompli: He will have his weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. If that day comes, no sanctions, no threat of sanctions, no angry U.N. resolutions, and no threat of "force" will be of any use. Saddam's new weapons would dramatically shift the strategic balance in the Middle East, putting at severe risk the safety of Israel, of moderate Arab states, and of the energy resources on which the United States and its allies depend.

The Clinton administration clearly has no idea how to handle this imminent and devastating threat to American interests. Clinton officials want Americans to believe that winning votes in the U.N. Security Council constitutes a policy for dealing with the Saddam menace. They dismiss Scott Ritter as "clueless." But this Clintonian charade is a mammoth deception that will cause real damage in the world. The unstated but de facto policy of the administration is now this slender hope: If and when Saddam builds his weapons of mass destruction, the United States will still be able to deter him from aggression against his neighbors. This must be mighty comforting to the folks in Jerusalem, Riyadh, and Kuwait City, as well as to anyone else who cares about American credibility and Middle East peace.

It has long been clear that the only way to rid the world of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is to rid Iraq of Saddam. Last week, Paul Wolfowitz, a defense official in the Bush administration, laid out in testimony before Congress a thoughtful and coherent strategy to accomplish that goal.

The Wolfowitz plan calls for the establishment of a "liberated zone" in southern Iraq much like the zone the Bush administration created in the north of the country in 1991. The zone would be a safe haven for opponents of Saddam's regime. They could rally and organize, establish a provisional government there, gain international recognition, and set up a credible alternative to Saddam's dictatorship. Control of the southern zone would give Saddam's opponents a staging area to which discontented Iraqi army units could defect, as well as access to the country's largest oil field. Arab officials have told Wolfowitz that the effect on Saddam's regime would be "devastating." Wolfowitz predicts that the creation of such a zone would lead to "the unraveling of the regime."

Unlike some of the ideas circulating on Capitol Hill, which suppose that Saddam will be toppled without any military action, the Wolfowitz plan rests on a guarantee of military support to protect the opposition within the liberated zone. If, as would be likely, Saddam sent his tanks to wipe out this new threat to his regime, the United States would have to be ready to defend the Iraqi opposition with overwhelming force. The United States could not again stand by while an uprising was crushed by Saddam.

Some on the Hill have been looking for an easy way out of the Iraq crisis, hoping that a few million dollars for the Iraqi opposition will by itself take care of the problem. But any serious effort to oust Saddam must also be backed by U.S. military might.

Republicans and Democrats on the Hill should advance the Wolfowitz plan in two ways. They should continue pressing the administration to support the Iraqi opposition -- with money, weapons, and political recognition. And they should now pass a resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq as part of a strategy of removing Saddam from power.

The administration has proven itself incapable of carrying out a credible policy against Saddam. There is a real alternative to the present charade. Congress ought to let Americans know that.

 

[djv]

I like how they were worried about our allies in the middle east. Who are they. They all would stap us in the back. Israel is a allie but they to will do what ever is in there best interest. We never been able to stop them yet. And boy does it cost us tons of money every year to Israel. And every time we side with them and can't get them to give alittle bit. We grow the haters of the U S in the Middle East. So we get it from both ends. And the Iraq war wont fix any of that.

 

[TossingSalads]

Long but interesting read on KING George the first ties with the Bin Ladens

Long but interesting read on KING George the first ties with the Bin Ladens

The ex-presidents' club

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger
Wednesday October 31, 2001
The Guardian

It is hard to imagine an address closer to the heart of American power. The offices of the Carlyle Group are on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, midway between the White House and the Capitol building, and within a stone's throw of the headquarters of the FBI and numerous government departments. The address reflects Carlyle's position at the very centre of the Washington establishment, but amid the frenetic politicking that has occupied the higher reaches of that world in recent weeks, few have paid it much attention. Elsewhere, few have even heard of it.
This is exactly the way Carlyle likes it. For 14 years now, with almost no publicity, the company has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians - including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defence firms.

But since the start of the "war on terrorism", the firm - unofficially valued at $3.5bn - has taken on an added significance. Carlyle has become the thread which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least the current president's father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden.

