Six Degrees of William Cohen
Jim Robinson
Six Degrees of William Cohen
The American Spectator 01/19/97
Byron York
How many steps does it take to connect the next Defense Secretary to
shady characters and foreign influence-peddling? Not many. You can even
link him to Clinton's Asian money scandals -- but with Cohen, the bigger
scandal is the system that created him.
When Bill Clinton stopped in Thailand during his
post-election tour of the Far East, his hosts turned the visit
into an extravagant photo-op. Thousands of people lined the
streets and threw confetti as the presidential motorcade made
its way through the streets of Bangkok -- past a
billboard-sized picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton. A few hours
later the president and first lady strolled hand-in-hand through
the Royal Palace, taking in the ornate Temple of the Emerald
Buddha and the Hall of Kings. And at a state dinner that
evening they appeared transfixed, as masked dancers
performed elaborate classical Thai dances.
Also at the palace, Clinton attended a ceremony for the
signing of a treaty that regularizes taxation on businesses
operating in both the U.S. and Thailand. In the audience that
day was William Cohen, the departing Republican senator
from Maine who at the time was on the short list to become
Clinton's secretary of defense. The two greeted each other like
old friends, but afterward neither would say much about their
conversation. "He liked my tie," was all Cohen would reveal.
The press was skeptical about Cohen's presence. How did it
come about that Cohen just happened to be in the
neighborhood when Clinton was in Thailand -- at a time when
Cohen was a top contender for a big job in the cabinet? A
spokeswoman for Cohen called it "pure coincidence," saying
the senator's trip had been planned for months. But news
reports implied that Cohen's appearance seemed a bit
contrived and made him look too eager for the job -- which he
nevertheless was offered less than two weeks later.
A check of Cohen's schedule confirms he was indeed in
Thailand on a previously planned trip that also included stops
in Malaysia and Taiwan; he had not traveled halfway around
the world just to kiss up to Bill Clinton. But by focusing on the
cabinet angle, the press corps missed a more interesting story.
Just what was Cohen doing in Asia anyway? Why would a
retiring senator with less than two months left in office -- and
no remaining Senate business to be done -- be jetting around
the globe?
The answer is that Cohen was in the Far East to maintain and
extend a network of lobbyists and international business
interests that he has carefully built during his years on Capitol
Hill. Besides whatever value they may have had to his
performance as a senator, trips like the one in November also
created connections that likely would have helped make
Cohen a rich man after leaving the Senate, had he not been
tapped for secretary of defense. And they will still prove very
lucrative when Cohen eventually does leave government, his
value further enhanced by a stint at the Pentagon. But some of
Cohen's associations raise questions similar to those raised by
the campaign contribution scandal engulfing the Clinton
White House. Even some of the same players are involved. If
we are concerned that outside interests are trying to buy
influence in the administration, shouldn't we also be
concerned about their ties to Cohen?
Travelin' Man
Senate rules forbid lame-duck senators from spending
government funds on foreign travel. According to disclosure
documents on file with the Senate, three outside groups paid
for Cohen's November trip. The Chinese National Association
for Industry and Commerce, a quasi-governmental institution
in Taiwan, paid $5,760 for his trip to Taipei. The Asia Pacific
Policy Center, a Washington-based organization with long ties
to Cohen, paid $1,609 for his trip to Malaysia. And the
U.S.-Thailand Business Council, a group that has played a
prominent role in the Clinton fundraising scandal, paid $2,648
for his trip to Bangkok. In addition, the groups came up with
$8,345 to pay for a Senate aide to travel with Cohen. And they
paid the expenses of senator-elect Susan Collins, the former
Cohen aide who won his seat last November and accompanied
him on the trip to Asia. Beyond that, the Asia Pacific Policy
Center paid for most of Cohen's $7,786 in expenses during a
trip to Malaysia in January 1996, shortly before he announced
he would not seek another term in the Senate. Trips to Korea,
China, Hong Kong, and Malaysia in April 1996 were paid for
with taxpayer dollars.
Each stop on the November trip reveals some curious
connections in Cohen's network. Start with Malaysia.
The reason for Cohen's stop was an event called the "Third
Pacific Dialogue." (Cohen also attended the first two
Dialogues, held in November 1994 and January 1996.)
