Anwar Sadat assassination.

America Betrayed: Bush, Bin Laden, & 9/11 by R. Joseph, Ph.D. University Press, $24.00, ISBN: 0971644578

 Copyright ©2003 R.Joseph

NOTE: This is the HTML version of a downloadable PDF by Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. Please visit his site for more of his remarkable and important work. 

 previous next


 Chapter 6

Wahhabism, Nicaragua, Iran Iraq War,Iran Contra, and the Sadat Assassination

“The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and train ing to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world.” Amnesty International, October 1998

The CIA is like a living organism, that has its own brain. The CIA has the ability to function independently of those who have been elected to “power,” or those who have been appointed to tem porarily head the agency.

CIA directors, like Presidents, come and go. What remains in place, is the mission, the networks, and the operatives who make things happen, even as President, like CIA directors, come and go.

And often the “mission” has nothing to do with national se curity, but instead serves the long range financial interests of bank ers, arms merchants, drug dealers, oilmen, and the Wall Street elite (1). The mission, more often than not, is corporate terrorism and the enslavement and mass murder of those who resist.



“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.”

“I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.”

“I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for.”pictures-from-history-04-742870

“One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.”

“There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war prepa rations, and a “Big Boss” SuperNationalisticCapitalism.”

“It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to MajorGen eral. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

“I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higherups.”

“This is typical with everyone in the military service.”

“I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for Ameri can oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 19091912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar inter ests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”

“During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.



War, terror, and instability are great for those in the business of war. War and civil unrest is a wonderful means of achieving short and longterm political and financial goals, such as the over throw of sovereign nations and the acquisition of another country’s and another people’s resources, such as land, labor, minerals, and black gold—oil that is.

During the Nixon and Ford years, the United States was fight ing a multifront “terrorist war” against the people of South and Central America (2), the people of South East Asia (3), the people of the Middle East, Iraq in particular (4) and as detailed in chapter 5, the people of Europe. In Germany, Belgium, and Italy in par ticular CIAdirected terrorist teams were bombing, shooting, and killing civilians. In Italy this resulted in the destabilization and overthrow of the democratically elected government of Italian Prime Minister Moro who was taken hostage and killed. It has been said that Bush masterminded the plot (5).

In the late 1970s, the CIA hatched a plan for the Middle East, which was designed to woo away Arabic, Islamic, and terrorist states, such as Libya, Iraq, and Egypt, from the Soviet sphere of influence. The long range goal was to gain control over Middle Eastern, and Central Asian oil reserves. This was to be accom plished, in part, through secret military and financial aid provided by the CIA. However, in the case of Libya and Iraq, the provision of aid was illegal as these were designated terrorist states.

Simultaneously, Islamic “holy warriors” and terrorists were trained, financed, and armed by the CIA—with the assistance of the bin Ladens and the Saudi Royal family as well as Pakistan’s Intelligence Service, the ISI. These CIAtrained terrorists were then unleashed on Afghanistan (6), Iraq (4), Egypt (7), and in 1980, Iran (8,9).


The economy of the world is dependent on black gold, oil that is. Saudi Arabia has the largest pool of oil reserves. The desert kingdom is awash with oil. The second largest known reserves are beneath the soil of Iraq (10). However, in the 1970s, evidence be gan to accrue to suggest that beneath the Caspian Basin and in the adjoining Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan, lay incredible huge pools of oil, per haps as much or more than the total reserves of Iraq (11).

Total world oil consumption, in 1979, was 23.41 billion bar rels. Prior to 1979, estimates of yearly oil consumption had been based on a simple mathematical formula, i.e. multiplying the world population by the factor 4.43. Thus, based on estimates of world population growth, reasonable and quite accurate predictions could be made (12).

However, oil is consumed at different rates by two different groups, i.e. the people of highly industrialized countries vs third world countries where oil consumption is relatively minimal. For example, Canadian consumption of oil, in the year 2000, was 20.71 barrels per person. By contrast, in India only 0.75 barrels per per son were consumed (10,12).

In the 1970s, it was recognized, that India and China, each with over 1 billion citizens, would gradually, then more rapidly, become industrialized, and oil consumption would explode. Some analysts were estimating that oil consumption, in these two countries alone, might be more than 75 billion barrels in the year 2010, and that world oil consumption would thus be in excess of 100 billion barrels per year (13).

It was also recognized, that whoever controlled the refining, shipping, and distribution of this oil, would thus have a strangle hold on these two emerging industrial nations.

Oil is produced by a number of independent, interdepen dent, and closely aligned groups, such as the “seven sisters” (Exxon, Gulf, Texaco, Mobil, Socal, BP and Shell), and OPEC which has eleven members (Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait).

In the 1970s, it was recognized that oil production in most of the nonOPEC countries, would begin to peak and might even be gin to decline by the year 2000—and this in fact is the case (13). By contrast, it was recognized that OPEC oil production would not begin to peak until well after the year 2010. Strategically, this means that OPEC nations would become stronger, and the nonOPEC nations would become weaker, such that, at some “crossover event” the balance of power might shift. This is one of the main reasons why the U.S. has attributed so much importance to dominating this region, and maintaining a positive relationship with Saudi Arabia in particular. Indeed, the strategic importance of the oilproducing Gulfstates and Saudi Arabia was recognized even before 1950.

In the 1970s, there were two superpowers: the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Both were struggling to gain or maintain influence in the Middle East and among the Gulf states. Libya, Egypt, and Iraq were in the Russian corner. Moreover, the incredibly oilrich, albeit undeveloped regions of Central Asia and the Caspian basin were part of the Soviet Union.

In the 1970s, it was recognized that in the future, who ever controlled and developed the oil resources of the Caspian basin and Central Asia, as well as that of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, would also have a strangle hold, not just on India and China, but the world.

Those who established this control would also become wealthy beyond their dreams.

By the late 1970s, one of the keys to gaining access to the oilrich central Asian states, was Afghanistan. If these states were to be destabilized and stripped away from the Soviet Union, then Afghanistan, with its Sovietbacked government, would have to be torn lose first. Before and after Afghanistan fell, terrorist attacks would be launched into the underbelly of the Soviet Union (14).

Afghanistan was also a key, because Afghanistan offered the best route for an oil pipeline—a pipeline that would pump the oil extracted from the central Asian states, across Afghanistan, to Pa kistan, and thus to the world markets via the Arabian sea.

However, in order for western oil companies and the CIA to accomplish this, required Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as a partner.

The willingness to involve Saudi Arabia was strategic and based on political reality. If the ruling families of Saudi Arabia were not promised a huge piece of the central Asian pie, they would refuse to cooperate in any destabilizing attacks on the Soviet Union. As Saudi Arabia was also a major source of funds to Pakistan and its ISI, if Saudi Arabia were not part of the equation, Pakistan too would refuse to cooperate, and might even align itself with the Soviet Union.

The Saudis were willing to cooperate for a number of rea sons, including those related to the spread of the Islamic religion, and the creation of an Islamic superstate, and because they wished to retain their power. If America alone won the central Asia oil “prize” the Saudis would lose the power of oil and their ability to effect the world economy by turning the oil spigot on or off.

Likewise, given that Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest oil reserves, they key to controlling the world’s economy, and thus the world, required a partnership with the Saudi kingdom. Moreover, without Saudi help and Saudi funding, it would have been impos sible for the CIA and the Wall Street elite, to destabilize or signifi cantly influence those Middle Eastern states, such as Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan, which, in the 1970s, were in the corner of the Soviet Union.

As noted, religion was also a major factor in the establishment of the partnership. Before and after the 1970s, the Saudis were eager to destabilize and overthrow the Soviet Communist state, as well as the rulers of even fellow OPEC members, because of major issues related to religion, i.e. the Sunni vs the Shiit branches of Islam (14,15).

The Saudi agenda was to export their Wahhabism brand of the Sunni Islamic religion not only into the southern Asian states of the  Soviet Union, but into Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (14,

15). It was a SaudiSunniWahhabi dream to create a unified, fascist, Islamic superstate, and to terrorize, murder, and destroy not just those worshipping non-Islamic religions, but the Shiit and all other vari ants of Islam, especially those variants which emphasized the toler ant, peaceful, poetically mystical schools of thought such as Sufism.

As detailed, for example, in Stephen Schwartz’s recent book, The Two Faces of Islam, “Wahhabism exalts and promotes death in every element of its existence, the suicide of its adherents, mass murder as a weapon against civilization, and above all the suffoca tion of the mercy embodied in Islam” as represented by the “bright aspect of Sufi traditionalism, [which is] happy, filled with love of God and humanity….. Wahhabi fundamentalism,” he writes, is “ugly… narrow, rigid, tyrannical, separatist, supremacist and violent.”

It could thus be argued that Wahhabism is a Nazi version of Islam, which in turn might explain why the Saudis linked up with Hitler in the 1930s (see chapter 3). In the 1930s, the Saudis em braced Nazism for a number of reasons, including their shared goal of destroying the Soviet Union, and gaining access to the oilrich underbelly.

Forty years later, the goal remained the same: to first topple the Sovietbacked regime, and to then take the “holy war” into the underbelly of the Soviet Union, in order to grab the oilrich central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan (14,15,16). “Holy Warriors” would do the dirty work.

In the late 1970s and continuing into the 1990s, the primary mission of these CIAtrained and Saudifinanced terrorists, referred to as the mujahideen, was to attack Afghan villages, and bomb health centers, government offices, and even Kabul University, and to rape, murder, and terrorize the civilian population. In this regard, they were highly successful. Tens of thousands of civilians, as well as Soviet troops were “butchered in a hideous fashion” (5). The mujahedeen’s battle for supremacy resulted in the death and maiming of over 100,000 civilians and the displacement of millions people who be came refugees (17).

Iraq, too, was and is a target of the Wahhabis, as the Saudis believe that Iraq is a broken off piece of Arabia. Indeed, for the last several centuries, and until 1922, Iraq, as well as Kuwait, were part of Arabia. However, at the close of the first world war, and with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France pounced on the Middle East, and divided up the spoils. They created artificial bound aries and thus new states in the Middle East, as they believed that by fragmenting the Arab peoples they would be easier to dominate and control.

Britain broke Arabia into three states: Iraq, Kuwait, and Arabia. Each state was then given its own ruler, who in turn owed their posi tions to France and Britain. Kuwait was handed to the alSabah family. The Hashemite King Hussein was awarded Jordan. And Arabia was given to the Saud family and which was then renamed after Ibn Saud.

King Ibn Saud, however, was determined to someday unify his country and to erase the artificial boundaries which created the bastard states of Kuwait and Iraq. Like his ancestors, he also dreamed of creating an Islamic superstate, encompassing all the nations of the Middle East, and in fact, the world. In 1922, how ever, it was an impossible dream.


In the 1970s, U.S. and Saudi Arabia formed an unholy alli ance. Under the guise of fighting communism, terrorists were trained, funded, equipped and then unleashed on the nations of Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. At the same time, Saudi Arabia was actively funding and establishing fundamentalist Islamic schools in nations, such as Pakistan and Egypt, which in turn be came breeding grounds for terrorists. Likewise, the US was trying to curry favor with some of these same countries in order to woo them from the Soviet sphere.

As will be detailed, part of that strategy involved funding and providing arms and weapons to Libya—a Soviet ally—which were used to attack Egypt. Egypt repeatedly beat back these assaults which the Egyptians erroneously believed were sponsored, through Libya, by the Soviet Union.

The first tangible fruits of these well devised plans were plucked from the tree in 1976, when Egyptian President, Anwar al Sadat ended Egypt’s Treaty of Friendship with Soviet Union (18).

Nevertheless, Sadat remained cool to U.S. proposals for increased U.S. military involvement in his own armed forces (18).

Then the unexpected, Sadat began making peaceful overtures toward Israel. Simultaneously, he began signaling a willingness to accommodate Islamic fundamentalists who were demanding a greater role in the Egyptian government. These events and poli cies upset Saudi Arabia and U.S. planners, albeit for different reasons.

Sadat would soon be targeted for assassination.