The closest the Carlyle Group has previously come to public attention was last May, when a Seoul-based employee called Peter Chung was forced to resign from his ?100,000-a-year job after sending an email to friends - subsequently forwarded to thousands of others - boasting of his plans to "**** every hot chick in Korea over the next two years". The more business-oriented activities of Carlyle's staff have been conducted much more quietly: since it was founded in 1987 by David Rubenstein, a policy assistant in Jimmy Carter's administration, and two lawyer friends, the firm has been dispatching an array of former world leaders on a series of strategic networking trips.

Last year, George Bush Sr and John Major travelled to Riyadh to talk with senior Saudi businessmen. In September 2000, Carlyle hired speakers including Colin Powell and AOL Time Warner chair Steve Case to address an extravagant party at Washington's Monarch Hotel. Months later, Major joined James Baker for a function at the Lanesborough Hotel in London, to explain the Florida election controversy to the wealthy attendees.

We can assume that Carlyle pays well. Neither Major's office nor Carlyle will confirm the details of his salary as European chairman - an appointment announced shortly before he left the House of Commons after the election - but we know, for the purposes of comparison, that he is paid ?105,000 for 28 days' work a year for an unrelated non-executive directorship. Bush gives speeches for the company and is paid with stakes in the firm's investments, believed to be worth at least $80,000 per appearance. The benefits have attracted political stars from around the world: former Philippines president Fidel Ramos is an adviser, as is former Thai premier Anand Panyarachun - as well as former Bundesbank president Karl Otto Pohl, and Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the SEC, the US stock market regulator.

Carlyle partners, who include Baker and the firm's chairman, Frank Carlucci - Ronald Reagan's defence secretary and a former deputy director of the CIA - own stakes that would be worth $180m each if each partner owned an equal slice. As in many areas of its work, though, Carlyle is not obliged to reveal the details, and chooses not to.

Among the defence firms which benefit from Carlyle's success is United Defense, a Virginia-based contractor which makes vertical missile launch systems currently on board US Navy ships in the Arabian sea, as well as a range of other weapons delivery systems and combat vehicles. Carlyle's other holdings span an improbable range, taking in the French newspaper Le Figaro and the company which bottles Dr Pepper.

"They are big, and they are quiet," says David Mulholland, business editor of Jane's Defence Weekly. "But they're not easy to get information out of, [but] United Defense are going to do well [in the current conflict]." United also owns Bofors, a Swedish munitions manufacturer.

Carlyle has said that it does not lobby the federal government, thus avoiding a conflict of interest when, for example, Carlucci met Rumsfeld in February when several important defence contracts were under consideration. But critics see that as a matter of definition.

"It should be a deep cause for concern that a closely held company like Carlyle can simultaneously have directors and advisers that are doing business and making money and also advising the president of the United States," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit-making Washington think-tank. "The problem comes when private business and public policy blend together. What hat is former president Bush wearing when he tells Crown Prince Abdullah not to worry about US policy in the Middle East? What hat does he use when he deals with South Korea, and causes policy changes there? Or when James Baker helps argue the presidential election in the younger Bush's favour? It's a kitchen-cabinet situation, and the informality involved is precisely a mark of Carlyle's success."

The world of private equity is an inherently secretive one. Firms such as Carlyle make most of their money buying firms which are not publicly traded, overhauling them and selling them at a profit, so the process by which likely targets are evaluated is much more confidential than on the open market. "These firms certainly don't go out of their way to get into the headlines," says Steven Bell, chief economist at Deutsche Asset Management. "They'd rather make a splash in Institutional Pensions Week. The aim is to realise very high returns for your investors while exerting a high degree of control over the company. You don't want to get into the headlines when you force the management to fire a director."

The process has worked wonders at United, and this month the firm announced plans to go public, giving Carlyle the chance to cash in its investment.