Sponsored by the Asia Pacific Policy Center, the Dialogue was
a gathering of fifty government and business officials from the
U.S. and the Far East. The purpose, according to a former
official of the Center, was "to bring government and business
types together for a few days of elevated chitchat," free from
the large crowds of major conferences. The meetings -- which
in addition to Cohen featured senators Sam Nunn and Kit
Bond -- were off-limits to the press.
The Asia Pacific Policy Center was established in 1993 by
policy experts who had served at various times in the Reagan
and Bush administrations. "We didn't want to lobby," says a
former official who was involved in the group's founding. "Or
to actually sell anything. We wanted to be serious about
policy." So they decided to establish a tax exempt non-profit
organization they hoped would be supported by U.S.
corporations that would look to the Policy Center for the latest
intelligence on Asia.
Run by Douglas Paal, who served on the National Security
Council during the Republican years, the Policy Center signed
up an impressive roster. Its trustees include former National
Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Defense
Secretary Frank Carlucci. David Brown, a 30-year career State
Department official, is Paal's second in command, and until
mid-1996, the organization included Franklin Lavin, another
former NSC official from the Reagan/Bush years. In addition to
those heavy hitters, the Policy Center also employed Cohen's
son Kevin, who was the group's program director until
September 1994.
At first glance there seems nothing remarkable about Cohen's
involvement with the Center. He attended their events,
occasionally consulted their experts, and they hired his son;
all quite normal by Washington standards. But Cohen has
another tie to the Center, one that raises questions about the
way he does business. It involves his relationship with a man
named Anthony Stout.
Stout is a wealthy, well-connected Republican lobbyist and
businessman who has had what could be generously called a
checkered career. In the 1970's he founded the National
Journal, a highly respected publication that gives its
Washington establishment readers the inside scoop on events
in Congress. Stout also founded something called the
Government Research Corporation, a lobbying firm that
allowed Stout to capitalize on his connections on Capitol Hill.
In 1979, he started a much-ballyhooed venture called
International Reporting and Information Systems. The
company was intended to be a kind of private CIA; in
exchange for very high fees, Stout and a team of former
government analysts would provide clients intelligence on
political developments around the world. By most accounts,
Stout spent freely and mismanaged the operation, and in 1983
the company went bankrupt, $15 million in debt.
A short time later, Stout founded yet another company, this
one called Government Investment Management Corporation.
Usually referred to as GIMCorp, the company charges U.S.
corporations a fee to make the connections they need to
expand into overseas markets. According to one of its
brochures, GIMCorp "has a proven track record of assisting
American and international firms with market entry
strategies...representing companies in negotiations with
foreign governments."
Sometime along the way Stout got to know Cohen. In the
mid-1980's he enlisted Cohen's help -- along with that of
several other senators and congressmen -- to begin his most
troubled venture, the Battle of Normandy Foundation. Stout
raised more than $8 million to build an elaborate memorial to
U.S. troops who participated in the liberation of Europe.
According to a series of investigative reports by the
Washington Times, Stout spent more than 90 percent of the
money on administration, consultants' fees, fundraising,
entertainment, and travel for himself and others in the
foundation. Stout also convinced Cohen and others in the
Senate to sponsor a bill giving $3 million in federal money to
the foundation.
During this same period Cohen seems to have developed a
relationship with GIMCorp. Stout's company paid for Cohen to
travel to London and Paris in March 1989 and again in
November 1990, as well as two other overseas trips. Cohen no
doubt enjoyed Stout's largesse; Stout apparently brought the
same extravagant spending habits to GIMCorp that he had to
the Normandy Foundation. "[Tony] has extremely expensive
tastes," says a source who has worked with Stout. "For him,
there's no sense going to Europe except on the Concorde."
The trips resulted in some bad publicity for Cohen when the
Times revealed them in 1994. After the news came out, Cohen
distanced himself from Stout and told the Portland Press
Herald, "In the interest of removing the slightest suggestion
of impropriety, I will not undertake any further travel that is
sponsored by business interests. I take this step to ensure
that my constituents feel confident of the trust they have
placed in me."
But Cohen's travels to Asia in January and November 1996
raise questions about how faithfully Cohen followed his own
rules. Not only did he accept free trips from outside sources,
including the Asia Pacific Policy Center, it turns out that one
of the major backers of the Center was...Anthony Stout. Stout
helped bankroll the Center when it started in 1993. "He came to
me while I was in government," says Center president Douglas
Paal. "And when I left government he suggested we could do
business together." Stout helped the new Center get on its
feet financially. And he gave it a home, offering to let the
Center move into GIMCorp's offices in a downtown
Washington building.
