The Hijacking of a Nation, Part 1: The Foreign Agent Factor
By Sibel Edmonds
Created Nov 15 2006 - 2:52pm
In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned that America must
be constantly awake against "the insidious wiles of foreign
influence...since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one
of the most baneful foes of republican government."
Today, foreign influence, that most baneful foe of our republican
government, has its tentacles entrenched in almost all major decision making
and policy producing bodies of the U.S. government machine. It does so not
secretly, since its self-serving activities are advocated and legitimized by
highly positioned parties that reap the benefits that come in the form of
financial gain and positions of power.
Foreign governments and foreign-owned private interests have long sought to
influence U.S. public policy. Several have accomplished this goal; those who
are able and willing to pay what it takes. Those who buy themselves a few
strategic middlemen, commonly known as pimps, while in DC circles referred
to as foreign registered agents and lobbyists, who facilitate and bring
about desired transactions. These successful foreign entities have mastered
the art of 'covering all the bases' when it comes to buying influence in
Washington DC. They have the required recipe down pat: get yourself a few
'Dime a Dozen Generals,' bid high in the 'former statesmen lobby auction',
and put in your pocket one or two 'ex-congressmen turned lobbyists' who know
the ropes when it comes to pocketing a few dozen who still serve.
The most important facet of this influence to consider is what happens when
the active and powerful foreign entities' objectives are in direct conflict
with our nation's objectives and its interests and security; and when this
is the case, who pays the ultimate price and how. There is no need for
assumptions of hypothetical situations to answer these questions, since
throughout recent history we have repeatedly faced the dire consequences of
the highjacking of our foreign and domestic policies by these so-called
foreign agents of foreign influence.
Let's illustrate this with the most important recent case, the catastrophe
endured by our people; the September Eleven terrorist attacks. Let's observe
how certain foreign interests, combined with their U.S. agents and
benefactors, overrode the interests and security of the entire nation; how
thousands of victims and their loved ones were kicked aside to serve the
interests of a few; foreign influence and its agents.
Senator Graham's Revelation
It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network
in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush
administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that
relationship.
In his book, "Intelligence Matters [1]," Senator Bob Graham made clear that
some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27
pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from
release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties
in the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham's statement [2] from the July 24,
2003 congressional record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional
Joint Inquiry into 9/11: "The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4
of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding
Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been
entirely censured....The declassified version of this finding tells the
American people that our investigation developed information suggesting
specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers
while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign
government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on
our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives."
In his book Graham reveals, "Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August
2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that
there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On
September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just
discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state
was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia." He then cites another case,
"We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the
terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy;
and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family."
The most explosive revelation in Graham's book is the following statement
with regard to the administration's attitude on page 216: "It was as if the
President's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety."
Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake a review of the Riggs
Bank records on the terrorists' money trail, to look at other Saudi
companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for monitoring suspect Saudi
interests in the United States; however, Graham adds: "To my knowledge, none
of these investigations have been completed...Nor do we know anything else
about what I believe to be a state-sponsored terrorist support network that
still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States."
What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public
statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed 'secrecy and
classification', is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages
is not about protecting 'U.S. national security, methods of intelligence
collection, or ongoing investigations,' but to protect certain U.S. allies.
Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and
their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While
Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries
involved have yet to be identified.
In covering up Saudi Arabia's direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11
Commission goes even a few steps further than the congress and the Executive
Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence that any
government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their report ignores
all the information provided by government officials to Congress, as well as
volumes of published reports and investigations by other nations, regarding
Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda. It completely
disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which
have catalogued the Saudi government's decades of support for Bin Laden and
al-Qaeda.
Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect
Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest security
threat facing our nation and the world today?
Why is the United States willing to set aside its own security and interests
in order to advance the interests of another state?
How can a government that's been intent upon using the terrorist attacks to
carry out many unjustifiable atrocities, prevent bringing to justice those
who've been established as being directly responsible for it?
More importantly, how is this done in a nation that prides itself as one
that operates under governance of the people, by the people, for the people?
How did our government bodies, those involved in drafting and implementing
our nation's policies, evolve into this foreign influence-peddling
operation?