But what sets Carlyle apart is the way it has exploited its political contacts. When Carlucci arrived there in 1989, he brought with him a phalanx of former subordinates from the CIA and the Pentagon, and an awareness of the scale of business a company like Carlyle could do in the corridors and steak-houses of Washington. In a decade and a half, the firm has been able to realise a 34% rate of return on its investments, and now claims to be the largest private equity firm in the world. Success brought more investors, including the international financier George Soros and, in 1995, the wealthy Saudi Binladin family, who insist they long ago severed all links with their notorious relative. The first president Bush is understood to have visited the Binladins in Saudi Arabia twice on the firm's behalf.

The Carlyle Group does not employ anyone at its Washington headquarters to deal with the press. Inquiries about the links with the Binladins (as most of the family choose to spell their name) are instead referred to someone outside the company, on condition he is referred to only as "a source familiar with the relationship". This source says: "I can confirm the fact that any Binladin Group investment in Carlyle has been terminated or is being terminated. It amounted to a $2m investment in the Carlyle II Fund, which was anyway a very small portion of a $1.3bn fund. In the scheme of the investments and in the scheme of the business of either party it was very small. We have to get this into perspective. But I think there was a sense that there were questions being raised and some controversy, and for such a small amount of money it was something that we wanted to put behind us. It was just a business decision."

But if the Binladins' connection to the Carlyle Group lasted no more than six years, the current President Bush's own links to the firm go far deeper. In 1990, he was appointed to the board of one of Carlyle's first purchases, an airline food business called Caterair, which they eventually sold at a loss. He left the board in 1992, later to become Governor of Texas. Shortly thereafter, he was responsible for appointing several members of the board which controlled the investment of Texas teachers' pension funds. A few years later, the board decided to invest $100m of public money in the Carlyle Group. The firm's magic touch was already bringing results. Today, it is proving as fruitful as ever.

 

[TossingSalads]

All about the oil?

All about the oil?

No it was also about defense contracts that the President and clan would benefit from. Aka Haliburton and Carlyle



http://truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53

 

[TossingSalads]

This is one of my favorite web pages,

http://www.geocities.com/francis_uy/halliburton.html



Lots of fun conspiracy ties. Shows how all of the Big 4 benefit financially from the war,


Make sure you click on the links on that site.





Just remember blind faith in this president is going to cost a lot of lives and make these guys filthy rich. Can all of this stuff be coincidences?

 

[TossingSalads]

How the Pentagon Learned to Love the Weapon No One Wanted
The Carlyle Connection
by Geoffrey Gray
May 1 - 7, 2002

rank Carlucci never trained much as a salesman. The former CIA spook turned Reagan defense secretary has been working as chairman for the Carlyle Group, the nation's 11th largest military contractor, and for the last five years, he's been championing the the production of 482 Crusader armored vehicles, over $11.2 billion dollars' worth of self-propelled Howitzer firepower.

He might as well have been going door-to-door with vacuum cleaners. Nobody seemed to want the damn things. They were bulky, outdated, expensive. "It looks like it's too heavy; it's not lethal enough," Bush said during a 2000 campaign debate. "There's going to be a lot of programs that aren't going to fit into the strategic plan for a long-term change of our military."

What a difference a war can make.

Late this March, as part of the post-9-11 military buildup, Donald Rumsfeld gave United Defense, Carlyle's subsidiary, the full monty: over $470 million to continue development on the problem-riddled Crusaders, puzzling some military analysts.

"The Crusader has been the GAO's poster child for bad weapons development," says Eric Miller, an analyst who watches defense for the Project on Government Oversight. "Influence is tough to measure, but it's certainly had a friend somewhere."

Make that a very close friend. Two internal Defense Department documents?letters between Carlyle and Rumsfeld?recently made available to the Voice show the intimate relationship between the Bush administration and the Carlyle Group.

"Dear Don," reads the first note, dated February 15, 2001, and signed by Carlucci on Carlyle stationery. "Thanks for the lunch last Friday. It was great seeing you in such good spirits even if you are 'all alone.' "

Rummy, all alone? The Defense Department declined to comment on that one. A spokesman for the Carlyle Group, Chris Ullman, explains that 'all alone' simply means Rumsfeld, fresh in office, felt overwhelmed by the duties of his new job. He invited Carlucci over to the Pentagon for advice?not as a Carlyle chairman, but as a former public servant?along with William Perry, former Clinton defense secretary. The letter, Ullman says, should not have been printed on Carlyle stationary. "It was an oversight."