But it appears that Stout's old free-spending ways created
problems at the Center. "He has no sense that the money
going out should be less than the money coming in," says the
source who was involved in the Center's founding. "He would
come into a meeting and say we need to purchase a jet." Still,
sources say Stout talked a very impressive game -- and he did
have cash to fund the Center. "The first step in the
relationship is 'this guy is great,'" the source says. "The next
step is 'this guy is weird but he does have some money.'"
The source says frictions were exacerbated when press
reports appeared outlining Stout's role in the Normandy
Foundation. Despite that, however, the Center continued to
use Stout's money -- for more than two years after the Times
report outlined Stout's problems. For example, Stout attended
the Pacific Dialogue along with Cohen in January 1996. Today,
Center officials say they have cut off all dealings with Stout.
"We've gone our separate ways," says Center president
Douglas Paal. "Since early '96 we have not had a relationship
with him. We haven't had a word to say to each other." (Stout
did not respond to messages asking for comment.)
But -- at least physically -- the two groups remain close. They
continue to share office space, although Paal says the Center
will move sometime in the future. And they continue to share a
phone system, although Paal says he thought the systems
had been separated. Receptionists tell callers the two
organizations are not connected. But for callers after hours,
the story is different. If one dials the Policy Center and enters
an invalid extension, the automated voice mail system
announces, "You have reached GIMCorp. Our normal office
hours are..." And if one calls the Policy Center and enters
extension 207, the system transfers the caller to Anthony
Stout's office. (See footnote 1.)
Cohen has never been terribly eager to speak publicly about
his relationship with Stout or GIMCorp. Two years ago, he
told the Washington Times that he had discussed Asian
security and trade issues with Stout, but now he won't even
go that far. In response to written questions from TAS, Cohen
said, "I have no relationship with Government Investment
Management Corporation. Mr. Stout is someone I have known
for a number of years." End of answer.
The Thai Connection
The sponsorship of the Thailand leg of Cohen's trip raises an
entirely different set of issues about Cohen's network. The
U.S.-Thailand Business Council was founded in 1994 by Thai
government and business officials who wanted to strengthen
business ties between the two countries. One of the main
movers behind the Council was Pauline Kanchanalak, a
woman from a wealthy Thai family who runs a consulting
business called Ban Chang International, based in
Washington. "She played a formative role in getting it set up,"
says Karl Jackson, the former Republican administration
official who heads the Council. "She's a wonderful person. She
contributes time, is a font of ideas -- I can't say enough in the
way of good about her."
Kanchanalak wanted president Clinton to be involved in the
events marking the Council's opening in late 1994. On
September 30 she called her friend John Huang at his desk in
the Commerce Department. Kanchanalak has told reporters
that they discussed personal matters, but later that day Huang
wrote a memo to his superiors urging the administration to
support the Council. Failing to do so, Huang warned, "could
really damage [Clinton's] personal relationship between him
and Prime Minister Chuan; and the relationship between U.S.
and Thailand if Prime Minister of Thailand cancels his visit to
the U.S."
Huang got his way. On October 6, members of the new
Council met with Clinton at the White House, and U.S. Trade
Representative Mickey Kantor spoke at the inaugural
luncheon. On October 18, Kanchanalak visited Huang at the
Commerce Department. On October 20, she made a $32,500
donation to the Democratic National Committee. Kanchanalak
says there is no connection between the Council events and
the donation. "The incidents took place in such a way that
this has the appearance of impropriety or something sinister,"
she told the Los Angeles Times. "But I can assure you there is
no impropriety."
Kanchanalak's lawyer says she never had a "formal role" in
the Council. William Hou says Kanchanalak knew Huang, but
they were just acquaintances -- like thousands of other people
who knew the Democratic fundraiser. "I knew John," Hou
says. "It would be hard to be politically active and not come
across John." But it turns out Kanchanalak was not just any
donor. The $32,500 contribution was just part of a total of
$253,500 that she gave to the DNC between 1993 and 1996.
The DNC returned the money in late November when it
determined that Kanchanalak was probably not giving her
own money. There have been reports that the cash came from
her mother-in-law in Thailand, but right now it is impossible to
make any final conclusion about its origin. The case remains
under investigation by the Clinton Justice Department.