The CIA has a history of forming alliances with terrorists, Nazis, dictators, and the like. In some instances, the CIA is playing the “Great Game” and engaging the Hegelian dialectic. That is, it creates entities that threaten the US, in order to strengthen the hand of rightwing Republican administrations who then promise to de stroy the threat. In some instances, as was the case with Iraq and Iran in the late 1980s, and Libya, during the 1970s, the CIA pro vided resources so that these nations would be better equipped so as to encourage them to attack each other.

In the 1970s, the terrorist government of Libya was targeted— but not for overthrow, but as an instrument of power to be wielded by the unseen hand of the CIA.

CIA agent, Edwin Wilson was put in charge of the Libya mission (19).

Like the Mafia, no one ever really ever leaves the CIA. Edwin P. Wilson who “left” the Brotherhood in 1971, continued to run high level operations until the 1980s and this included providing weapons, funds, and strategic information to Libya when it was illegal to do so. Although illegal, the Libyan operation had the bless ing of the CIA, and Wilson met frequently with two of the agency’s top executives while running this and other illegal CIA programs: Thomas G. Clines, the director of training for clandestine services, and Theodore G. Shackley, the No. 2 man in the espionage branch (19,20). Wilson and Shackley also worked together in the planning and implementation of the failed “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba.

In 1977, Edwin P. Wilson, working under the auspices and with the approval of the CIA, sold Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddaffi, over 20 tons (42,000 pounds) of C4, an extremely concentrated but powerful explosive. C4 is perfect for terrorist operations, including the bombing of schools, hospitals, government buildings and the downing of commercial airlines.

Wilson also provided Libya with “secret CIA cables from the Far East, NSA computer procedures for detecting submarines and missiles, assassination devices from CIA suppliers, and exotic secret weapons from the Navy and CIA testing base at China Lake in California. Wilson clandestinely exported to Libya all the com ponents (including specially developed exploding plastics from the CIA) for manufacturing terrorist bombs disguised as ashtrays and other innocent looking objects” (20).

Other CIA agents also took an active role in the Libya mission.

“Mulcahy” a specialist in secret communications technology supervised the smuggling of electronic and military equipment into Libya (20).

“Dubberstein” worked for the Pentagon and specialized in compiling the daily military intelligence summary for the Secre tary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Dubberstein” provided Libya with this data including the “ultra secret Single Inte grated Operational Plan” for nuclear war (20).

Of course, this was all illegal, particularly so as this infor mation and these weapons posed a danger to our allies and our national security. Libya was not only a sponsor of “terrorism,” but was aligned with the Sovet Union.

It is precisely because Libya was a sponsor of terrorism that the CIA covertly sold weapons of mass destruction to this nation. The CIA fully expected Libya to engage in terrorist attacks against Western targets as well as against Egypt which was on the verge of signing a peace treaty with Israel.

Based on the evidence which was revealed at his trial, the CIA, through Wilson, paid one million dollars to have Sadat assassinated. A CIA agent, “Villaverde who had served the CIA as a saboteur in Cuba, was recruited by Wilson as a hired gun and prom ised a million dollars” for the “assassination” in Egypt (20).

Sadat who had boldly visited Israel in 1977, then signed the 1978 Camp David Accords with Israel, and then a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, was assassinated while observing a military parade on October 6, 1981.

Immediately following the assassination of Sadat, a U.S. carrier battle group, including the 552nd Airborne Warning and Con trol Wing, and the Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group were ordered to take up positions north of Egypt and to the east corner of Libya. These massive forces were deployed because of the “possibility of Libyan involvement,” and were thus set to strike and invade Libya in order to prevent any further aggression against Egypt (21).

That myth was quickly dispelled. However, in consequence, U.S. forces came to be permanently deployed in Egypt, beginning immediately following the Sadat assassination in 1981. Since then, every year around October, Egyptian forces join with and become part of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. These are multi nation coordinated exercises for infantry, airborne, artillery, and armored forces. These annual exercises have been named, Opera tion “Bright Star.”

U.S. military forces were not only situated near Egypt when Sadat was assassinated, but Operation “Bright Star” was just about to get under way off the coast of Egypt, when terrorists struck the U.S. on 9/11/2001. U.S. and British forces were conveniently in place when President Bush ordered the attack on the Taliban government of Afghanistan.


That the assassination of Egyptian President Sadat was the result of a well organized conspiracy, is beyond dispute. Sadat was seated at the front of a virtually unguarded podium. Many of those in his security detail, including his plainclothes U.S. trained security guards had mysteriously been dismissed for the day. In fact, he was provided almost no protection, which initself was extremely unusual (22).

His four attackers were thus able to approach Sadat without being challenged. Moreover, for reasons that are unknown, Sadat, and only Sadat, stood up as his attackers approached, thus making him an easy target. Speculation is that he was instructed to stand up by those sitting near him.

Although we are told that he was assassinated because his attackers wished to establish an Islamic state, the gun fire was concentrated only on Sadat (22). Although vicepresident Hosni Mubarak and many other top army officers and diplomats, sat to Sadat’s left, to his right, and behind him, thus making them easy targets, they were spared injury, which is surprising if the attackers wished to overthrow the government. If they had really aspired to establish an Islamic state, then why didn’t they kill all the top poli ticians and military men seated around President Sadat?

In fact, by killing Sadat, and then sparing Hosni Mubarak and the others, the assassins actually hindered their supposed extremist Islamic and anti-Western cause. Hosni Mubarak, who be came president, was far more pro-western than the more independent-minded Sadat (18). Whereas Sadat was more accommodating, Murabak immediately began a massive campaign of retaliation against Islamic fundamentalists which included the arrest of over 10,000 clerics and students (22).

As noted, the CIA paid at least 1 million dollars for an assassination that was to take place in Egypt (20). Who else, how many other groups were also paid, we do not know.

What we do know is that the terrorist organization, Islamic Jihad group, claimed responsibility (22) and that this group is linked to Saudi Arabia and bin Laden (23). Several of the so called masterminds of the plot, Nabil Soliman and Ayman alZawahiri, are members of Islamic Jihad, and Ayman al-Zawahiri is also a member of al-Qaeda.

Islamic Jihad’s specialty is assassination.

Islamic Jihad, however, is in actuality, al-Qaeda (23). In deed, some, such as the CIA and U.S. State Department, claim that the leader of Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri is Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant. Others, such Osama bin Laden’s handpicked biographer, Hamid Mir, claim that Ayman alZawahiri is actually the leader of alQaeda, whereas Osama is just a “front man” (24)—an issue we will explore in detail in chapter 13.

Nevertheless, regardless of which position we accept, it is beyond dispute that Osama and Ayman alZawahiri, work closely together and that alZawahiri is one of the chief strategist for al Qaeda.

What is in dispute, is the possibility that al Zawahiri may have also worked for the CIA—which may also explain why he was able to visit the United States several times where he openly raised funds as recently as 1995 (25). An undercover FBI infor mant, linked to the CIA, in fact, made the arrangement for al Zawahiri to visit (see chapter 11).

Osama bin Laden is also linked to the CIA, and he is be lieved to have first begun working with this intelligence organiza tion in 1978 or 1979 (26). Presumably Osama was still in the employee of the CIA in 1981, when Sadat was assassinated. The CIA, along with the Saudi royal family, were providing Osama and his nascent terrorist organization with millions of dollars in funds, and Saudi Arabia was covertly supporting terrorist groups whose mis sion was to overthrow Sadat (7,15,27).

Nabil Soliman, one of those involved in the assassination, left Egypt after Sadat was killed and lived in Saudi Arabia (28). Nabil then moved to Yemen in 1988 and then to the United States in 1992 where he lived unmolested for almost 10 years (28). On July 12, 2002, he was extradited from the United States to Egypt (28).

Ayman alZawahiri was jailed after the assassination, but was then released! He too traveled to Saudi Arabia, and then to Af ghanistan where he fought with the Saudi and CIAbacked mujahideen.

We are told that Sadat was assassinated because Islamic Jihad (alQaeda) wished to usher in a pure Islamic state in Egypt, and because Sadat had made peace with Israel (22). In part, that may have been the motives of at least some of the plotters.

However, the result of the assassination, was to remove an independently minded leader who had ushered in Islamic law and who was making overtures to Islamic fundamentalists and offering them a role in his government.

For example, in 1981, Sadat declared that the Shari’a, that is, orthodox, Sunni, Islamic law (29), would be the basis of Egyp tian law. Egyptian law would become Shari’a (18). Sadat was in fact an extremely devout Sunni Muslim. His forehead was marked with the permanent bruise of those who bow their heads to the ground and pray five times a day (18). Indeed, there was a fear, among some Western leaders, that because of Sadat, Islamic fundamentalism would mushroom out of control, and that Egypt was in danger of being a radicalized Islamic nation, similar to Iran.

The assassination of Sadat did not help the Islamic cause but resulted in a massive and brutal crackdown on Islamic fundamen talism. Over 10,000 Islamic leaders were eventually jailed.

The assassination also resulted in the regular deployment of U.S. forces in Egypt, as well as the installation of a prowestern government in Sadat’s place—a government that is so friendly to the U.S. that it receives massive military and economic aid from the United States, the OECD countries and the World Bank— over $52 billion from the U.S. alone (30) —massive financial and mili tary aid that was not available in the 1970s. This aid, of course, makes Egypt that much more dependent on the U.S. Indeed, since Sadat’s death, Egyptian society has been increasingly shaped by Western hands and the Western strings attached to foreign aid (30). Hence, the consequences of killing Sadat were completely oppo site to the ideas Islamic Jihad and Osama bin Laden espouse— which can only make us wonder as to what may have been the real agenda.

To answer that question, we need only ask: who benefits? Answer: The U.S. and Wall Streets merchants of death.

Likewise, we are told that one of the reasons for the 9/11 attack on America, was to further Islamic ideals and to remove western influences and to drive Western military forces from the Islamic states (31).

Instead, the 9/11/2001 assault on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, resulted a devastating attack on the Islamic funda mentalist rulers of Afghanistan, and the permanent installation of the U.S. military and a prowestern government in its place.

If we dare to assume that the planners of 9/11 and the Sadat assassination, also considered the likely consequences of their acts, one would have to conclude, that the purpose of both 9/11 and the assassination of Sadat in 1981, was to serve western and not Is lamic interests, and in this regard, we note that Osama bin Laden had began working with the CIA since at least 1979 or 1978.


Reagan and Bush were in power when Sadat was assassinated. Those implicated in the assassination include Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabia, Libya, as well as terrorists linked to Iran and the Sudan (22,27). In the early 1990s, the Sudan would become yet another base for Osama bin Laden (26).

Likewise, although there are different terrorists groups linked to Iran, one Iranian terrorist organization was Paris-based in 1981, and was linked to the Paris-based bin Laden organization (9,33) which in turn is closely allied with the royal family of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Royal family, the bin Ladens, and a number of Saudi Arabia’s richest families have also provided millions of dollars in aid to bin Laden and his terrorist network (26,33,34,35,36,37). Some of those funds were laundered through banks and corporations located in London, Geneva, Paris, and the Sudan—banks and corporations which are owned or controlled by the bin Laden family or their associates including members of the royal family (3538).

For example, the Saudi government and the wife of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, provided over $100,000.000, each, to Osama Bassnan, a Saudi agent who made arrangements for 9/11 hijackers, Khalid alMidhar and Nawaq alHazmi, to live in San Diego. Osama Bassnan even paid their rent. The payments from the Saudi government and the Saudi royal family continued up until the 9/11 hijackings.

Moreover, some of these same high ranking Saudis, includ ing Prince Bandar and members of the bin Laden family, have been business partners with the Bush family, including “Mr. George W. Bush of the CIA” (38). All are heavily invested in the Carlyle Group—whose board members included a number of exCIA heavyweights. Bin Laden, in turn, had been working with the CIA, since 1978 or 1979 (26,39).

Thus, it could be reasonably argued that the bin Ladens, the Saudis, the CIA, George Bush, and the Reagan-Bush administration are implicated to varying degrees, as having played some role in the assassination of Sadat as well as terrorist acts that have resulted in the assassination of a number of foreign leaders. As we have seen in earlier chapters, Bush and the CIA, as well as previous Republican administrations, have been linked to terrorism, mass murder, torture, and the assassination and attempted assassination of a number of foreign presidents and prime ministers, including Italian Prime Minister Moro and Allende of Chile (1,2,32).