Still, Judicial Watch, the right-wing group that got the memos through a Freedom of Information Act request, says the connection between the Pentagon and the Carlyle Group ?whose advisers include the first president Bush?creates the "appearance of conflict" and violate the public's trust.

"Under normal circumstances, it would be advisable for Rumsfeld to meet with his former secretaries to talk shop," says the group's president, Tom Fitton. "But when [you're] working for a defense contractor, it's probably not a good idea."

The letter indicates they intended to continue chatting. It continues: "We thought it useful to follow up on our discussions on the need for reductions in the infrastructure of the Department [of Defense] and how that might best be done. . . . We would be pleased to introduce to you, or to whomever you might designate, the Commissioners who put this effort together. Best Regards . . . "

Located a few long blocks from the White House, Carlyle has been called the world's most powerful private equity firm. But since September 11, the company has been having a little PR problem, not least because it once had both Bush and bin Laden family money?though not Osama's.

Carlyle's front men tend to come from the dark, Bushy corners of the Republican party?like the president's Florida consigliere, James "the Velvet Hammer" Baker, and former White House budget chief Dick Darman. Their staff is like a fantasy camp for former world dignitaries and international policy wonks.

On the roster of retirees: head of the FCC William Kennard; head of the SEC Arthur Levitt; treasurer and chief investment officer of the World Bank and husband of Bush biographer Afsaneh Beschloss; former Brit prime minister John Major; and former Philippines prez Fidel Ramos.

These bigs do business in 55 countries and specialize in investing in private sectors heavily affected by government change. Which, in simple terms, means they buy smaller companies in areas where they can predict public policy, then sell them for bigger profits.

First in a string of high-profile recruits, Carlucci joined Carlyle in 1989, giving the company an inside edge on the Pentagon's $150 billion Pentagon defense-spending feast. With yearly receipts that topped $1 billion, he also showed company founders the wisdom of having a former cabinet member at the head of the table.

But what people misunderstand about Carlyle, co-founder David Rubenstein told Fortune magazine last month, is that his celebrity staff does less than people think, and whatever the public may be speculating?e.g., global-domination conspiracy stuff?is just not true.

"We don't lobby government," he said?and by law, even if the company did, it wouldn't be illegal. Carlucci, who has been out of office long enough to work as a lobbyist if he wanted to, told Fortune he had been "particularly cautious" not to discuss Carlyle business with Rumsfeld. True, the two have become close friends since their Ivy League days together on the Princeton wrestling team, and the defense secretary and his wife, Joyce, often dine at the Carluccis' house, and Rummy occasionally lends Frank and Marsha the keys to their $280,000 ski condo in Taos, New Mexico. Talk of weapons development could easily come up between the two Tigers alums. In the magazine interview, Carlucci insisted it does not.

"I have never mentioned the word Crusader in his presence," he said.

Maybe so, but the letters uncovered by Judicial Watch indicate the chairman might have gotten his foot back inside the Pentagon doors. On April 3, 2001, Rumsfeld replied:

"Dear Frank and Bill:

"There is no question but that we are going to have to tackle the infrastructure issue. What I may do is ask the two of you to come in and meet with some of the key staff folks who are working on those types of things here in the department.

"I will be back in touch with you. Sincerely, R."

 

[TossingSalads]

We helped the Saudis to safe haven

We helped the Saudis to safe haven

Terrorist's Name On Manifest Raises Questions About Saudi Flights After 9/11

List and testimony indicates FBI may have allowed alleged hijacker's kin to leave U.S. with son of Saudi defense minister without questioning them.

by Tom Flocco

WASHINGTON - April 4, 2004 -- Posted 07:45 ET -- TomFlocco.com -- A copy of a previously unpublished manifest, obtained late Thursday night and dated September 15, 2001, provides evidence of a private Boeing-727 Saudi flight from Lexington, Kentucky to London. But the names on the manifest raise serious questions about FBI policies and procedures related to witness identification, criminal investigations and obstruction of justice.