It is possible to say that the money -- wherever it came from --
bought Pauline Kanchanalak access to the White House.
Records released by the Secret Service show that she has
visited the White House twenty-six times since Clinton took
office. In June 1996 she brought Jackson and a top Thai
businessman there for a private meeting with the president.
Jackson says that at the time he did not know Kanchanalak
had special connections in the Oval Office. "It was only as I
was going through the gate at the White House that I heard
the word 'DNC,'" Jackson says. "I thought, 'What's going
on?'" The conversation, according to Jackson, was
unremarkable. "The major topic of the meeting was a general
discussion of U.S./China policy that might occur in a hundred
rooms in this town on a given day," he says. Another topic,
according to Jackson, was a plea for the president to visit
Thailand, which he did in November, meeting again with the
Thai businessman and having the much-reported brief
encounter with Cohen.
Jackson says it was only later that he learned the extent of
Kanchanalak's contributions to the Democrats. "It was news
to me when I read it in the L.A. Times," Jackson says. He says
there was no cause-and-effect between Kanchanalak's
contributions and the formation of the Council. And he
stresses that Kanchanalak "takes no official role and has no
financial relationship" with the Council. But Jackson did not
mention that the Council and Kanchanalak's company, Ban
Chang International, share an office in downtown
Washington. In a later conversation, he said the arrangement
was made before he joined the Council.
Cohen issued a brief statement in response to questions about
his relationship with the Council and Kanchanalak: "Along
with Senators Bond, Glenn, Mikulski, Nunn, and Pryor, I
attended a November 1994 luncheon with the United States
Thailand Business Council during a visit to Bangkok. This
past November, Senator Frist, Senator Gorton, Congressman
Souder and I participated in the Council's annual meeting, held
in Bangkok." On his relationship with Kanchanalak, Cohen's
statement said: "I have no relationship with Ms. Kanchanalak.
We did meet during the 1994 Bangkok visit and again this
year."
The Junket Machine
The last sponsor of Cohen's November trip, the Chinese
National Association for Industry and Commerce, has also
been at the edges of the Clinton campaign contribution
scandals. The Association is closely aligned with the
Taiwanese government, which allegedly offered a
world-record $15 million to the Democratic National Committee
to re-elect Bill Clinton. And there have been allegations in
Taiwan that Association chairman Jeffrey Koo has used his
organization to make political contributions to American
candidates as well. Both stories have been denied by all sides,
but it is undeniable that groups like the Association and other
semi-governmental groups engage in a massive amount of
lobbying in the United States. William Cohen is just one of
dozens of lawmakers who accept their generosity.
A recent survey by the congressional newspaper the Hill
found that "two senators, 18 House members and at least 124
congressional staffers took all-expense-paid trips to Taiwan in
the first nine months" of 1996. (The survey did not include
Cohen's trip, since it happened in November.) "I can't go to a
member or former colleague and buy him lunch at La
Brasserie," the Hill quoted a former Senate staffer as saying.
"But they can accept a $7,000 first class around-the-world trip
from a quasi-governmental organization in Taiwan for the kind
of advocacy of foreign interests that American citizens are cut
off from."
An Associated Press survey found that the Chinese National
Association for Industry and Commerce sponsored thirty trips
to Taiwan by members of Congress and their staff in 1996, at a
total cost of $117,890. And there was even more of it in years
past. "For a while in the 80's, before all the ethics rules kicked
in, it was the trip," says a former Capitol Hill staffer of the
junket to Taiwan. "These guys went over there, they'd be
coming back with strings of pearls for their wives and
girlfriends. But now, with all the Indonesia stuff, I heard they
had trouble getting a trip together this year."
Curiously, Cohen was one of the main movers behind the
ethics rules that tightened restrictions on such travels. In 1995
he sponsored the Senate's most recent "gift ban" legislation,
which prohibits senators from accepting free trips to events
like golf and tennis tournaments. A year before that, Cohen
took the lead in another effort to clean up the lawmakers'
image. "There is a widespread perception in the American
public that Congress is for sale," he told fellow senators, "that
for the price of a steak dinner or a fruit basket at Christmas,
members would change votes." But even as Cohen was
making his plea, his own practices were raising the eyebrows
of a few of his colleagues. This is the account of Washington
Post columnist David Broder:
It was one of the less elevating debates in
recent Senate annals, especially the night they
were kept late waiting for several of their
colleagues to return from a dinner for the prime
minister of Malaysia. When the party-goers
straggled back about 9:30 p.m....senators who
had been hanging around since early
afternoon, waiting for another roll call, were
rude enough to ask who had paid for that fancy
dinner.