Likewise, as to the Libya and Iran connection to the Sadat assassination, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the CIA was providing illegal financial or military aid to both countries either prior to, during, or after the assassination, and that part of the motive for this illegal activity was to curry favor and gain influences on Libyan and Iranian terrorist and intelligence organizations (19,20,40,41,42).

Although an arm’s embargo and other sanctions were in place against Libya and Iran, and presumably, vigorously enforced by the CIA, State Department, and Reagan-Bush administration, the facts indicate otherwise (19,20,40,41,42). Indeed, the CIA had been providing weapons and technology to Libya since 1977. Like wise, despite its being a “terrorist” state, it is now well established that the Reagan and Bush administration were supplying weapons and related technology to Iran —despite laws forbidding any such trade with this “terrorist” state (40,41,42).


According to official records, including those of the “Inde pendent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters” (40) and the Tower Com mission (41), the Reagan-Bush administration were also illegally selling arms to Iran in 1985 though in fact, the evidence suggests that the CIA and the Reagan-Bush administration had been trading with the enemy, since October of 1980 (43). And the evidence indicates that the Reagan-Bush team utilized the services of the bin Laden family in carrying out these illegal terrorist related actions.

According to a number of independent sources including French Intelligence, and as reported by PBS Frontline, and “Be hind the Scenes in the Beltway” columnist, Al Martin (43), Bush, along with Salim bin Laden and Amiram Nir (an intelligence agent with Israel’s Mossad), personally met with Iranian government officials and offered unspecified bribes, in October of 1980. These meetings took place in Paris. Paris is also a corporate base for the bin Laden family, and a number of other Saudi business men implicated in funding Osama bin Laden and other terrorist groups (33).

The purpose of these meetings was to persuade Iranian offi cials to keep 52 American hostages imprisoned in Teheran, until after the November, 1980 election—men and women who had been taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Iran, after the U.S. provided sanctuary to the deposed Shah of Iran. That is, George Bush met with representatives of a terrorist nation, in order to persuade them to keep American citizens hostage long enough to help insure the defeat of President Jimmy Carter and the election of the Reagan Bush ticket (43,44).

The Reagan-Bush administration, and George Bush, were not just dealing with Iranian terrorists, but the bin Ladens.

As also noted by Frontline (2001), “if the French report is correct, it points to a longstanding connection of highly illegal behavior between the Bush and bin Laden families.”

That Bush would conspire with terrorists and put his own interests above those of the American people, is consistent with everything we know about this man and his family.

Bush, of course, claims that these meetings never happened. Nevertheless a number of independent witnesses, including French Intelligence agents, observed George H.W. Bush and Iranian officials in Paris in October, when these meetings took place.

What other evidence do we have which indicates that these Bush bin Laden Iranian meetings actually occurred, and that bribes were offered?

For one, we know that the Iranians held off on freeing the hostages until after the November elections. They were freed on the day Reagan and Bush were sworn into office.

We also know that the Reagan-Bush administration illegally provided arms to Iran (40,43).

The evidence indicates that the “bribe” offered to Iran included offensive weapons, and that in return for the promise of weapons, Iran continued to hold American hostage until after the election.

As scientists, we do not believe that “coincidence” is a scientific explanation.


As noted, not only George H.W. Bush, but Israeli agent, Amiram Nir, and the bin Ladens played a prominent role in the October 1980 meeting in Paris. These same individuals also played a significant role in the illegal operation code named “arms for hostages,” i.e. the illegal provision of offensive weapons to the Ira nian regime, and the provision of illegal funds to terrorists operat ing in bases outside Nicaragua.

Amiram Nir and Salem bin Laden played a significant role in arming not just the Iranians, but Central American terrorists.

To quote the New Yorker (11/5/01), “During the nineteen eighties, when the Reagan Administration secretly arranged for an estimated thirtyfour million dollars to be funneled through Saudi Arabia to the Contras, in Nicaragua. Salem bin Laden aided in this cause, according to French intelligence.”

Yet another coincidence, Salem bin Laden died in a 1988 air crash in Texas. Nothing was ever proven, but Salem bin Laden’s death led to speculation that he might have been “eliminated.” If he was in fact purposefully killed, his murder may have been related not to the Contras, but to the illegal arms trade with Iran and the Paris meeting in 1980.

Likewise, Amiram Nir died in a plan crash after departing Texas and while flying over Mexico, presumably in route to South America. His death, too, may have had little to do with the Contras, per se, but with operation code named: “arms for hostages,” and the Paris meeting where Bush traded the lives of Americans to en hance his chances to be elected VicePresident.

As will be explained, the Contras were a terrorist army wag ing a terrorist campaign of murder, torture, and terrorism, against the people of Nicaragua. The contrast were funded, trained, and equipped by the CIA, with the assistance of the Saudi royal family, including the bin Laden family and Salem bin Laden.


By 1980, 50 patriarchs of the ruling Saud family had become multi-billionaires. The royal family’s budget was estimated be between $6 to $7 billion annually. The king’s palace, in 1980, was estimated to beworth $17 billion. Saudi Arabia, the richest and thus the most powerful state in the Gulf region, is also the most repressive and the most inscrutable. The population is kept under extremely tight control, women have almost no rights, and Jews are forbidden entry except under exceptional condi tions, i.e. U.S. diplomats who are Jews (15,45).

Foreign researchers and reporters are almost always refused en try into the country unless specifically invited. They are then accompanied wherever they go.

American soldiers and oil company staff are required to live in prison-like compounds, which are fenced off to prevent unsupervised interaction with Saudi citizens.

Arrest and imprisonment without trial, torture, solitary confinement for years on end, political executions, beheadings, amputation, and the most barbaric of criminal penalties are imposed on men, women, and children, for crimes such as criticizing the Royal family. A typical case reported by Amnesty International: a ten year-old child was tied to a rope and left exposed to the merciless desert sun until he died of expo sure.

Likewise, the armies of foreigners who labor at extremely low wages in Saudi Arabia. have no rights, are denied citizenship, and are ruled with an iron hand (15,45).

It is a suffocating world of the most extremist oppression. In November of 1990, as U.S. forces began to arrive in preparation for war in Iraq, 47 Saudi women did the unthinkable: They drove cars. The women were covered from head to foot. There was nothing un-Islamic about their appearance. However, they had broken Saudi Arabia’s version of Islamic law and the religious police pounced. The women were ar rested, branded “harlots,” “bitches” and “whores” and threatened with death.

On March 15, 2002, over a dozen Saudi girls burned to death, when they were not allowed to escape a burning school building. Saudi Arabia’s religious police stopped the schoolgirls from escaping the blaze because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress (headscarves and black robes—abayas). Because the girls, in their panic, refused to return to the burning buildings, the religious police—also known as the Com mission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice—began beating them and tossing them bodily back into the inferno. Men who stopped and tried to help the girls, were warned back by the religious police because “it is a sinful to approach them.”

These incredibly repressive policies have been fully supported by a succession of U.S. Presidents, who, like the Kings of Arabia, know that it is in the strategic and economic interests of the bankers, oil men, and the arms merchants, to keep the kings in power and the people under control. Indeed, Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest single oil producer, and thus controls the spigot which provides the major life blood of the world’s economy, oil, that is (12,45).

Because of its police state mentality, the exclusion or confinement of foreign visitors, and its hyper-secrecy, Saudi Arabia is thus the perfect partner for men of power who wish to engage in criminal acts or commit terrorist atrocities against the people and leaders of other countries who do not share their views. All becomes permissible, nothing is forbidden, if there is enough secrecy. Saudi Arabia is a religious fascist state which under the cloak of secrecy seeks to impose its world view and its repressive interpretation of Islam, on other countries and peoples.


The Bush family—with its Nazi connections, the Saudi royals—with their Nazi connections—and other rich and influential Saudi families were naturally drawn to one another as they share similar ideologies and goals: the “new world order” which is to be governed and controlled by a small ruling class elite, that is, the “Brotherhood” (15,46). In the 1960s, and certainly by the 1970s, they were all doing business together (38,43).

However, in the case of the Saudis, that new world order will be a worldwide Islamic state, governed according to Sunni Wahhabi interpretations of Islam (15). Although that goal is not shared by the Bush Wall Street corporate elite, the Bush team and the Sau dis are nevertheless willing to work closely together, to increase their wealth and their power, and to combat and eliminate common enemies and competitors for world domination, such as the Soviet Union and its communist allies. In the 1980s, these “communist” enemies targeted for elimination included those in South and Central America which, despite its distance from the Persian gulf, is a perfect target for Islamic extremists.

Indeed, due in part to Saudi efforts, since the 1980s, Islam has become the fastest growing religion among Latinos in the Americas (47,48). This is not entirely surprising, as Islam has a long history in Spain, beginning with the Spanish rule of the Mus lim Moors from the 700s to the 1400s. It is Spain, with its Muslim colored culture, which conquered Mexico and South America during the 1500s.

In fact, in the semi-isolated jungles of countries like Peru (e.g., in a region called Cañete) as well as in cities such a Lima, there are houses which resemble Muslim Masjids. Peasants of many villages sill dress in turbans and thobes—Arab robes (49).

Although the peoples of South and Central America are pre dominantly Catholic, Islam has made strides by stressing and pro moting the idea that converts are actually reverting back to their original religion. For example, Ibrahim Gonzalez, raised as a Catholic, says he “didn’t convert to Islam” rather, he says, “I reverted. We’re returning to a religion that we once belonged to and was very much a part of our historical heritage” (48).

The Saudis thus looked to Central America as another breeding ground for their brand of Sunni Wahhabism. The Saudis were happy to assist the Reagan-Bush administration in funding terrorists who would be unleashed on South and Central American countries such as Nicaragua.

As the CIA and the Reagan-Bush administration were working with the Saudis to unleash terrorists on Middle Eastern countries, it was only natural that they would work together in promoting terrorism in South and Central American countries.

As was the case in the 1980 Paris meeting that Bush held with Iranian officials, Salem bin Laden would act on behalf of the Saudi royal family for the Central American operation.

As confirmed by French Intelligence sources, and as reported by PBS Frontline (43), during the 1980s, “Salem bin Laden, Osama’s oldest brother, [was] one of the two closest friends of Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd. As such, he often performed important missions for Saudi Arabia.”

Thus, the CIA, Bush and associates, and various Saudi fami lies and Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar and the bin Ladens began working hand in glove (40,41,43) to help support terrorist organizations, including the Contras who were raping, torturing and terrorizing the people of Nicaragua (50).

Bush business partner and friend, Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi billionaire oil and arms trader, admitted in a televisioninterview, that he funneled $5 million dollars to help finance arms shipments to the Contras who were terrorizing Nicaragua. In addition, the Sultan of Brunei — the richest man in the world — pitched in another $10 million.

According to the Tower Commission, led by Senator John Tower (41) Saudi officials linked to Saudi King Fahd donated from $1 million to $2 million a month from July 1984 to April 1985, over 32 million dollars, to support the Contras. According to the New York Times the contribution may have been part of a 1981 secret agreement between Riyadh and Washington “to aid anti communist resistance groups” in return for “sophisticated American AWACS radar planes, according to United States officials and others familiar with the deal.”

As detailed in the “Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters” (40) “Saudi Arabia had contributed to the support of the Nicaraguan contras at a time when Congress had forbidden the use of appropriated funds for this purpose.” The re port goes on to say that the Reagan-Bush administration were soliciting “foreign countries including Saudi Arabia … to provide funds for the contras, and that … Saudi Arabia was providing $25 million in assistance to the contras.”

The Saudi royal family was intimately involved in these illegal activities.

“During the period between 19841987…daily diary notes record at least 64 separate contacts with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States….” the subjects dis cussed ranged “from political strategy for handling the revelation of the Iran arms sales, and included discussions of helping Saudi Arabia acquire United States weapon systems.”

Some of those who attended or were privy to those meetings included the Secretary of Defense (Caspar Weinberger), the Direc tor of the CIA, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (40), as well as Bush and Cheney.