Ahmad A. M. Alhazmi, 20, (Saudi passport no. B805019) is listed on the manifest with Prince Sultan bin Fahad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, 19, (Saudi passport no. 406 A), son of Saudi defense minister Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.

The name Alhazmi and its ties to laundered Riggs Bank cashiers checks may become a subject of interest when National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testifies later this week--especially since young Ahmad Alhazmi has the same last name as Nawaf Alhazmi, one of the terrorists identified as an alleged hijacker of American Airlines flight 77.




The White House had originally asserted that flights evacuating Saudis from the United States after 9/11 never existed, but author Craig Unger--who has written a book about clandestine Bush-Saudi relationships--obtained flight manifest lists which were drawn up by the Saudi embassy.



Besides the Alhazmi list, three other manifests confirm a total of four separate Saudi flights leaving the United States on September 15, 16, 22 and 24, 2001, after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Unger, author of "House of Bush / House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties," has now posted all four manifests online. (http://www.houseofbush.com/files.php)

Alhazmi's associates received continued payments of $3,500. per month from Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of Saudi Crown Prince Bandar bin Sultan who is Ambassador to the United States, according to sources familiar with the financial evidence. (Newsweek, 11-22-2002)

Both Saudis visited President Bush's Texas ranch in late August, 2002--before this news broke--but Americans will never hear Mr. Bush publicly discuss the contents of their conversations, or Bandar and Haifa's signed checks made out to terrorist associates through his uncle's Riggs Bank. 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean negotiated away the important opportunity for personal, public presidential testimony under oath in exchange for Condoleezza Rice's public testimony.

Interestingly, Kean stumbled slightly this morning when Meet the Press host Tim Russert asked him why Bush and Vice-President Cheney were testifying together, and why former President Clinton and Vice-President Gore were not being offered the same opportunity.

Bush and Cheney will not be under oath, allowing joint corroboration of each other's testimony on-the-spot regarding their actions during the key two hour time-line of the actual attacks--thus avoiding possible future perjury charges and/or impeachment proceedings.

Favorable testimony deals notwithstanding, internet controversy continues to rage because the Commission conducts 90 % of its investigation in secret, failing to hear public testimony from boarding gate personnel, cleanup and catering crews with less security scrutiny, air traffic controllers, military pilots in the air on 9/11 and their ordinance crews, Securities & Exchange commissioners who ordered the still-secret "control list" of pre-attack insider trades, and Lockheed-Martin officials who hold the air-traffic system contract--for an explanation as to whether the integrity and control of the doomed jets could have been compromised in any manner.

 

[TossingSalads]

Continued

Continued

Instead, Americans have been forced to accept the politically expedient desire to conclude well before November's election--stampeding the most important investigation since Watergate--to avoid electoral ramifications at the expense of truth, accountability and justice.

Relative of alleged hijacker permitted to leave country without questioning?

During last week's hearing testimony, 9-11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer asked Richard Clarke, former Bush Administration National Coordinator for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council (NSC), "Who gave the final approval for the bin Laden family to leave the country without being interviewed?"

Clarke answered that it could have been the "Inter-Agency Crisis Management Group, but most likely it was the White House Chief of Staff's office or the State Department." [according to this writer's notes / Commission transcripts for March 23 - 24, 2004 should be available soon at http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/index.htm ]

When Roemer asked "why the Saudis were allowed to leave the country, who was on the planes, how many, and why the decision was made," Clarke said the government "feared for their lives...some of them were bin Laden family members, and the Saudi embassy requested their evacuation."

During testimony Clarke told Roemer "I refused to approve the [Saudi] request. I passed it on to [FBI Asst. Director] Dale Watson and the flight was approved....I don't think they were ever interviewed in this country." Only transcripts and/or video would negate Clarke's assertion.