It does not take an enormous effort to figure out which
late-arriving Republican senator from Maine was among the
guests at the dinner for the prime minister of Malaysia.
Man of Integrity
Throughout his more than twenty years in Congress --
beginning with his famous stand against Richard Nixon in
1974 -- Cohen has carefully cultivated the image of himself as a
bipartisan, centrist man of integrity. Over the years this has
sometimes led Cohen to display an impressive reserve of
self-righteousness, even by Capitol Hill standards. By the time
he announced his retirement in January 1996, Cohen openly
lamented that there are not more people like himself in
Congress. In a Washington Post op-ed explaining his decision
to retire, Cohen wrote that many of his colleagues expressed
sadness over his action. "Nearly all were perplexed," Cohen
continued. "Why are so many leaving the Senate? How can
the center hold? Won't the system fall apart?"
The piece was perhaps the culmination of a career in
Washington image making. With an always-willing press
taking down his words, Cohen portrayed himself as better
than the system. The system was senators for sale; Cohen
stood for unquestioned integrity. The system was partisan
rhetoric; Cohen stood for principled bipartisanship. The
system was politics as usual; Cohen stood for the ideal of
public service. But even a cursory examination of the way
Cohen does business reveals that he is the system. His trips
and his associations are the sort of thing that less
flamboyantly principled lawmakers do all the time. Of course,
that is the very reason that none of this is likely to cause
Cohen any problems during his confirmation hearings --
because many of his former colleagues have done and
continue to do the same things.
And do after they leave office, too. For example, since leaving
the Bush administration, former Defense Secretary Dick
Cheney, who is among other things a director of the Morgan
Stanley investment bank, has traveled to China, using his
contacts with government officials to pursue direct investment
and joint ventures for Morgan Stanley. After a visit in March
1995, Cheney told reporters he did not believe China posed a
military threat to its neighbors, seeming to dismiss the worries
of the Taiwanese by saying, "when you live next door to
somebody as big as China, it is bound to create occasional
concerns in the minds of neighbors." Because of Cheney's
former position as a high government official, his assessment
was reported in the press. And it caused some critics to
wonder whether the speech reflected Cheney's opinion or
Morgan Stanley's.
Likewise, George Bush himself -- accompanied by Brent
Scowcroft -- traveled to China last spring to promote the
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, which is trying to win
Chinese government permission to sell insurance in China.
Reporters were banned from a speech Bush gave before U.S.
businessmen in Peking, but it seems to have pleased his
sponsors. "I feel this trip, with the kind of company I had on it,
elevated Chubb's stature tremendously," Chubb CEO Dean
O'Hare said after his return to the U.S.
Was Cohen going to cash in on his connections as Bush,
Cheney, and Scowcroft had before him? Were his travels in
1996 part of the preparation for that new career? Cohen says
no. In response to written questions from TAS, his office
released a statement saying, "Each of these trips was focused
on policy issues and did not involve discussion of future
business projects. The Senator was still reviewing
opportunities in the fields of public policy think tanks, media,
law firms, and business, and had not reached a determination
on his post-retirement plans." But a short time after providing
that answer, Cohen seemed to give a different account to the
Portland Press Herald. He told the paper that, among other
things, he was working on "starting up my own small firm
consulting on international security and trade issues. I had
actually signed a letter of intent to lease some office space."
No doubt William Cohen -- former senator, former secretary of
defense -- will open that office some day. And if his past is
any clue, he won't be too particular about who's paying the
bills.
1. The voice mail system reveals another name: at extension
211 one hears a message from journalist Martin Schram.
Schram, a columnist for Scripps-Howard newspapers and a
regular media critic on CNN's Reliable Sources, "does writing
for us," according to a receptionist at GIMCorp. Schram says
he was hired by Stout to work on a proposed new magazine
that would focus on the relationship of the government and
business. A prototype of the magazine, Invest Washington,
was done, but Schram says the project went no further than
that. He says he keeps a voice mail extension at GIMCorp
because he does not have one at Scripps-Howard. (Return to
story.)
To subscribe to The American Spectator, call
1-800-524-3469.