Although Bush later claimed he was “out of the loop”, Secretary of State George Shultz later told the Tower Commission (41)

that George Bush was completely aware of the complex arrange ments between the Saudis, the Reagan-Bush administration, the Contras, and even the operation coded named: “arms for hostages.” Likewise, according to Reagan Press Secretary James Brady, “Bush” was “functioning much like a co-president” and was “involved in all the national security stuff because of his special back ground as CIA director. All the budget working groups he was there, the economic working groups, the Cabinet meetings. He is included in almost all the meetings.”

In the “Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/ Contra Matters” (40) it is also noted that Reagan-Bush administration officials repeatedly lied and perjured themselves by attempting to cover up these illegal activities. The Independent Counsel also concluded that “Prince Bandar” repeatedly made false state ments including: “Saudi Arabia is not and has not been involved either directly or indirectly in any military or other support activity of any kind for or in connection with any group or groups concerned with Nicaragua,” he claimed.

As an aside, this is the same Prince Bandar, who, some 15 years later, and again acting as a spokesman for the terrorist re gime of the Saudi royal family, refused to let U.S. investigators interview the families of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers, all of whom Saudi citizens. It was the wife of Prince Bandar, and the Saudi government which also provided over $200,000.00 to Osama Bassnan who in turn provided cash to 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq alHazmi.

Just as we know that the Saudi royals and other Saudi families helped finance the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States (3437), we also know, based on Reagan-Bush administration documents which escaped destruction in the 1980s, that “Saudi Arabia had agreed to give financial support to the Nicaraguan contras during the period when U.S. funds for the contras were virtually exhausted and Congress had refused to appropriate additional funds” (40). In yet another administration note it is written: “Bandar is giving $25 million to Contras.”


“Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

—President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

For two generations the Somoza family had used terrorism, torture, and mass murder to intimidate and control the people of Nicaragua and to remove all opposition as they systematically plundered the country and became multimillionaires. Although a small clique of closely aligned Nicaraguan families, and of course, the CIA, supported the Somoza dictatorship, the people of Nicaragua did not. In 1956, Somoza Garcia was gunned down. Unfortunately, for the people of Nicaragua, his son Anastasio Somoza Debayle, “the vampire dictator,” took control. The Somozas continued to plunder Nicaragua (51).

In 1972, Nicaragua and the Somoza dictatorship were rattled by a massive earthquake which injured and killed over 100,000 Nicaraguans. The Somoza family, however, capitalized on the mis ery of the people, by seizing, with the help of the National Guard, over $30 million in international relief (51).

In 1979, Somoza was finally overthrown by a rebel group who called themselves the Sandinistas. The Sandinista National Liberation Front, founded in 1962, was named after General Cesar August Sandino, a revolutionary hero who had been murdered by Somoza Garcia.

When the Sandinistas came to power, they formed a demo cratic government which accepted help from Cuba and the Soviet Union, as well as from the World Bank. The Sandinistas offered a social program that was designed to improve education, health care, and social services. The Carter administration, and the World Bank, pledged over 100 million dollars in financial support to the new regime, and the country prospered. The World Bank called its development projects “extraordinarily successful” and “in some sec tors” of Nicaragua “better than anywhere else in the world.”

Improved health care, education and social services? Wall Street and the CIA became alarmed (50).

When Reagan and Bush took office in 1981, they canceled all financial aid to Nicaragua, which they accused of being a “Marx ist” and “communist” state. The Reagan-Bush team imposed an embargo in an attempt to destroy the economy and overthrow the government. On November 17, 1981, President Reagan signed  National Security Directive 17, which authorized covert support to anti-Sandinista terrorists who wish to overthrow the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. Over $19 million was provided initially, to train a guerrilla force which would operate and launch terrorist attacks from training camps in Honduras and Costa Rica (50,51,52).

Thus, the “Contras” were born.

The Contras consisted of former Somoza National Guard units, men who had ruthlessly used Nazi tactics during the rein of Somoza, to keep the people terrified and under control. This was the same National Guard, who helped Somoza steal over $30 mil lion in international relief.

Now, with the backing of the Reagan-Bush administration, the Contras were turned loose on the citizens and cities of Nicaragua. The Contras proceeded to blow up schools, health centers, bridges, boats, government offices, and massacred tens of thou sands of innocent men, women, and children (51,52).

These attacks were not entirely random. Doctors, nurses, and teachers were singled out, as were volunteers in the health and literacy programs.

The targeting of those who provide health and educational services had been a tactic first refined by Adolf Hitler and the SS. Opponents who are ignorant, sickly, and unhealthy, are easier to suppress and control (54).

By 1983, the Reagan-Bush team had armed and trained 16,000 Contra terrorist troops. They were christened the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN). However, by 1984, the FDN, de spite its use of terror and intimidation, had failed to win the hearts and minds of a single village (50).

The FDN were feared and hated—which is exactly what they desired. The aim of the Contras was to use terrorist tactics to stop Nicaraguan development projects in economic, education, health services and political organizations. It was through terror that the FDN hoped to come to power, and it was through terror that they hoped to remain in power.

The Contras, with Saudi, CIA and US backing, raped, murdered, kidnapped, and massacred tens of thousands of peasants and government officials. They burned crops, killed farmers, and blew up bridges, civilian power plants, schools, and hospitals (50,51,52).

An American Protestant organization, “Witness For Peace” and the human rights organization “Americas Watch” documented thousands of incidents where the Contras attacked farms and villages, and captured, tortured, and maimed children, women and men. The Contras cut off hands, arms, legs and feet, pulled out the tongues of their victims, gouged out eyes, castrated men and boys, bayoneted pregnant women and cut open their bellies, and tossed babies and children into fires or dashed their heads against the ground.

One survivor of a Contra raid reported: “Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.”

Rosa, was not an isolated cases. Similar atrocities were being carried out all over by the Contras—men Ronald Reagan and George Bush called “freedom fighters” and “the moral equal of our founding fathers.”

In October 1984 the Associated Press and the Boston Globe disclosed the discovery a 90 page CIA terrorist warfare training manual called “Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare.” This document, which this author has examined (54) was later authenticated by the House Intelligence Committee as a CIA manual that provided helpful terrorism tips for the Contras. The manual provided advice and instruction on political assassinations, kidnappings and blowing up public buildings and the use of “shock troops” to disrupt public and political meetings. The “Shock troops” the manual instructs, must be “armed with clubs, iron rods and placards, and if possible, small firearms, which they shall carry hidden [as well as] knives, razors, chains, clubs and bludgeons.”

Once a village meeting began, the Contras would attack.

The manual also instructed the Contras in the “Selective use of Violence” and to “neutralize carefully selected and planned tar gets such as court judges, police or state security officials, etc. [and to] kidnap all officials or agents of the Sandinista government.” The manual called for “implicit terror” and stated: “If possible, professional criminals will be hired to carry out selective jobs.”

In Congress, the question was asked “Is this not, in effect, our own state-sponsored terrorism?”

The Contra leadership readily admitted that they committed atrocities. They were proud of it:

“It is cynical to think that the Contra respect human rights. During my four years as a Contra director, it was premeditated practice to terrorize civilian noncombatants to prevent their coop eration with the government… No serious attempt has been made to stop because terror is the most effective weapon of the Contra.”

— Contra Leader, Edgar Chamorro

In the years from 1981 to 1984 the contras assassinated 910 government officials, attacked nearly 100 civilian communities and caused the displacement of over 150,000 people from their homes and farms. Bridges, dams, port facilities, granaries, water and electrical power stations, telephone lines, health centers, hospitals and schools were destroyed (52,55). And all this was orchestrated by the Reagan-Bush administration—the inner circle of which included men such as Dick Cheney.

Finally, the Sandinista government of Nicaragua filed suit against the U.S., in the World Court at the Hague. In 1986, the World Court ruled against the United States for blockading Nicaragua, mining its harbors, and for providing training and financial support for the terrorist acts of the Contras. In issuing this Judgment, the Court also demanded that the U.S. pay reparations to Nicaragua.

Being labeled international outlaws and terrorists mattered little to the Reagan-Bush team, who refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court. The U.S. also vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution to enforce the judgment of the World Court. In fact, in 1984, the Reagan administration legalized “murder,” i.e. “pre-emptive” self-defense against civilians and other targets in Nicaragua and other nations that sponsored “terrorism.” Terrorism teams, directed by the CIA, would be “shielded… from legal action under

U.S. law if they were acting in good faith” (56).

The Reagan-Bush administration were proud sponsors of murder and terrorism.

Should we be surprised that when Cheney and 300 other former Bush administration officials again came to power and joined the new Bush administration in 2001, that terrorists would again be unleashed? This time against U.S. cities and U.S. citizens?

A man who orders others to commit murder or acts of terror, is still a murderer and a terrorist, regardless of where the crime first took place. And those who employ terror and murder, are the most likely to again resort to murder and terror if its suits their needs.



In order to put a halt to U.S. sponsored terrorism, Congress passed the “Boland Amendment” which read in part: “None of the funds provided in this Act [the Defense Appropriations Bill] may be used by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to furnish military equipment, military training or advice, or other support for military activities, to any group or individual… for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua” (57).

Not only was the Boland Amendment quite clear in its in tent, but so was the penalty for doing so. It would be an “impeachable offense.”

This did not stop the Reagan-Bush administration, however. George Bush, like a true Hegelian Bonesman, created a shadow government, outside the law and in violation of the U.S. constitution (60). This shadow government was formed to carry out covert policies: to make war when the constitutional govern ment had decided not to make war; and to support enemies of the nation (terrorists and drugrunners) who were the friends or agents of the secret Bush government.

The true number and nature of the many secret, non-constitutional government agencies created by Bush will never be known. What is known from the discovery of secret memorandum, is that Bush created illegal agencies and then named himself the chief (40,41,60).

According to one memo: the “National Security Decision Directive 3, Crisis Management, establishes the Special Situation Group (SSG), chaired by the Vice President. The SSG is charged… with formulating plans in anticipation of crises.”

The “Standing Crisis PrePlanning Group” (CPPG) was yet another illegal government agency, the purpose of which was to gather intelligence for covert action by Bush’s SSG, against any one or any group or state, including American citizens, that Bush deemed to be an enemy. The members of the CPPG included not just Bush, but members of the National Security Council, CIA, and State Department (41,60), i.e. Caspar Weinberger, Admiral Poindexter, Ollie North, et al.

As also revealed by the same secret memo, the CPPG also served to provide “cover” that is, a cover up, if any of these illegal actions came to light.

Those illegal activities included selling weapons to the gov ernment of Iran (40,41,42) a state that was sponsoring terrorism and which had held American citizens as hostages, and then con tinued to hold them hostage at the request of George W. Bush in return for military assistance.

In July of 1985, and under the pretext of combating terror ism, when in fact he was fomenting terrorism, Bush became head of the newly formed Task Force on Combating Terrorism (or Terrorism Task Force).

In addition to Bush, members of The Terrorism Task Force included Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North and Amiram Nir who was also a Counter-terrorism adviser to Israeli Premier Shimon Peres. North and Nir would play a central role in providing not just U.S. arms, but Israeli arms to the Islamic government of Iran (40,41)— the sworn enemy of both the U.S. and Israel.

As a cover for these traitors and impeachable offenses, the entire illegal deal would henceforth be code named operation “arms for hostages.”

On December 18, 1985, Charles E. Allen, a CIA official and member of George Bush’s Terrorism Task Force, wrote a memo providing an update on the “arms for hostages” deal with Iran (60): Rafsanjani [Speaker of the Iranian Parliament] believes Vice Presi dent George Bush is orchestrating the U.S. initiative with Iran. In fact, according to Subject, Rafsanjani believes that Bush is the most powerful man in the U.S. because in addition to being Vice President, he was once Director of CIA.”

On December 31, 1985, a Paris-based CIA agent Bernard Veillot, was informed by Iranian arms dealer Cyrus Hashemi that Vice President Bush was offering 3,000 American TOW missiles, that is, $2 billion in secret arms to Iran, and that the secret deal was “going to be signed by Mr. Bush…on Friday.”

