November 15, 2006
THE HIGHJACKING OF A
NATION
Part 1: The Foreign
Agent Factor
By Sibel Edmonds
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," 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 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 [sic]….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 published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), 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 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. 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, 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 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 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). 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 million in
lobbying. For the same period of time, Lockheed Martin poured over $55 million into
lobbying activities. Northrop Grumman exceeded both by investing $83
million in lobbying, and based on a report issued by POGO,
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 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
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. 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
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 in lobbying fees.
The firm’s managing director happens to be William L. Ball.
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, 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, 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, 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) 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 (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
that can be summed up as: Inadequate
Disclosure, Inadequate Enforcement, and Inadequate Regulation of Conduct. The
recent congressional scandals make this point very clear.
In addition, neither act deals
with an important issue: Conflict of Interest. Many of these agents, with their
loyalty to the foreign hand that feeds them, end up being appointed to various
positions, commissions and special envoys by our government. Recall Kissinger
and his appointment to head the 9/11 Commission, and of course the recent
revelation by Woodward on his advisory position to the current White House.
Take a look at Jimmy Baker’s current appointment on the Iraq commission. Same
goes for the father of all the ‘dime a dozen generals’, Brent Scowcroft, and
one of his new protégés, General Joseph Ralston. In short, neither FARA nor LDA
creates meaningful oversight, control, or enforcement; neither deals with
conflict of interest issues, and neither provides any deterrence or
consequences for unethical or illegal conduct.
It used to be congressional ‘pork projects’ and
‘corporate influence’ that raised eyebrows now and then; here and there. Gone
are those days. Today the unrestricted and uncontrollable money game and
influence peddling tricks within the major decision-making and policy producing bodies of the
U.S. government have reached new heights; yet, no
raised eyebrows are registered. Sadly, today, a new version of ‘The Manchurian
Candidate’ would have to be produced as a documentary.
The other day I received a request to sign on to
a petition put forth by a group of 9/11 family members urging the congress to
reopen the investigations of 9/11 and declassify the infamous 27-pages which
deal with foreign governments, U.S. allies, that provided support for those who
carried out the attacks on our nation. My heart goes out to them. I do
sympathize with them. I am known to take on similar propositions and methods of
activism myself. However, looking at the realities, seeing what it takes to get
things done in Washington, realizing how this beast works in the Real Sin City,
I would encourage them to look at the root cause, rather than the symptoms.
There are only two ways I can see that can bring about what they have been
fighting for and what the majority of us desire to see in terms of bringing
about Truth, Oversight, and Accountability; Justice.
The family members, and their supporters, us,
either have to tackle the major cause; the corruption of our government
officials via unrestricted and undisciplined ‘revolving doors’ and ‘foreign
influence & lobby’ practices, and push for expedient meaningful reforms by
the new ambitious congress, and have them prove to us their worth. Or, they may
as well give up their long-held integrity, go bid high for one or two former
statesmen, hire a few dime a dozen generals, and buy themselves a couple of
ex-congressmen turned lobbyists; that will do the job.
#
# # #
Sibel Edmonds is the founder and
director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language
specialist for the FBI. During her work
with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches,
cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security
implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was
retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that
time, court proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of
“State Secret Privilege”; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and
prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification
by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and
Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George
Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George
Washington University. PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006
PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award.
© Copyright 2006,
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
Information in this release may be freely distributed and published
provided that all such distributions make appropriate attribution to the
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.