In order to answer these questions one must first establish who stands to
lose and who stands to gain by protecting Saudi Arabia from being exposed
and facing consequences of its involvement in terrorist networks activities.
In addition to identifying the nations in question, we must identify the
interests as well as the actors; their agents. Let's look at Saudi Arabia as
one of the successful foreign nations that have mastered the art of
'covering all the bases' when it comes to buying and peddling influence in
Washington DC, and identify its hired 'agents' and 'agents by default.'
Foreign Agents by Default
Although when it comes to our complex diplomatic threading with Saudi Arabia
the easiest answer appears to be the 'oil factor,' upon further inspection
the Saudi's influence and role extends into other areas, such as the
Military Industrial Complex and the too familiar Lobbying Games.
According to the report [3] published by the Federation of American
Scientists (FAS) [4], Saudi Arabia is America's top customer. Since 1990 the
U.S. government, through the Pentagon's arms export program, has arranged
for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales [5] to
Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to
the Saudi regime through the State Department's direct commercial sales
program. Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer; a compulsive buyer
of our weaponry. The list of U.S. sellers includes almost all the major
players such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.
The report by FAS establishes that despite the show of U.S. support
demonstrated by this astounding quantity of arms sales, Saudi Arabia's human
rights record is extremely poor; see the U.S. State Department's 2000 Human
Rights Report [6]. Saudi Arabia's position as a strategic Gulf ally has
blinded U.S. officials into approving a level and quality of arms exports
that should never have been allowed to a non-democratic country with such a
poor human rights record.
Further, there are indications of Saudi's active role as a player in the
nuclear black-market. According to Mohammed Khilewi [7], first secretary at
the Saudi mission to the United Nations until July 1994, the Saudis have
sought a bomb since 1975; they sought to buy nuclear reactors from China,
supported Pakistan's nuclear program, and contributed $5 billion to Iraq's
nuclear weapons program between 1985 and 1990. While the U.S. government
vocally opposes the development or procurement of ballistic missiles by
non-allies, it has been very quiet in Saudi Arabia's case, considering the
fact that it possesses the longest-range ballistic missiles of any
developing country.
The Military Industrial Complex certainly seems to be a winner in having the
congressional report pertaining to the Saudi government's role in supporting
the 9/11 terrorist activities being classified. The exposure would have
meant grounds for U.S. sanctions and retributions; it would have risked the
loss of billions of dollars in revenue from its 'top customer.' These
companies don't even have to officially register as foreign agents; after
all, their strong loyalty and unbreakable bond with foreign elements exists
by default; it is called mutual benefit. They are 'Foreign Agents by
Default.'
This holds true for other parties and players involved within the MIC
network; the contractors and the investors. Let's look at one of these
famous and influential players; another foreign agent even if only by
default; a man who defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the 9/11
victims' family members; a man who happens to be the senior counsel for the
Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the
nation's 10th largest defense contractor with ties to the Saudi Royal
Family, Enron, Global Crossing, among others; James Baker; Papa Bush's
Secretary of State. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Baker was
reportedly [8] at a Carlyle investor conference with members of the Bin
Laden family in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC, while Bush Sr. was on the
payroll of the Carlyle group.
The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC based private equity firm that employs
numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to both
political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor between 1998
and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity investigation [9] into
Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report, overall,
six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received nearly $14 billion
in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering the fact that Saudi
Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons industry, Carlyle's investment
and its stake, and of course Jimmy Baker's far reaching influence within the
Pentagon and congress, everything seems to come together and fit perfectly
to shield this foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the
American public.
The political action committees (PACs) of the biggest defense companies have
given $14.2 million directly to federal candidates since Clinton's first
presidential bid, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)
[10]. In 1997 alone the defense industry spent $49.5 million to lobby the
nation's decision-makers.
Between 1998 and 2004, for the six-year period, Boeing Company spent more
than $57 [11] million in lobbying. For the same period of time, Lockheed
Martin poured over $55 [12] million into lobbying activities. Northrop
Grumman exceeded both by investing $83 [13] million in lobbying, and based
on a report issued by POGO [14], it contributed over $4 million to
individuals and PACs.