What we are told is that the Bush team intended to over charge the Iranians for missiles and that the surplus funds would be diverted to the Contras (40,41).

What we have also learned is that Salem bin Laden, the brother of Osama bin Laden, played a direct role in the transfer of arms to Iran, as well as the funneling of cash to the contras.

On January 6, 1986 President Reagan met with George Bush and then signed a “Presidential Finding” that called for shipping arms to Iran through Israel (41,60)—a deal that was in direct violation of the National Security Act, but, which according to the “Presidential finding” was “important to the national security of the United States… The USG [chaired by Bush] will act to facilitate efforts by third parties and third countries to establish contacts with moderate elements within and outside the Government of Iran by providing these elements with arms, equipment and related materiel in order to enhance the credibility of these elements.”

Although Bush later claimed he was “out of the loop” Secretary of State George Shultz later told the Tower Commission that George Bush completely supported the arms for hostages deal (41).

On January 18, 1986, the Bush-Reagan administration, in collusion with the CIA, prepared to ship 4,000 TOW antitank missiles to Khomeini’s Iran (40,41,60). It has been alleged that Lt. Gen. Colin L. Powell was assigned to handle the arrangements for the illegal arms transfer which would first enter Israel and then be shipped to the terrorist government of Iran.

On July 29, 1986 George Bush traveled to Jerusalem and met with Nir who was to handle the transfer of the missiles from Israel to Iran. He instructed Craig Fuller, his chief of staff, to pre pare a secret memorandum of the meeting (41,61).


Why did Bush sell arms to a terrorist state?

It should be stressed that there never was any clear indication in the documents that came to light, that the purpose of the “arms for hostages” operation was to obtain funds for the Contras, or to free hostages held in Lebanon. Although Oliver North, for example, wrote that $12 million of the $15 million expected to be paid by Iran for the arms could be “set aside for the contras” (40) it was never established that the reason for selling arms was to obtain funding for the Contras. In fact, the Contras never did want for funds during this period. The Contras were flush with cash, and had never stopped terrorizing the people of Nicaragua. That cash, as always, was coming from drug sales (58), from the Saudis (40), from the CIA (60,61) and the U.S. government which was divert ing up to 100 million dollars earmarked for other programs, to the Contras (40,41,42)—and the provision of this assistance was not just illegal, but an impeachable act.

Rather, the facts suggest that the links between Iran and Nica ragua are much more complex and multifacted, and that the pri mary purpose in supplying offensive arms to Iran, was, to supply arms to Iran.

As noted earlier, many of the same Saudi families and orga nizations which were providing support for the terrorists who had attacked Egypt, were also providing financial support for the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan and the Contras who were terroriz ing Nicaragua. A tangled web of motives made for common ground that linked the Saudis to Reagan-Bush.

One common motive concerned the only other superpower, in the 1980s, the Soviet Union, and involved the desire to pry away, from the Soviet orbit, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the central Asian states, which the Bush team and the Saudis wished to gobble up.

A CIA position paper in 1985 detailed this thinking, by con cluding that whichever superpower got to Iran first would be “in a strong position to work towards the exclusion of the other” so as to gain domination over the oilfields of the Middle East and Central Asian States (41). Indeed, CIA officials (41), and Reagan-Bush administration officials (41) were in agreement that by providing offensive arms to Iran, they were “on the way to something that can become a truly strategic gain for us at the expense of the Sovi ets.”

The Reagan-Bush administration’s explanation that they were illegally selling arms to Iran to get money to illegally buy arms for the terrorists waging war against the Sadinista government in Nicaragua, or to free hostages held in Lebanon, is just another in a series of endless cover ups within cover up within cover ups.



And then, on October 5, 1986, everything went terribly wrong. The secret arm’s deal began to unravel. A C123k cargo aircraft was shot down by a groundtoair missile. “10,000 pounds of small arms and ammunition, consisting mainly of AK rifles and AK am munition, hand grenades, and jungle boots’’ which was meant to be air dropped to the Contras was found in the wreckage. CIA operative, Eugene Hasenfus, the only survivor, was taken prisoner (59).

Later that same day, CIA operative, Felix Rodriguez made a phone call to the office of Vice President George Bush.

Six days later, The Washington Post broke the story (59): “Captured American Flyer to be Tried in Nicaragua. Bush is Linked to Head of Contra Aid Network.”

Bush who was gearing up to run for president at the end of Reagan’s second term, responded by lying and orchestrating a massive coverup. Bush spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater responded to the charges by stating in a press conference that: “Neither the vice president nor anyone on his staff is directing or coordinating an operation in Central America.’’

Bush’s entire career was on the line. If it could be proved that he had been directing gunrunning into Latin America, not only would he not be elected president in the upcoming election, but he could be impeached. And if he were impeached, the ensuing investigation could lead to the uncovering of almost 30 years of crimes and illegal behavior.

Repeatedly Bush proclaimed his innocence: “To say I’m run ning the operation … it’s absolutely untrue.’’

And then the dam broke and the entire “arms for hostages” deal came to light (40,41,42).

Bush, who was “involved in all the national security stuff because of his special background as CIA director,” repeatedly pleaded ignorance. “I was out of the loop” Bush whined over and over again.

President Reagan went on TV to announce: “We did not repeat did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we.”

As the special prosecutor (40) and the Tower Commission (41) began its investigation in the Fall of 1986, the coverup went into overdrive. Pressure, promises, bribes, and threats were made. Those intent on pursuing the investigation were threatened that secret FBI files with damaging dirt would be leaked to the press and that they’d be ruined.

Five months later, on February 26, 1987 “The President’s Special Review Board” (also known as the “Tower Commission”), praised George Bush for his “vigorous reaffirmation of U.S. oppo sition to terrorism in all forms,” and then went on to blame White House Chief of Staff Donald Reagan for the “chaos that descended upon the White House” in the IranContra affair (41).

The cover up was a success. Bush had won again.



After Bush was elected President, Texas Senator John Tower, the commission’s chairman, received his promised reward. He was appointed U.S. Secretary of Defense.

When Tower was asked if his nomination was a “payoff for the clean bill of health” he gave Bush, Tower replied that “the commission was made up of three people, Brent Scowcroft and Ed Muskie in addition to myself. I wonder what kind of payoff they’re going to get?”

Brent Scowcroft received his payoff when Bush appointed him his chief national security adviser.

Who else received a payoff? Admiral Poindexter.

Poindexter, as national security adviser, played a key role in the covert sale of U.S. armaments to the government of Iran, and the diversion of funds from the arms sales to support the contra terrorists in Nicaragua. On March 8th, 1990, Poindexter was brought to trial in Washington, D.C., and was found guilty of five criminal charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of Congress, and mak ing false statements to Congress.

Poindexter took the fall, tried to accept full responsibility in order to protect Bush and Reagan, and one year later, with the help of now President Bush, a federal appeals court panel reversed the conviction on November 15th, 1991.

Ten years later, Admiral Poindexter was hired by the new Bush administration and the Pentagon, and appointed head of DARPA, which is a counterterrorist office which will be used to spy on Americans.




The “arms for hostages” explanation, as the reason for pro viding arms to Iran, was readily accepted by the general public and a gullible and compliant press, despite the patent absurdity of its premise, to wit: Iran was overcharged for weapons, and the extra money was funneled to the Contras (40,41).

Let us recall that Saudi billionaire, Adnan Khashoggi, was providing millions of dollars to support the Contras, as was the Sultan of Brunei, and the royal family of Saudi King Fahd (40). How many other sources were also kicking in cash, we don’t know though we do know that the bin Laden family was involved and that the Contras were also flush with cash thanks to the drug trade (58).

We should ask, was Bush really selling arms for the release of hostages, or was that just icing on the cake? Was the prospect of getting a few dollars of “chump change” left over after overcharg ing Iran, really the reason why Reagan-Bush sold arms to Iran?

If not, then why did Reagan-Bush sell this terrorist state of fensive weapons?

And we should ask, why would the government of Israel (40,41,63), wish to assist in the arming of a radical Islamic funda mentalist regime that was preaching “death to Israel”?

And, why would Saudi Arabia also willingly become part of this triangle when Iran’s Shiit revolution was threatening their Sunni kingdom?

There are several answers all of which center on Middle East ern and Central Asian oil, the Soviet Union, and the fact that Iran was at war with Iraq (64).

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. The Saudis believe that Iraq is a broken off part of Arabia, and they want it back. Israel believes that God promised then a huge hunk of Iraq as part of the promised land (65). And, U.S. oil companies, and the “New World Order” brotherhood of death, wanted Iraq for its oil and its strategic importance in gaining control over the energy needs of the developing world (66).

What all parties wanted in common, was for Iran and Iraq to destroy one another, but that neither should win the war.

It was the ‘ol Hegelian synthesis of controlled conflict where only the bankers, arm’s merchants, and the predators waiting on the sidelines win.

The Iran Iraq war, which began in 1980, was a losing propo sition for Iraq from the start, placing incredible economic, social, religious, and political strains on the country and its people. And, yet, Saddam Hussein started the war, and in this regard it is note worthy that he was urged on by Saudi Arabia which promised to help fund the conflict (67).

Saddam did not make the decision to invade Iran solely be cause of the promises of Saudi Arabia. Rather, he did so because of a sense of incredible vulnerability. Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party, had spent years trying to forge an Iraqi nationstate and to unify a diverse people with diverse religions, which included an almost equal number of Sunnis and Shiits (68). Saddam Hussein believed that Iran’s new Islamic revolutionary Shiit government was planning to throw his own government into chaos and destroy all he had accomplished, by encouraging an uprising among the Shiit population (67,68). The ruling families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia also feared that Iran’s Shiit revolution might spill over into their own borders, and thus, they too felt threatened, and they fanned Saddam’s sense of paranoia (64,67).

Indeed, Iran’s new leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, had al ready vowed revenge on Iraq, which had expelled him after fifteen years in An Najaf. The Ayatollah Khomeini also claimed that Shiits of Iraq were victims of Baathist repression. Khomeini promised to come to their aid. In April of 1980, the Iranians attempted to assas sinate Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz and Latif Nayyif Jasim, the Iraqi Minister of Culture (67).

Saddam had every reason to worry, and thus launched the war preemptively. He did so during a period of Iranian weakness, the result of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the disintegration of the Imperial Iranian Army whose highest ranking officers had been executed following the 1979 Iranian revolution. The Ira nian armed forces were not only without effective leadership, but according to Iraqi intelligence estimates, it also lacked spare parts for their Americanmade equipment (64,67).

Saddam launched his war on September 22, 1980. Within a few weeks it looked as if Iraq would win the war. Saddam even offered to end the war. The Ayatollah Khomeini scornfully rejected his terms.

Almost all experts agree that Saddam miscalculated, that he may have been lured into a war that in the long run, he could not win. Saddam and the world didn’t know it, but Saudi Arabia, Is rael, and the Reagan-Bush administration, were also secretly and covertly backing Iran (40,41,63,69,70).

In October, a few weeks after the IraqIran war began, George Bush secretly met with Iranian officials in Paris, accompanied by Salem bin Laden and Mr. Nir, an Israeli agent (43,44). He made the Iranians an offer, that given their precarious position, they dared not refuse: Keep the Americans hostage and aid would on the way.

Tehran accepted the bribes offered by Bush and rejected Iraq’s settlement offer, as they now knew they were going to begin receiving needed spare parts and supplies. Over the next several weeks, the Iranians desperately sought to hold the line against the militarily superior Iraqi forces, as American arms, supplies, spare parts, and logistics and technological assistance began to arrive in massive amounts from unknown sources—most probably Israel (63).

In January, 1981, as Reagan and Bush took office, Iran be gan releasing imprisoned military officers, the Iranian Army sud denly began cooperating and coordinating attacks with the armed units under the control of Khomeini, and Iran began a series of increasingly effect counteroffensives (64). In 1982 and continuing until 1984, Iraq was repeatedly forced to retreat and Iran began to invade Iraqi territory.