Byron York is an investigative writer for The American Spectator.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Robinson
Jim Robinson
To: Jim Robinson
A few comments on William Cohen, and this article.
Bottom line: IMHO, APPC and GIMCorp are CIA fronts. And
Cohen is a CIA boy. And since the CIA is an arm of Flagship,
Cohen is a Flagship boy.
First, let's talk about the all these "policy" groups, paricularly
these Asian-whatever Policy groups. The use of "Asian
Policy" groups as fronts for the CIA is historical. The use of
"European Policy what-evers" as CIA fronts goes back to
post World War II. There have been, and are, dozens and
dozens of them. These CIA backed groups hold "seminars"
and "get-togethers" bringing "promising young figures from
various countries" together with US business interests. They
are funded by the CIA, and staffed by CIA connected
persons. Students of the Nugan Hand bank failure know that
the majority of thses Asian-Pacific "business Groups" are
really fronts for the CIA. For information on European CIA
front "Policy Groups" etc. see the Bio of John J. McCloy.
And look at the folks involved in APPC: Scowcroft, Carlucci,
Douglas Paal, Franklin Lavin: all formerly connected with US
Intelligence. And of course, Mr. Stout. Obviously he too is
former Intelligence. When he set up International Reporting
and Information Systems [IRIS...cute name, huh? These
clowns think they are Soooo cute]] it was touted as a 'kind of
private CIA"... which clearly shows he had, at the very least,
some kind of "in" with the intelligence business, but in all
liklihood is just plain old CIA.
Remember reading about the Hong-Kong Trade Development
Council, which Beryl Anthony represents? You know Beryl
Anthony. He was the brother-in-law of Vincent Foster. The
Riady's hold considerable sway in the Hong-Kong business
council. And think about James Riady and his involvement
with the Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute,
[PAPPI] and "Leadership Education for Asian Pacfics, Inc."
[LATimes 7.18.93]
I've seen it too many times to not state emphatically, that,
IMHO, this APPC, which Cohen is intimately involved in, is a
CIA front.
[Aside: And I HAVE to add, I recently took another look at the
list of particpants in Clinton's little "business get-together' aka
"business conference", in LA in December 1992, right after his
election. What a FASCINATING list, especially with 4 years of
new knowledge under our belt. The only thing I will point out
at this time is that the ONLY foreigner invited was James
Riady.]
IRIS is precisely the kind of company that Henry Kissinger set
up: Kissinger & Associates. At Kissinger & Associates...who
was on the BCCI side of the equation against
law-enforcement...we found people like Brent Scowcroft, and
Lawrence Eagleberger, and Alan Stoga. We mustn't forget
Alan Stoga. He was a right hand man to Robert Abboud, who
was caught up in not just BCCI, but also the S&L scandal and
the BNL scandal. [Kissinger & Associates also ties into
BNL...on the wrong side, as you may have quessed.] Oh, and
Abboud and Stoga tie into Soviet agent Armand Hammer.
Abboud was once head of Occidental Petroleum. There's
more, but this is enough for now. There was also Sergio
Correa da Costa at Kissinger & Associates. He was BCCI's
front man down in Brazil. [And just as reminder, BCCI
connects to Hubbell, Hillary, and Lippo-boy CJ Giroir through
their work on a brief for Stephen's owned Systematics in BCCI
litigation in the late 1970's.]
Kissinger & Associates client list included American Express,
Coca-Cola, Anhueser Busch, Heinz, Hunt Oil, Chase
Manhattan Bank, AIG [American International Group, headed
by Maurice Greenberg, one-time chairman of the NY Federal
reserve Bank, and one-time candidate to head the CIA], and
Freeport McMoran..you know, with massive business
concerns in Indonesia. Henry spent years providing
"introductions" between foreign governments and his clients.
Not low level meetings for henry and his crowd...they went
straight to the top, and got audiences with the Presidents, and
top dogs. Kissinger also provided "intelligence briefings" for
his clients. Henry spent a lot of time brokering business
between his clients and China, and Indonesia.
Scowcroft in an earlier period...the same period of the BCCI
takeover of Financial General Bankshares, was an important
shareholder in in the now defunct National Bank of
Washington [NBW]. Another major shareholder was Saudi
Arabian Wafic Said. Robert Abboud was a board member of
Said's holding company and and a board member of NBW.