With 'dime a dozen' generals on their boards of directors, numerous
high-powered ex congressmen and senators at their disposal in the 'K Street
Lobby Quarter,' tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations, and
billions of dollars at stake, the Military Industrial Complex surely had all
the incentives to act just as foreign agents would, and fight for their
highly valued client; the Saudi Government. They appear to have had all the
reasons to ensure that the report would not see the light of the day; no
matter what the effect on the country, its security, and its interests.
K Street Lobby Quarter
The fact that Saudi Arabia pours large sums into lobbying firms and public
relations companies with close ties to congress does not come as a big
surprise. The FARA database [15] under the DOJ website lists Qorvis
Communications as one of Saudi Arabia's registered foreign agents. In 2003,
for only a six months period, Qorvis received more than $11 million from the
Saudi government. Another firm, Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosenthal LLP,
another registered foreign agent, received more than $840,000 for the same
six-month period, and the list goes on. Just for this six month period the
government of Saudi Arabia paid a total of more than $14 million to 13
lobbying and public relations companies; all registered as foreign agents.
Why do the Saudis spend nearly $20 million per year in lobbying activities
in the U.S. via their hired agents? What kind of return on investment are
they getting out of the United States Congress?
Let's take Loeffler's group and examine its value for the Saudi government,
since it was paid over $3 million in three years between 2003 and 2005. The
firm was founded by former Republican Congressman Tom Loeffler [16] of
Texas. Loeffler served in the Republican Leadership as Deputy Whip, and as
Chief Deputy Whip during his third and fourth term. He was a member of the
powerful Appropriations Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Budget
Committee. In the two Bush campaigns for governor, Loeffler, who contributed
$141,000, was the largest donor [17]. In 1998, he served as national
co-chair of the Republican National Committee's "Team 100" program for
donors of $100,000 or more, and afterwards held the same title during George
W. Bush's presidential campaign. Loeffler's generosity extends to the
members of congress as well. In 6 years, he has given more than $185,000
[18] to members of congress, 97%% of it going to only Republican members.
During the same six-year period, Loeffler's firm received more than $18
million [19] in lobbying fees.
The firm's managing director happens to be William L. Ball [20]. Ball served
as Chief of Staff to Senators John Tower (R-TX) and Herman Talmadge (D-GA).
In 1985, he joined the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of State
for Legislative Affairs. Later he was assigned to the White House to serve
President Reagan as his chief liaison to the Congress. Wallace Henderson is
also a Partner; he was Chief Counsel and Chief of Staff to Representative W.
J. Tauzin (R-LA), Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-LA).
By having foreign agents such as the Loeffler Group, in addition to their
foreign agents by default, the MIC, the Saudis seem to have all their bases
covered. Former secretaries and deputy secretaries with open access to the
current ones, former congressmen and senators who used to be positioned on
strategically valuable committees and know the rules of the congressional
game, and millions of dollars available to be spent and channeled and
re-channeled to various PACs go a long way toward ensuring results. Money
counts. Money is needed to bring in votes. Professional skills and
discretion are required to get this money to various final destinations. The
registered foreign agents, the lobby groups, are geared for this task. The
client is happy in the end; so are the foreign agents and the congressional
actors.
Other Savvy Nations
Of course, the sanction and legitimization of far reaching foreign influence
and strongholds in the U.S., despite the many dire consequences endured by
its citizens, is not limited to the government of Saudi Arabia. Numerous
well-documented cases can be cited for others such as Turkey, Pakistan, and
Israel, to name a few.
I won't get into the details and history of my own case, where the
government invoked the state secrets privilege to gag my case and the
congress in order to 'protect certain sensitive diplomatic relations.' The
country, the foreign influence, in this case was the Republic of Turkey. The
U.S. government did so despite the far reaching consequences of burying the
facts involved, and disregarded the interests and security of the nation;
all to protect a quasi ally engaged in numerous illegitimate activities
within the global terrorist networks, nuclear black-market and narcotics
activities; an ally who happens to be another compulsive and loyal buyer of
the Military Industrial Complex; an ally who happens to be another savvy
player in recruiting top U.S. players as its foreign agents and spending
million of dollars per year to the lobbying groups headed by many 'formers.'
Turkey's agent list includes generals such as Joseph Ralston and Brent
Scowcroft, former statesmen such as William Cohen and Marc Grossman, and of
course famous ex-congressmen such as Bob Livingston and Stephen Solarz.