This was made possible with the assistance of the Reagan Bush administration, via Israel (63,70) and Saudi allies, Pakistan and Algeria (71) which transferred vast quantities of U.S. made weapons and spare parts to Iran. In addition to arms, spare parts and supplies, the Reagan-Bush team also passed to the Iranians “intelligence” about the threat on Iran’s borders as well as internal threats posed by Iranian communists (41). According to the Tower Commission (41): “In 1983, the United States helped bring to the attention of Teheran the threat inherent in the extensive infiltration of the government by the communist Tudeh Party and Soviet or pro-Soviet cadres in the country. Using this information, the Khomeini government took measures, including mass executions, that virtually eliminated the pro-Soviet infrastructure in Iran.”

After the Iran-Contra scandal broke, in 1986, Reagan announced in November that his administration provided arms “to find an avenue to get Iran back where it once was and that is in the family of democratic nations” (63). Of course, Iran had never been a democratic nation.

The Tower Commission also justified the illegal provision of materials and intelligence, by echoing the claims of the Reagan Bush administration that they were trying to make friends with Iranian moderates: “a strategic opening to Iran may have been in the national interest” (40).

The Reagan-Bush administration further claimed that their efforts in Iran were designed to build ties to moderates, when in fact they were well aware that they were dealing with religious fanatics and that the weapons would go to the Revolutionary Guards, the shock troops of the mullahs (41). In August 1986, the special assistant to the Israeli prime minister briefed George Bush, telling him, “we are dealing with the most radical elements….This is good because we’ve learned that they can deliver and the moderates can’t” (41).

By the end of 1984, the Iran Iraqi war had become a war of attrition (64). Over 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, and the Iranians were now using children as weapons. According to Iranian eyewitnesses, the Iranian government rounded up thousands of orphans and street urchins, both girls and boys, gave them a “plastic key” to paradise, and wrapped them in blankets and forced them to roll over mine fields. Other witnesses tell of thousands of children, mostly boys, who were tied together with ropes, and then driven forward as human shields.

In 1986, Iran again became flush with new American made offensive weapons and supplies, as well as intelligence about the Iraqi front. Iran, flush with illegal U.S. assistance began a series of highly successful attacks, capturing large land masses in the southern regions of Iraq as well as the Iraqi oil port of Al Faw (64). CIA deputy director John McMahon remarked that this intelligence gave the Iranians “a definite edge,” which would produce “cataclysmic results” (41).

In January of 1987, Iranian units began a massive offensive into Iraqi terrorize, and almost broke Iraq’s last line of defense east of Basra. Victory was almost within their grasp (64).

However, the Israelis, the Saudis, and the American had no stomach for an Iranian victory. The goals was to bleed these nations dry. If Iraq fell, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be the next targets of the Islamic revolution, and Reagan had already declared, after becoming President, that “we will not permit [Saudi Arabia] to be an Iran.”

The United States now began to openly supply Iraq. In May 1987, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy met with Saddam Hussein and promised him arms and assistance. He also assured Saddam that the UN would pass a mandatory arms embargo against Iran.

The strategy was pure Hegelian. A weak Iraq was in need of friends and money, and the Reagan-Bush administration and the bankers and arms merchants of Wall Street were happy to provide loans and to sell him whatever he needed. This strategy also served to pry Saddam away from the Soviet Union, thus making him more dependent on the U.S.

In truth, however, the Reagan-Bush administration, in true Hegelian tradition, had been supplying arms to Iraq since 1981, including five Boeing jetliners (72). However, to do so legally, the Reagan-Bush removed Iraq from its list of nations supporting international terrorism. The Reagan Bush team extended a $400 mil lion credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq (73).

This assistance was increased in 1987, whereas all support for Iran disappeared. As a result, by late 1987 Iran had become less able to mount an effective defense against the resupplied Iraqi army and air force (64).

The Reagan-Bush team also began authorizing U.S. military attacks on Iran, including in October 1987, the destruction of Ira nian oil platforms (74).

The U.S. Navy was also “deployed aggressively and provocatively in the hottest parts of the Persian Gulf” the purpose of which was “to start fights, not to end them.” According to one commanding officer, “We behave at times as if our objective was to goad Iran into a war with us” (77).

That same year, the U.S. cruiser “Vicennes” shot down an Iranian commercial jetliner, killing all 290 people aboard. Although the Reagan-Bush administration claimed it was an accident, it was well known among Navy personnel, that the Vicennes had behaved in a “consistently aggressive” fashion, attacking neutral and non threatening Iranian targets. Because it seemed programmed to at tack, some Navy personnel referred to the ship as “Robo Cruiser” (74,76).

With U.S. assistance to Iraq, and by attacking and denying the Iranian military further assistance, the tide of the Iraqi-Iranian war began to turn. “Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis routed or defeated the Iranians. In the fall of 1988, the Iraqis displayed in Baghdad captured Iranian weapons amounting to more than three-quarters of the Iranian armor inventory and almost half of its artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers” (77).

However, again, it was not the intention of the Reagan-Bush administration, or the Saudis or the Israelis, for Iraq to win. In 1988, Iraq and Iran were so badly bruised and battered, that in response to international pressure, they agreed to end the war.


The Iraq-Iranian war served the long-term objectives of the CIA, Wall Street, the oil men, the Bush family, Israel, and, initially, the Saudi royal family. Iraq and Iran were greatly weakened, thus reducing both not only as a potential threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia, but rendering Iraq more susceptible, in its weakened state, to someday being conquered by Israel, the U.S., or the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.

As detailed in chapter 7, at the end of the first world war, and with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France pounced on the Middle East, and divided up the spoils. They created artificial boundaries and thus new states in the Middle East. France and Britain believed that a fragmented people, ruled by leaders appointed by them, would be easier to exploit, and could be more easily forced to accept whatever terms were offered in return for their oil.

France took Syria and Lebanon, and Britain broke Arabia into three states: Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia which was re named after king Ibn Saud. The modern borders of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait were established by British Imperial fiat at what became known as the Uqauir Conference.

King Ibn Saud, however, was determined to someday unify his country and to erase the artificial boundaries which created the bastard states of Kuwait and Iraq. This has been the goal of the Saudi royal family ever since.

However, the Saudi SunniWahhabis not only believe that Iraq is a broken off province but that Iraq’s secular government, led by Saddam Hussein, is an affront to God. Indeed, the Saudis have the same view as to the leaders and the peoples of many other Islamic states. It is the long term goal of the followers of the Sunni-Wahhabi school of Islam is to recapture Iraq, and to create a single unified Islamic superstate which includes not just the coun tries of the Middle East, but the world (14,15).

The Sunni-Wahhabis are advocates of “oneness” (Muwahiddun) and the creation of a single unified Islamic world and state, where all the people of the planet belong to “the one true religion” of the Sunni branch of Islam. As preached by the Sunni Wahhabis, the followers of other religions, including Jews, Christians, Hindus, and even Shiits, are heretics, apostates, and infidels, who must be forcibly converted, or killed (15).

It is the Wahhabism connection which also explains why Salem bin Laden, the Saudi king’s best friend, was playing a major role in the “arms for hostages” program and why the Saudis were willing to provide millions of dollars to the Contras as well as other terrorist groups that were attacking western targets as well as other Muslim nations. It is because of their belief in Wahhabism, that the Saudi royals and other leading Saudi families have been eager to fund terrorism, as it is their goal to overthrow non-Islamic governments, including the secular and Shiit leaders of other Islamic nations, and to covert the people of others faiths (14,15).

In this regard, not just Iraq, but Iran with its Shiit population and Shiit leadership has also been a Wahhabi target. However, prior to 1979, both nations appeared to be too strong to conquer.



In 1979, an unexpected event brought the Saudis and the Western powers even closer together and seemed to provide a pos sible solution to the Wahhabi problem of Iran and Iraq. The Shah of Iran, was overthrown and replaced by an anti-U.S. fundamentalist Shiit Muslim regime.

Whereas the U.S. lost an important ally, the Saudis now had to contend with a Shiit revolutionary revival that threatened to spread into Iraq and then into other Islamic nations including even Saudi Arabia—and the Shiite branch of Islam was something the Saudis were intent to destroy.

However, if Iraq and Iran were to go to war, then both might be bled to weakness, thereby eliminating Shiit Iran as a threat and thus making Iraq that much easier to conquer.

It is for these, and reasons related to the control of oil, that the Saudis were willing to work with the Reagan-Bush administration, and initially provide arms to Iran: The Bush team and the Saudis were hungrily eyeing Iraq’s oil fields which some day they hoped to seize. Indeed, Bush, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were all eyeing the same prize and all were happy to initially provide Iran with arms—but not enough arms to win the war with Iraq which Israel hopes to someday annex and which the Saudis hope to some day seize and covert to Wahhabism.

In this regard, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel were of one mind, which is why all three covertly provided arms and intelligence to Iran, while overtly (with the exception of Israel) providing assistance to Iraq.

It was the ‘ol Hegelian dialectic. Controlled conflict. The synthesis was that whereas in 1988 Iran and Iraq had both lost, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the oil companies and the Wall Street elite were now a few steps closer to someday achieving their long range goals: the creation of a “new world order.”



The following year, in 1989, yet another battle was won. The Soviets, bloody and bruised were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan.

The next phase of the battle for the Central Asian states, and the oilfields of Iraq, had just begun.



1). Stephen Shlesinger & Stephen Kinzer, “Bitter Fruit: the Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala,” Anchor Press, 1990′ Stacy May & Galo Plaza, “The United Fruit Company in Latin America,” Wash ington, National Planning Association, 1957; Alejandra Batres, “The Experience of the Guatemalan United Fruit Company Workers, 19441954: Why Did They Fail?” Texas Papers on Latin America, Paper No. 9501, University of Texas at Austin, 1995; Paul Dosal, “Doing Business with the Dictators : a Political History of United Fruit in Guatemala, 1899 1944,” SR Books, 1993; Thomas, McCann, “An American Company: the Tragedy of United Fruit,” Crown, 1976; E. Howard Hunt, “Give Us This Day,” New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1973; Audrey R. Kahin, George McT Kahin, “Subversion As Foreign Policy: The Secret Eisenhower and Dulles Debacle in Indonesia;” University of Washington Press, 1997; Vitaly, Syrokomsky, “International Terrorism and the CIA: Documents, Eyewitness Reports, Facts,” Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1983; James A. Bill, “ The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations,” Yale University Press, 1988;Fletcher Prouty, “The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the U.S. and the World,” Prentice Hall, 1973; Jonathan Kwitney, “The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money & the CIA,” WW Norton, 1987; Rodney Stich, “Defrauding America: A Pattern Of Related Scandals — Dirty Secrets Of The CIA And Other Government Operations,” Diablo Western Press, 1993; William Blum, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Intervention Since WWII,” Common Courage Press, 1995.

2). Robinson Rojas Sandford, “The Murder of Allende and the End of the Chilean Way of Socialism,” Harper & Row, 1976; Paul M. Sweezy, “Revolution and Counter-revolution in Chile,” Monthly Review Press, 1974; “CIA plot against Allende: Operating guidance cable,” 10/16/1970. “CIA, Operating Guidance Cable on Coup Plotting, October 16, 1970.”

3) William C. Gibbons, “The U.S. Government and the Vietnam War: Executive and Legislative Roles and Relationships,” Princeton University Press, 19861989.

4). The CIA has been interfering with the nation of Iraq since the 1950s. In 1958, when the U.S.British puppet regime of Nuri Said was overthrown by an uprising of the population, and Abdul Karim Kassem, came to power in his place, the CIA began recruiting operatives from the Iraqi Baath Party, whose leaders included Saddam Hussein. Kassem was overthrown in 1963, by a CIAled Baath party coup. A CIA chief, in testifying before the Senate in the CIA’s role in the bloody coup, whimsically remarked, “The target suffered a terminal illness before a firing squad in Baghdad.” The Baath party was then given a long list of Communists and other undesirables, who were to be arrested and assassinated. How ever, the Baath party then proved to be to independent, particularly when it came to Iraq’s vast oil reserves, which is the prize the CIA, the oil men, and the Wall Street were after in the first place. The CIA thus began a program of destabilization and bribery. In 1964, Mulla Mustafa Barzani, the leader of the former Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) was paid $14 million dollars by the CIA, and was given promises of support for Kurdish independence. Kurdistan, has been broken apart and chunks had been given away to Turkey, Iran and Iraq following the close of WWII. The catch was that Mulla Mustafa Barzani and the KDP had to help over throw the ruling Iraqi Baath Party and then turn over the rights to all Iraqi oil fields to U.S. oil companies.