Clarke only mentioned one flight. And it is not known whether the counter-terrorism chief was kept in the dark about the other flights, as Roemer did not mention the now-public manifests. The commission has not revealed publicly whether it knows about Ahmad Alhazmi and Prince Sultan bin Fahad, fueling speculation that an investigation of the young Alhazmi may have been suppressed by the FBI or commission executive director Philip Zelikow who controls the inner-workings of the panel's probe.

Publication of the manifests raises important questions whether Kean's panel ever asked the FBI to produce interview notes or video tape, indicating that absent Watson's public testimony, the White House will never have to reveal potential evidence as to the possibility that the young Alhazmi may be alleged hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi's brother or cousin. If this is so, more questions arise as to why Alhazmi was traveling with the son of the Saudi Minister of Defense and what Alhazmi knew about the attacks.

Dale Watson, who Clarke intimated as the sponsor of the FBI-approved flights and the decision not to interview bin Laden family members and other Saudi royals or citizens, was the former FBI Executive Asst. Director for Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Intelligence.

Watson led controversial investigations of the first World Trade Center attack, Oklahoma City bombing, East Africa Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers bombings, USS Cole bombing, the September 11 attacks and the anthrax attacks, before retiring to assume a position with Booz Allen Hamilton.

The 'non-existent' flight through closed U.S. air space

There are indications that young Ahmad Alhazmi, along with Saudi prince Sultan bin Fahad, and one other young man on the Lexington to London evacuation flight, were among a select few to fly on September 13, 2001, two days after the attacks, when all planes over U.S. air space were grounded--save a few emergency medical and body-part transplant flights, one of which was forced to use a helicopter to comply with the flight ban.

Since the Lexington-London manifest lists a total of only four men of the same reasonably close age range, there is a 3 out of 4 possibility that a man with the same name as one of the alleged hijackers flew with a Saudi royal from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky over closed U.S. air space two days after the attacks.

The special Saudi flight has been termed the "phantom flight from Florida," since Atlanta Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Chris White said "It's not in our logs...it didn't occur." But the Tampa Tribune's multiple sources indicate that very high strings were pulled, raising more questions about the identities of the young Alhazmi and Prince.

Private investigator and former Tampa police department homicide and internal affairs officer Dan Grossi said he was told that clearance for the flight came from the White House. This may confirm Richard Clarke's recent testimony that "most likely it was the White House Chief of Staff's office" who gave the order.

Grossi said the prince's family [Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz] pulled a favor from former President Bush--the only indication that it was Bush 41 who first contacted Bush 43 to get the three men out of Florida. All this, according to the Tampa Tribune.

Tampa University (TU) spokesman George Donaldson refused to offer details but Grossi's fellow bodyguard for the young men, Manuel Perez--a former 29-year FBI counter-terrorism official and bomb technician, said the men arrived in Tampa three weeks earlier to receive tutoring in English. This, according to the Tribune's Kathy Steele--the one who broke this neglected piece of important evidence, adding that one of the three men Grossi was contacted to protect was the son of a Saudi army commander.

Jim Harf, director of TU's international programs, confirmed that one of the three men was the son of Saudi defense minister Prince Sultan [Abdullah bin Abdulaziz], and Lexington police Lt. Mark Barnard confirmed a Saudi relative had asked for help in getting protection for the men in Tampa. Tampa police records list Sultan bin Fahad [bin Abdulaziz] as the one requesting the security detail.

Grossi and Perez said they saw "several private 747s parked on the tarmac with foreign flags on the tails and Arabic lettering on the sides," helping to confirm the authenticity of the Saudi embassy manifests. This, at a time when all U.S. air space was locked down by the United States military under federal orders.

 

[TossingSalads]

continued

continued

The learjet carrying the three young men to Lexington, Kentucky took off from a private Raytheon Corporation hanger. Raytheon is tangled throughout the events surrounding the attacks, not the least of which is the strange death of a Saudi test pilot and two Raytheon test pilots at the Pensacola Naval Air Station.