Turkey too seems to have all its bases covered.
Another well-known and documented case involves Pakistan. Over two decades
ago Richard Barlow [21] an intelligence analyst working for then-Secretary
of Defense Dick Cheney issued a startling report. After reviewing classified
information from field agents, he had determined that Pakistan, despite
official denials, had built a nuclear bomb. In the March 29, 1993 issue of
New Yorker [22], Seymour Hersh noted that "even as Barlow began his digging,
some senior State Department officials were worried that too much
investigation would create what Barlow called embarrassment for Pakistan."
Barlow's conclusion was politically inconvenient. A finding that Pakistan
possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a congressionally mandated
cutoff of aid to the country, and it would have killed a $1.4-billion sale
of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad. A few months later a Pentagon official
downplayed Pakistan's nuclear capabilities in his testimony to Congress.
When Barlow protested to his superiors, he was fired. A few years later, the
Executive Branch would slap Barlow with the State Secrets Privilege
As we all now know, Pakistan provided direct nuclear assistance to Iran and
Libya. During the Cold War, the U.S. put up with Pakistani lies and
deception about their nuclear activities, it did not enforce its
restrictions on Pakistan's nuclear program when it counted, and as a result
Pakistan ended up with a U.S.-made nuclear weapons system. Yet again, after
9/11, the Bush administration issued a waiver ending the implementation of
almost all sanctions on Pakistan because of the perceived need for Pakistani
assistance in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who ironically
were brought to power by direct U.S. support in the 1980s in the first
place.
Weiss [23], in the May-June 2004 issue of the Bulletin states: "We are
essentially back where we were with Pakistan in the 1980s. It is apparent
that it has engaged in dangerous nuclear mischief with North Korea, Iran,
and Libya (and perhaps others), but thus far without consequences to its
relationship with the United States because of other, overriding foreign
policy considerations--not the Cold War this time, but the war on
terrorism." He continues: "But now there is a major political difference. It
was one thing for Pakistan, a country with which the United States has had
good relations generally, to follow India and produce the bomb for itself.
It is quite another for Pakistan to help two-thirds of the "axis of evil" to
get the bomb as well."
FARA & LDA
An agent of a 'foreign principal' is defined as any individual or
organization which acts at the order, request, or under the direction or
control of a foreign principal, or whose activities are directed by a
foreign principal who engages in political activities, or acts in a public
relations capacity for a foreign principal, or solicits or dispenses any
thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal, or
represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or
official of the U.S. government.
In 1938, in response to the large number of German propaganda agents in the
pre-WWII U.S., Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) [24] was established
to insure that the American public and its lawmakers know the source of
propaganda intended to sway public opinion, policy, and laws. The Act
requires every agent of a foreign principal to register with the Department
of Justice and file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and
expenditures on behalf of the foreign principal. Any agent testifying before
a committee of Congress must furnish the committee with a copy of his most
recent registration statement. The agent must keep records of all his
activities and permit the Attorney General to inspect them. However, as is
the case with many laws, the Act is filled with exemptions and loopholes
that allow minimization of, and in some cases complete escape from,
warranted scrutiny.
There are a number of exemptions. For example, persons whose activities are
of a purely commercial nature or of a religious, academic, and charitable
nature are exempt. Any agent who is engaged in lobbying activities and is
registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act [25] (LDA) is exempt. The LDA
of 1995 was passed after decades of effort to make the regulation and
disclosure of lobbying the federal government more effective. However, LDA
also has serious and important loopholes and limitations [26] that can be
summed up as: Inadequate Disclosure, Inadequate Enforcement, and Inadequate
Regulation of Conduct. The recent congressional scandals make this point
very clear.
In addition, neither act deals with an important issue: Conflict of
Interest. Many of these agents, with their loyalty to the foreign hand that
feeds them, end up being appointed to various positions, commissions and
special envoys by our government. Recall Kissinger and his appointment to
head the 9/11 Commission, and of course the recent revelation by Woodward on
his advisory position to the current White House. Take a look at Jimmy
Baker's current appointment on the Iraq commission. Same goes for the father
of all the 'dime a dozen generals', Brent Scowcroft, and one of his new
prot