5). William Scobie, Observer, 11/18/90; Wolfgang Achtner, Sun day Independent, 11/11/1990; Searchlight, 11/1991; Associated Press, 11/ 13/90; John Palmer, Guardian, 10/11/90; Anarchy/Refract, 1984; Richard Norton Taylor, Guardian, 11/15/90; Time Out, 4/7/70; Charles Richards & Simon Jones, Independent, 11/16/90; d Vulliamy, Guardian, 12/5/90; Edward Lucas, Independent, 11/16/90. These terrorists groups were part of Operation Stay Behind and in Italy they were referred to as operation Gladio (the Sword). In Belgium the Stay Behind group was called SDRA 8 and regularly employed terror and several attempted coups. In 1983, in order to convince the Belgian public that a security crisis existed, Gladio operatives staged a series of seemingly random shootings, killing people on the street, at gas stations, and in supermarkets.

6) Le Nouvel Observateur, 11/1521/1998; Bill Blum, “Killing Hope;” Ali A. Jalali & Lester W. Grau, “Night Stalkers and Mean Streets: Afghan Urban Guerrillas,” Infantry, 1999;” Haji MohammadYakub, “Four Urban Bomb Attacks,” Infantry, 1999; Vladislav Tamarov, “Afghanistan Soviet Vietnam,” HRussia, 1995.

7). Yoram Schweitzer, “Osama bin Laden and the Egyptian Terror ist Groups;” Hamid Algar, “Wahhabism: A Critical Essay,” Islamic Publications International, 2002.

8). Leslie H. Gelb, “U.S. Said to Aid Iranian Exiles in Combat and Political Units,” New York Times, 3/7/1982; Farhang, “Iran-Israel Connection;” Bob Woodward, et al., “The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981 1987,” Simon & Schuster, 1987. Starting in 1979, the CIA, working with the Saudi Royal family, and the bin Laden group’s Paris headquarters, began organizing a group in Paris called the Front for the Liberation of Iran. By 1982, the FLN was receiving $100,000 a month, The FLN was headed by Ali Amini, a CIA operative since 1953. It was Ali Amini who assisted in the 1953 CIA-backed coup which resulted in the denationalization of Iranian oil which was then grabbed up by Standard oil and others. The U.S. also provided support to Iranian terrorists groups based in Turkey, which were headed by General Bahram Aryana, the former chief of the Shah’s armed forces.

9). Yet another group, the “MEK” received financing from the bin Laden group in Paris, in 1980 or 1981. The MEK was established in the late 1960s, and participated in the 1979 Islamic revolution that led to the overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. However, as the MEK preached a brand of Islam that included Marxist ideology, and as some of its leaders were allegedly Sunnis, the Kohmeini regime began arresting and executing its leaders, and the group was driven from its bases on the Iran-Iraq border. The MEK reestablished itself in Paris, the headquarters of the bin Laden group. After the Iran-Contra scandal broke, and the U.S. began openly siding with Iraq, the MEK the moved to Iraq where it then began orchestrating terrorist attacks against Iran.

10). “World Petroleum Assessment 2000 Description and Results,”. U.S. Geological Survey, 2000; “World Factbook of the Central Intelligence Agency of the U.S.A.”

11). John J. Maresca, vice president of Unocal, in his testimony before a House of Representatives committee, reported that “the region’s total oil reserves may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels,” may lie beneath the soil of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan.

12). J.H. Walsh, Parabolic Projection of World Conventional Oil Production Based on Year 2000 Resource Assessment of the U.S. Geo logical Survey;” John H. Walsh, “World Per Capita Oil Consumption, 19652000; “BP Statistical Review of World Energy;” 2000.

13) “Energy Annual Report. World Oil Consumption, 19802000.”

14). Ahmed Rashid, Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia,” Yale Univ Press, 2002.

15). Hamid Algar, “Wahhabism: A Critical Essay,” Islamic Publications International, 2002.

16). Le Nouvel Observateur, 11/1521/1998; Bill Blum, “Killing Hope.”

17). Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung, Refugees from Afghanistan (1980 to 1990 ) Quelle: World Refugee Survey, 1999.

18). Kirk J. Beattie, “Egypt During the Sadat Years,” Palgrave Macmillan, 2000; Kenneth W. Stein, “Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest,” Routledge, 1999.

19). Jason Hoppin, The National Law Journal, 6/12/2000.

20). Parade, “Edwin Wilson: The CIA’s Great Gatsby,” 9/18/1993. 21). U.S. Department of Defense, News, 10/8/1981; American Forces Information Services, U.S. Department of Defense, October, 1981. This well established series of events became the grist for a work of fiction, by the name of “Bright Star” (by Harold W. Coyle, Paul McCarthy) “In the not too distant future, an assassination attempt by Libyan terrorists sparks an Egyptian retaliatory raid across the borders. As the conflict intensifies, U.S. and Soviet troops are drawn into the battle. Frontline soldiers on both sides embark on daring commando raids and face horrific nerve gas attacks.”

22). Mohamed Heikal, “Autumn of Fury: The Assassination of Sadat,” Random House, 1984.

23). Jehl, Douglas, “Egyptian Doctor Believed to be bin Laden’s No. 2,” The New York Times, 9/24/2001.

23). Yoram Schweitzer, “Osama bin Laden and the Egyptian Terrorist Groups.” According to Peter Bergen, author of “Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden,” “the relationship of the al Jihad group and al Qaeda is essentially they are the same organization.” According to the U.S. State Department, AlQaeda and Islamic Jihad “officially” merged in 1998.

24). Scott Baldauf, “The Cave Man and Al-Qaeda,” Christian Science Monitor, 10/31/2001.

25). San Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/2001; United Press International, 10/12/2001.

26). Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie “Forbidden Truth: U.S. Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden,” Avalon Books, 2002.

27). Yoram Schweitzer, “Osama bin Laden and the Egyptian Terrorist Groups.”

28). AFP, Agence France Presse, 6/16/2002.

29). The Shari’a is a strictly fundamentalist version of the revealed and the canonical laws of the Sunni brand of Islam and are based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.).Today, many radical Islamic groups raise the slogan of making the Shari’a the law of a new Islamic state.

30). Howard Schneider, “U.S. Aid Remakes Egypt,” Washington Post Foreign Service, 12/26/2000.

31). Ledenese Epistle, 1996, 1998.

32). Paddy Agnew, Irish Times, 11/15/1990,

33). The “Bin laden Brothers for Contracting and Industry,” is head quartered in Jiddahh, Saudi Arabia. However, Yeslam bin Laden heads up a portion of the group’s international activities in Geneva and Paris; Ali bin laden lives in Paris, and in the 1980s the bin Laden’s Saudi Arab Finance Corporation, was headquartered in Paris, and Salem bin Laden, as well as Saudis, Khalid Ben Mahfouz, Salam Ahmed Bogshan, Saad Khalil Al Bahjat, Taha Baksh, etc. were major shareholders of the Saudi Arab Finance Corporation which also controlled a number of other companies, and which are believed to have funneled money to various terror ist organizations. Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, of the Saudi Arab Finance Corporation, has been discovered to have laundered money to finance terrorism and bin Laden’s terrorist organization.

34). Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, is Osama Bin Laden’s Brother In Law, and like the bin Ladens, is also linked to George W. Bush. As deter mined following a U.S. audit of Saudi government finances, five of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest businessmen, including National Commercial Bank (NBC) founder and chairman Khalid bin Mahfouz, transferred over $3 million dollars from a Saudi pension fund, to New York and London banks with accounts linked to terrorism (USA Today, 102899). NCB deposited the money into accounts of such Islamic charities as Islamic Relief — and Blessed Relief, where Abdul Rahman Mahfouz, Mahfouz’s son, serves on the board in Sudan, and Egyptians officials have charged that funds for supporting terrorism against Egypt has its source, in part, in the Sudan.

35). Ronald Motley, representing nine hundred families of the 9/11 victims, filed a trillion dollar lawsuit against members of the royal Saudi family, Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz as well as a number of Saudi banks and charities, charging them with financing Osama bin Laden and alQaeda. The lawsuit alleges that Saudi money has “for years been funneled to encourage radical antiAmericanism as well as to fund the Al Qaeda terrorists.”

36). As detailed by Ben Barber, The Washington Times, 5/7/2002, “The Saudi government gave $135 million in….16 months to” fund terrorism. The money goes to a list of 13 charities, and seven of them fund Hamas,” which the State Department lists as a terrorist organization. As detailed in The Washington Times, 8/24/2002, another Saudi charity, Al Haramain also uses “its funds to finance terrorism.

37). Kenneth Damm, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Treasury testi fied in Congress, in May of 2002, that the Saudi-based AlHaramain Charity and a number of other Saudi-connected charities have abused its funds to finance terrorism.

38). Wall Street Journal, “Vetting the Frontrunners: From Oil to Baseball to the Governor’s Mansion,” 9/28/1999; Jonathan Beaty & S.C. Gwynne, “The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into the Secret Heart of BCCI,” Random House, 1993. See also, Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2001; Daniel Golden et al. “Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank,” Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2001.

39). Le Figaro, 10/31/2001; Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie “Forbidden Truth: U.S.Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden,” Avalon Books, 2002.

40). United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters Lawrence E. Welch, Independent Counsel, August 4, 1993, Washington D.C. Volume 1. Investigations and Prosecutions.

41). President’s Special Review Board, “The Tower Commission,” Bantam Books/Times Books, 1987.

42). Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott & Jane Hunter, “The Iran Contra Connection: Secret Teams and Covert Operations in the Reagan Era,” South End Press, 1987.

43). PBS Frontline, 2001; Al Martin, “Behind the Scenes in the Beltway.”

44). Gary Slick, “October Surprise: America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan,” Random House, 1991.

45). William B. Quandt, “Saudi Arabia in the 1980s: Foreign Policy, Security, and Oil,” Brookings Institute, Washington, DC, 1981; Frank E. Vogel, “Islamic Law and Legal System: Studies of Saudi Arabia,” Brill Academic Publishers, 2000; A. M. Vasilev, Alexei Vassiliev, “The His tory of Saudi Arabia,” New York University Press, 2000.

46) The “Ikhwan,” or “Brotherhood,” is the military arm of Wahhabism. George H.W. Bush, and his son, George W. Bush, are both alumni of the “Brotherhood” the Brotherhood of Death, “Skull and Bones;” Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, “George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography,” The Executive Intelligence Review; Anthony Sutton, “America’s Secret Establishment: An introduction to The Order of Skull & Bones” Liberty House, New York. 1986; Ron Rosenbaum, “The Last Secrets of Skull and Bones,” Esquire Magazine, September, 1977.

47). Margaret Ramirez, “New Islamic Movement Seeks Latino Converts,” Los Angeles Times, 5/15/1999: James W. Blair Jr. “Islam in Latin America,” The Christian Science Monitor; Susan Ferriss, “Spanish Muslim mission grows in Mexico, Links to Mayan, Moorish roots sur vive centuries of oppression,” Cox Washington Bureau News Service, 8/ 12.2002; Stephen Magagnini, “A Matter of Faith: Islam is Fastest Growing Religion in the U.S.,” Sacramento Bee, 7/1/2001; Chris L. Jenkins, “Islam Luring More Latinos Prayers Offer a More Intimate Link to God,” Washington Post , 1/7/2001; “Islamic Da’wah Center of Brazil,” Sao Paulo, Safar /5/17/2001.

48). Deborah Kong, “Islam has Long and Resurging Presence in Hispanic Culture.” July, 2002.

49). Pobladores Usan Túnicas Y Turbantes: Descubren Pueblo Que No Figura En Mapa (see http://www.latinmuslims.com/ history/ pueblo.html).