Interestingly, reporter Dan Hopsicker says the learjet was owned by multimillionaire businessman Wallace J. Hilliard of Naples, Florida, who Hopsicker says owned Huffman Aviation at the Venice Airport since its purchase in 1999--just before State Department officials began to use America's visa program as a tool to allow squadrons of young Arabs into the U.S. to take flying lessons at Huffman. ( Terror Flight School Owner's Plane Seized for Heroin Trafficking and Spooks and Saudi's in Florida - http://www.madcowprod.com/ )

"Wally Hilliard owns the only charter Lear service in Southwest Florida," said a Hopsicker source. "If a Lear was flying that day, it would have been his," raising even more questions.

Curiously, in July, 2000, one of Hilliard's jets was seized by federal agents with more than 30 pounds of heroin onboard at the Orlando Executive Airport. This, at a time when Florida governor Jeb Bush honored Hilliard's operation--Florida Air, Sunrise Airlines and Discover Air--with personal visits and posed for photos with what Hopsicker called the "Discover Air family."

Questions can be raised about Hilliard's operation, which supported a special presidential favor for a Saudi defense minister's son, a Saudi army commander's son, and also their friend--who may have been the relative of an alleged hijacker. Anyone who followed the Afghanistan war knows that the chief product for export by Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization was heroin--another source of funds to support terrorism in America.

Hopsicker said local police collected all the hijacker flight training files from Hilliard's Huffman Aviation School the day after the attacks--detailing information that would have confirmed or denied the flight capabilities of the hijackers and sources of their funding support.

Just five days before the attacks on September 7, Governor Bush signed executive order No. 01-261, declaring the authority "to order members of the Florida National Guard into active service...to support law enforcement and emergency management in the the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters..."

Curiously, according to one local law enforcement official, ?The FBI took all our files, everything.? Then he added, ?they loaded two Ryder trucks right outside that (police station) window, then drove them right onto a [Florida National Guard] C130 military cargo plane at Sarasota airport which flew out with [Governor] Jeb Bush aboard.?

No one knows where the President's brother went with the FBI officials and the hijacker flight training evidence, fueling speculation that both Congress and the 9-11 Commission are hiding something by refusing to call the Florida governor to testify publicly about why he activated the National Guard and what happened to the terrorist's records--documents that should be considered crucial evidence.

Journalist Catherine Arnie posed some interesting questions that the 9-11 Commission should be asking Condoleezza Rice this Thursday: How could our governement have authorized a flight out of the country before they even knew who the perpetrators of the attacks were? Why did the families of the young men "perceive a threat" when it wasn't yet clear on the 13th of September exactly WHO had attacked America or where they were from? (http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=14289)

Arnie said according to a transcript on the State Department website of a statement given by a "senior government official," on September 13 at 5:22 pm, it had not yet been announced that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks when protection was requested for the three young men by Bush 41 and Bush 43.

 

[djv]

This is better then Woodwards book. Much has been out before but not to the point as this is. It has been asked many times about the one flight. And a few times about the second one why they were left to go. Answer has never been given.
And I cant believe that Bush and Cheney need to report to the 9/11 commission holding hands. It's like a babysitting job.

 

[TonyTT]

Tossing,

I often wondered why there was no followup on the story after 9-11 that somebody "shorted" airline and insurance stocks in the days prior to 9-11. I destinctly remember reading in the paper about the Euro regulators contacting the US about those short trades. If your favorite site is indeed accurate....I can see why there was no followup. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the "shorters" knew it was going down.

TT

 

[djv]

TonyTT thats a very good question. I forgot that point. It has gone under the pile due to the war in Iraq. And somebody said it was to do the economy. So much we will never know the truth about. It's easy to catch a guy getting a BJ job. To get your hands around real pros of deception like Cheney is tough. It maybe just one of the reasons he has to go with the president in front of the 9/11 commission.

 

[djv]

TS was just re-reading some of this. Unbeliveable how we dont get the real word so many times.

 

[Fat & Sassy]

Are you all seriously suggesting that the Bush administration conspired to let the nation get attacked??.....

Truly delusional......

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[TossingSalads]

Not at all what I was suggesting. The info that I have linked in this thread if you take the time to read it and put it into context with how hard these guys tried to sell the war with Iraq has to make you think that 9/11 gave them their vehicle to go to war.