Abboud ties to Bin Mafouz, [who ties to George Bush Jr. and
BCCI, and Chicago, and David Edwards, and Arkansas, and
Clinton, etc..and remember that George Bush Jr. connects to
Harken. Harken connects to Alan Quasha, to his dad, who was
a lawyer for Nugan Hand in the Philipines. Harken also
connects to Jackson Stephens through David Edwards, to
Talat Othman [to Carlucci through the NCEE] to Bakhsh, to
Mike Ameen, to Kamal Adham and to george Soros, the man
behind the marijauna laws in California and Arizona.] [BCCI
also connects in many ways to Jeb Bush, in Miami, but that's
another story.]
A large chunk of NBW stock was held by Paul Laxalt, whose
firm represented BCCI in Florida when it all came tumbling
down. Other NBW directors where Tommy-the-
torts-Boggs...you know, Cokie Roberts brother. Boggs Law
firm, Patton Boggs and Blow, represented Sheik Zayed and
BCCI. This is where Ron Brown came from: Patton Boggs and
Blow.
Not to mention tie ins from there to one Gerald Stern of the
DOJ, who ably assisted in thwarting BCCI prosecution by the
DOJ. Stern was once general counsel to Occidental Petroleum.
[And Occidental leads us to soviet Armand Hammer, who
served on the board of FGB, along with a number of other
folks who had ties to the US Intelligence Community. Hammer
faciliatated Jackson Stephens initial BCCI-backed takeover
attempt of the bank. It also leads us to intimate relationships
between Hammer and BCCI Front man Ghaith Paharon, but
enough for now.]
Oh, and quess what? BCCI's #2 man, Naqvi, was represented
by Manatt, Phelps. You know Manatt, Phelps, right? Mickey
Kantor's law firm. Involved rather deeply in the Lippogate
story.
So what does NBW have to do with anything? Well, they are
noted for a number of reasons. Their board members had a
plentitude of connections to BCCI, and attempts to thwart the
investigations into BCCI. Also, Clark Clifford, who was head
of BCCI's First American Bankshares, was also a board
member of NBW before going to FAB. And so many of these
NBW associates ended up in Bush's administration. And so
many of these same people keep popping up the darndest
fashion. Over, and over, and over, and over. In July of 1992,
on a night "that could have been dubbed BCCI night", Ron
Brown then chair of the DNC, brought together a whole
plethora of BCCI funded luminaries, including Jimmy Carter,
Jesse Jackson, and John Kerry. But hey, why not? The money
flowed from BCCI to George Bush and company just as freely.
All the people involved on the political side, both Republicans
and Democrats, had connections to BCCI hired "fixers."
Anybody noticing a pattern here?
Should I even add that Henry Kissinger was the main force
behind the CIA funded UNITA, an African orgainization? You
do recall UNITA, right? In the summer of 1992, former
bar-bouncer and democratic "advance man", and later White
House security dog, Craig Livingstone got a job with UNITA
in Angola, training soldiers. I've always wondered how Craig
1. heard about this job opening, and 2. what qualifications got
him hired.
Why is it always the same players always involved in the
scandals? What other commonalities, interests do these
people have?
What would you think if I were to tell you that most of these
folks all belonged to a specific organization? Would you
behgin to wonder about this organization? I'll let YOU do the
research. See for yourself.
But back to IRIS and Stout...Obviously a CIA boy, IMHO.
IRIS failed and Stout started GIMCorp.
GIMCorp makes connections for US businesses who want to
expand into ovrerseas markets, and represents companies in
negoiations with foreign governments.
Then we find out that Stout, who "helped bankroll the [Asian
Pacific Policy Center [APPC]] when it started in 1993", shares
offices with GIMCorp. Why, they even share the same phone
service! Please. This is a classic CIA operation. Hundreds of
times I have seen this in my research. The DEA shares an
office with a "company" in Burma...connecting doors, and/or a
shared secretary. Nugan Hand's Offices in DC just happen to
be at the same address as Brigadier General Erle Cocke's
'business office'...in fact in the same office, at the same phone
number, sharing the same receptionist. General Singlaub had
an office connected by a common door to Charles Keating of
the S&L debacle. BCCI shared the office and secretary and
phone system in a plethora of "companies" that claimed they
had no connection whatsoever to BCCI. Call "Coral
Reinsurance" in the Carribean, and a receptionist answers
"American Insurance Group"...you know, AIG, Mo Greenberg,
possible head of CIA, and NY Fed Chairman. But we are told
they aren't connected. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Yeah, right.