50). Christopher Dickey, “With the Contras: A Reporter in the Wilds of Nicaragua, Henry Holt and Co., 1991; Robert Kagan, “A Twilight Struggle: American Power and Nicaragua, 19771990,” Simon & Schuster, 1996; Holly Sklar. “Washington’s War on Nicaragua,” South End Press, 1988; Gary Webb, “Dark Alliance: The CIA, The Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion, Seven Stories Press, 1998; L. Francis Bouchey (editor), “The Real Secret War,” Council for Inter-American Security, 1987; Sam Dillon, “Comandos: The CIA and Nicaragua’s Contra Rebels;” Scott Armstrong (Editor), “The National Security Archive, The Chronology: The Documented Day by Day Account of the Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Contras,” Warner Books, 1987.

51). Robert Kagan, “A Twilight Struggle: American Power and Nicaragua, 19771990,” Simon & Schuster, 1996; Holly Sklar. “Washington’s War on Nicaragua,” South End Press, 1988.

52). National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 27, Washington, DC.: This document and a State Department funded investigation in 1986 and 1987 details repeated instances of the murder or torture of prisoners by the Nicaraguan contras as CIA agents watched or “turned the other way.”

53). Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf.”

54). “Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare.”

55). Sam Dillon, “Comandos: The CIA and Nicaragua’s Contra Rebels.” Peter Kornbluh and Malcolm Byrne, “The Iran Contra Scandal: The Declassified History. A National Security Archive Documents Reader,” W.W. Norton & Co.

56). National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 138 was signed by Ronald Reagan on April 3, 1984. Although much of it remains classified, this NSDD, authorized both the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to form covert operations teams and to use military special operations forces to conduct guerrilla-style terrorist acts and preemptive operations, retaliation, expanded intelligence collection, sabotage and when necessary, killing of guerrillas in “preemptive” self-defense. States that sponsored “terrorists,” were targeted for these operations including Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua and the Soviet Union. Other unnumbered NSDD issued in November 1984, shields these teams authorized by NSDD 138 from legal action under U.S. law if they were acting in “good faith,” as long as the teams were engaged in authorized anti-terror operations. The NSDD also provided funds of recruiting and training indigenous “preemptive self-defense teams.” In one attack, 80 civilians were murdered. An unnumbered NSDD) signed on 11/13/194, Nov. 13, 1984 provides carte blanche exemption from U.S. legal proceedings for operatives engaged in anti-terrorist activities outside the U.S. Murder, if conducted in “good faith” was legalized.

57). The Boland Amendment to the War Powers Act of 1973. Passed December 8, 1982, 1984.

58). Gary Webb, “Dark Alliance: The CIA, The Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion,” Seven Stories Press, 1998.

59). The Washington Post, 11/11/1986.

60). Scott Armstrong (Editor), “The National Security Archive, The Chronology: The Documented DaybyDay Account of the Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Contras,” Warner Books, 1987.

61). As reported in the Tower Commission Report (41) “Craig Fuller Memorandum,” July 30, 1986: “SUMMARY. Mr. Nir indicated that he had briefed Prime Minister Peres and had been asked to brief the V[ice] P[resident] by his White House contacts. He described the details of the efforts from last year through the current period to gain the release of the U.S. hostages. He reviewed what had been learned which was essentially that the radical group was the group that could deliver. He reviewed the issues to be considered—namely that there needed to be ad [sic] decision as to whether the items requested would be delivered in separate shipments or whether we would continue to press for the release of the hostages prior to delivering the items in an amount agreed to previously. 2. The VP’s 25 minute meeting was arranged after Mr. Nir called Craig Fuller and requested the meeting and after it was discussed with the VP by Fuller and North…. 14. Nir described some of the lessons learned: `We are dealing with the most radical elements…. They can deliver … that’s for sure….they can deliver and the moderates can’t.”

62). The CIA was responsible for organizing a 500 member “interdiction force” to train, arm, support, and advise the Contras. The agency established a base of operations for its Central American Task Force in Honduras, and by 1983 was spending $45 million to sustain 7,000 Contras.

63). Mansour Farhang, “The IranIsrael Connection,” in Abbas Alnasrawi and Cheryl Rubenberg, “Consistency of U.S. Foreign Policy: The Gulf War and the IranContra Affair,” Belmont, MA: AAUG, 1989.

64). Anthony H. Cordesman,” The IranIraq War and Western Security, 198487,” Jane’s Publishing Co., 1987; Mansour Farhang, “The Iran-Iraq War: The Feud, the Tragedy, the Spoils,” World Policy Journal, vol. 2, Fall 1985; Cordesman, “Iran-Iraq War,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 2000; John W. Amos II, “The Iraq-Iran War: Conflict, Linkage, and Spillover in the Middle East,” in Robert G. Darius, et al., “Gulf Security into the 1980s: Perceptual and Strategic Dimensions,” Hoover Institution Press, 1984.

65). Genesis 15:18 “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river [ 15:18 Or [ Wadi ] ] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.

66). Robert G. Darius, John W. Amos II, Ralph H.Magnus, (Editors) “Gulf Security into the 1980s: Perceptual and Strategic Dimensions,” Hoover Institution Press, 1984; Harold Brown, “Thinking About National Security,” Westview, 1983; Michael Renner, “Restructuring the World Energy Industry,” MERIP Reports, no. 120, 1/1984; William B. Quandt, “Saudi Arabia in the 1980s: Foreign Policy, Security, and Oil,” Brookings Institute, 1981.

67). Mansour Farhang, “The Iran-Iraq War: The Feud, the Tragedy, the Spoils,” World Policy Journal, vol. 2, Fall 1985.

68). Charles Tripp, “A History of Iraq,” Cambridge Univ Press, 2000.

69). Israel provided Iran with logistics support, to assist them in

destroying Iraq’s newly constructed nuclear reactor. Iran launched an unsuccessful attack on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor on 9/30/1980. On 6/7/1981 Israel initiated an air attack on the same Iraqi Osirak reactor, destroying it.

70). Leslie H. Gelb, “Iran Said to Get Large Scale Arms From Israel, Soviet and Europeans,” New York Times, 3/8/1982; Cordesman, “Iran Iraq War;” Benjamin BeitH allahmi, “The Israeli Connection: Who Israel Arms and Why,” Pantheon, 1987.

71). Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Power and Principle,” Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1987.

72). Robert O. Freedman, “Soviet Policy Toward the Persian Gulf from the Outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War to the Death of Konstantin Chernenko,” in W. J. Olson (Editor) “U.S. Strategic Interests in the Gulf Region,” Westview, 1987.

73). Joe Stork & Martha Wenger, “U.S. Ready to Intervene in the Gulf War,” MERIP Reports, nos. 125/126, July-Sept. 1984.

74). Federation of American Scientists, Military Analysis Network, “Iran-Iraq War (19801988),” 1999; Francis V. Xavier “Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War,” Marine Corps Historical Publication, FMFRP, 0, 12/1990.

75). Gary Sick, “Failure and Danger in the Gulf,” New York Times, 7/6/1988.

76). David R. Carlson, “The ‘Vicennes’ Incident,” proceedings, U.S. Naval Institute, 9/1989.

77). Federation of American Scientists, Military Analysis Network, “Iran-Iraq War (19801988),” 1999.





Indeed, like the Nazi laws passed 70 years prior, the Patriot Act, signed into law by Bush, suspends or curtails a number of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, i.e., individuals can be arrested and detained indefinitely without charge; police powers are increased enabling them to monitor private telephone conversations or to conduct secret searches with minimal judicial oversight; private business records can be seized even if there is no evidence of a crime; American citizens can be spied on for “intelligence” purposes and without the need of a warrant; even librarians can be ordered to provide police with lists of all books and reading material checked out by a “person of interest” even though there is no evidence of a crime.Continue reading →



The attendees included the owners and representatives of Germany’s largest companies and corporations including those that were controlled or directed or in business with Prescott Bush, his father-in-law George Walker, and their associates, Harriman and Rockefeller: Standard Oil, IG Farben, Hamburg-Amerika shipping, Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation, German Steel Trust’s Union Banking Corporation, etc. Continue reading →

Compare the emblem of the Skull & Bones, which preceded the Nazis and supported them, to the Nazi Death Head


“Some of the biggest men in the U.S. in the fields of commerce and manufacturing know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” -President Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the USA Continue reading →



Throughout the 1930′s and early 1940s, Prescott Bush, the Harrimans, Rockefellers, and their associates, had been in business with Nazis and the terrorist brotherhood, the SS. With the assistance of the Dulles brothers, who were playing pivotal roles in and out of the White House, the Brotherhood of Death began expanding its cancerous tentacles into the heart of the United States government. With the help of friends in high places, including Dulles and hundreds of Nazis in the new CIA, Bush and friends were not only able to completely cover up their treacherous crimes, but would use the government of the United States as a tool for committing new ones. Continue reading →

Chairman Frank Church, D- Idaho., the Senate Intelligence Committee, holds up a poison daft gun as co-chairman John G. Tower, R-Texas looks at the weapon during a session the panel's probe of the Central Intelligence Agency Tuesday, Sept. 17, 1975 in Washington. (AP Photo/Henry Griffin)


“Carl Bernstein, writing in the October 1977 issue of Rolling Stone magazine, reported that more than 400 American journalists worked for the CIA, and that the New York Times was one of the CIA’s closest media collaborators. Yet other CIA assets included Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, as well as Newsweek and Time magazine and CBS news. In December of 1977, the New York Times reported that “more than eight hundred news and public information organizations and individuals,” had been on the CIA’s payroll.” Continue reading →



The economy of the world is dependent on black gold, oil that is. Saudi Arabia has the largest pool of oil reserves. The desert kingdom is awash with oil. The second largest known reserves are beneath the soil of Iraq. However, in the 1970s, evidence began to accrue to suggest that beneath the Caspian Basin and in the adjoining Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan, lay incredible huge pools of oil, perhaps as much or more than the total reserves of Iraq. Continue reading →



This partnership, which has its roots firmly entrenched in Nazi Germany, was given renewed emphasis when Khalid bin Abdul Aziz (King Khalid) became the fourth King of Saudi Arabia, reigning from 1975 to 1982… It was during the co-reign of these two monarchs, that the bin Ladens became business partners with the Bush family. The Bush clan also forged relations with other Saudi families who would later play a significant role in financing and aiding the 9/11 terrorist attack on America. Continue reading →



Although many Nazi doctors were hanged, just as many be came agents of the CIA and United States government, including Walter Schreiber, who helped conduct many of the Nazi medical experiments at Dachau. Yet another famous Nazi, Dr. Josef Mengele—the ultra-sadistic “angel of death”— also began working for the good ‘ol USA. Continue reading →

Enduring Freedom


The “new world order” is, however, a “Hegelian” concept, and the Hegelian dialectic requires controlled conflict, between opposing parties: thesis antithesis = Synthesis (the New World Order). Continue reading →



The Bush administration and high ranking members of the FBI and CIA, have claimed that it is impossible for the CIA to plant or recruit spies from within terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. That differences of language, religion, and ethnicity, make recruitment impossible. American spies would “stand out like a sore thumb” and would be killed and eliminated by “evil doers.” Continue reading →



Indeed, just as the Bush family and their associates have partnered with the bin Laden family and a number of Saudis and Pakistanis who helped finance the 9/11 attack, George H.W. Bush, his CIA and FBI, the Saudis and Pakistanis were also linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.Continue reading →



In 1996, soon after the Taliban took Kabul, and following the arrival of bin Laden, the Taliban leaders were persuaded to start talking business with the Bush clan, and to agree to the construction of an oil pipeline. Soon, the Taliban were on their way to Houston, Texas—Bush country. The Taliban were then dined and lavishly entertained by executives of the oil company, Unocal, the same Unocal that has extensive ties to the current administration of George W. Bush. Continue reading →



Immediately following 9/11, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice, made it vehemently clear that they opposed any public or congressional inquiry into the so called “intelligence failures” which led to this horrible tragedy. Bush, Cheney, and Rice, all mouthed the same self-serving absurdities: an investigation would interfere with the war on terrorism. Continue reading →



White House aids entered the room where Cheney was still enjoying the spectacle on TV. They told him that a Boeing 757, an American Airlines commercial jet had been hijacked by terrorists. They feared that it might be headed directly toward Washington, the nation’s capital. Continue reading →

Be the first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.