Yes, IMHO, it is abundantly clear that APPC is a CIA front,
and GIMCorp is also a CIA operation. And ain't it just grand
that Mr. Cohen is intimately tied to both.
What a world. Now we have CIA boy Cohen leading the
Department of Defense. But hey, we have an underscretary of
the Navy, who served under now-dead "commit suicide in the
chest" Admiral Boorda, and for whom Sam Nunn ran
interefence during his confirmation process, by the name of
Dalton. A former Rand analyst, he also is a former Jackson
Stephens employee.
What the heck. Jamie Gorelick, who is leaving the DOJ, was #2
there, even though she had zero, zip, nada, experience in law
enforcement. However, she had a wealth of spook experience,
serving under John Deutch, as a counsel for the Pentagon
[Deutch became head of the CIA, as you know]. She was also
a BCCI lawyer, representing Altman and Clifford in litigation;
and she, herself, has twice been considered to head the CIA. I
have long referred to her as CIA-girl.
Need I add that two other lawyers for CIA connected BCCI
were none other than Robert Bennett, now lawyer for the
President, and one Robert Fiske? You remember Fiske, right?
He "investigated" the death of Vincent Foster. He's the clown
who informed us that the laws of gravity had been
suspeneded on the day Foster died. Fiske declared that Foster
died where he was found on a 45 degree slope but the blood
flowed UP his face.
You have to consider what the CIA really is, how it was
created, why it was created, and most importantly, who
created it. Yes, parts of the CIA do indeed serve to collect
important intelligence that this nation needs. But that job had
traditionally been done, very nicely thank-you, by other
intelligence branches under the Department of Defense. The
CIA was created by Eastern Establishment, monied interests.
Created by the Wall Street crowd, and originally MANNED by
the Wall Street crowd, the CIA was created to give select
INDUSTRY the power of the US Government to gather
intelligence that would affect the Wall Street crowd's
businesses. They also came to serve as a covert army for the
multinational business interests. Have a mine in South
America that may be nationalized? You can't send in the
Marines. Mom in Topeka is not going to give you her son's
life to save your "ore". No, send in the covert army; the CIA,
to run a covert war against the foreign leaders who threaten
PRIVATE BUSINESS interests.
The CIA serves not the NATIONAL security but the security
of the multi-nationals.
So here we sit, with a CIA boy at the helm of the DoD. Great.
Now we can use the big guns. Now we CAN send in the
Marines. Now we can spin to the American people from the
pulpit of the Secretary of Defense why we have to do this and
that, send our troops hither and yon, because it's "in the
interests of the nation", spin, spin, spin. Or conversely,
minimize the dangers of certain country's actions, which might
alarm Americans, and create a 'fuss" which might interfere with
US business interests in that country. What we will be told
will not necessarily be in the best inetrests of the american
people, but rather, the view that is in the best interests of the
multi-nationals.
So, we have Flagship officially at the helm, now. Marionnnette
Bill Clinton as President [while Vernon Jordan pulls the
strings...anybody see the "Clinton map" in yesterday's
WSJ...were you surprised to see Vernon Jordan's house so
prominently displayed? LOL!], Cohen as Secretary of Defense,
Rubin at Treasury, Albright at State, Lake at CIA, yadda,
yadda, yadda... and their minions serving in "under-secretary"
positions throughout the cabinet. Johns Hopkins Institute of
Advanced Policy Studies rules. Certain
"politically-uncorrect-to-name" organizations rule.
Oliligopolies-R-Us. Get ready to walk across the "Bridge to the
21st Century."
[anyone who wants to know more should read "Crimes of
patriots" by Kwitny; "False profits" by truell and Gurwin;
"The Chairman" by Kai Bird; "Inside Job" by Muolo, Fricker
and Pizzo; for starters]
And as for Martin Schram: IMHO he fits the perfect profile of
a journalist who is also a CIA asset...or 'friendly". The bugger
has been exposed. [Sure...I don't have voice mail at
Scripps-Howard, so I have to rely on the kindness of
strangers...you know, those CIA dudes who pick up my
bills...]
Way to go Martin. You are a pip. One of these days I am
going to do a search on Mr. Schram, and see what kind of
disinformation he's been writing all these years.
From: Missy Kelly
--