FTR #476 More on the Schmitzes, the Underground Reich and 9/11

Recorded September 19, 2004
REALAUDIO

Complementing information presented in FTR#469, the program details the career of Joseph E. Schmitz—a very formidable individual who is Inspector General of the Department of Defense. A member of the Schmitz family discussed in FTR#469, Joseph E. Schmitz is in a vitally important position in the Pentagon and is in a very sensitive position with regard to a number of the investigations relating to 9/11. His brother—John P. Schmitz—is a partner with a powerful German-based international law firm that is also involved with a number of 9/11-related investigations. This is very important, because it places the formidable Schmitz brothers in position to have a profound effect on the investigation of 9/11. As was the case with his father and as is the case with his brother John, Joseph E. Schmitz’s world is characterized by a preoccupation with “things German.” The possibility that this obsession with “Germania” may herald an association between the ultra right-wing Schmitz family and the Underground Reich is one to be seriously considered.

Program Highlights Include: Joseph E. Schmitz’s central position with regard to a number of 9/11-related investigations including: the Sibel Edmonds case, the issue of intelligence collection vs. civil liberties and the Abu Ghraib case; Joseph Schmitz’s membership in the ultra right-wing Federalist Society; Schmitz’s participation in the American Council on Germany; Schmitz’s membership in the Sovereign Military of Malta; Schmitz’s participation in the World Security Network; Schmitz’s membership in U.S. English—an “English-only” organization with white- supremacist leanings; the elder John Schmitz’s “German preoccupation”; the elder Schmitz’s affinity for a college founded by Warren Carroll—whose name crops up in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy; Joseph Schmitz’s fascination with General von Steuben—the Prussian officer who was the first Inspector General of the Pentagon; discussion of the Steuben Society—a Nazi Fifth Column organization in the United States during the World War II period; the German national security links to the World Security Network (with which Joseph E. Schmitz is affiliated); review of the many power-political connections of John P. Schmitz—Joseph’s brother.

1. Beginning the discussion of Joseph E. Schmitz, the program notes his significant role in the case of FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds has charged the FBI with deliberately covering up information disclosing successful infiltration of the bureau’s translation department by people associated with drug dealers and terrorists. (For more about Sibel Edmonds, see FTR#462.) A recently posted Internet article raises the question of whether or not the Pentagon deliberately leaked the name of the organization that was the focal point of Ms. Edmonds’ research. Such a leak jeopardizes Ms. Edmonds’ investigation (and health?). Again, it should be noted that Joseph E. Schmitz is at the epicenter of the Sibel Edmonds situation. “The ongoing saga of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ small war with the Department of Justice has garnered increasing media attention in recent weeks. However, this has almost entirely centered on free speech and legal issues: John Ashcroft’s gag order, Judge Reggie Walton’s dismissal of her case, and now, her open letter to the 9/11 Commission. Incredibly, the Commission’s final report failed to include her shocking testimony confirming crime, corruption and incompetence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation—a failing that greatly diminishes the credibility and trustworthiness of the Committee itself. However this is just one dimension of a very far-reaching story.”
(“Did Pentagon Reveal Name of Edmonds’ ‘Semi-Legit’ Group?”; Balkanalysis.com; 8/5/2004; p. 1;.)

2. “For aside from Sibel Edmonds’ legal crusade is the issue of persons and organizations she encountered whose part-time activities touch on things from arms and drug trafficking to espionage and even terrorism. Some of these figures (such as Can and Doug Dickerson) have been publicly named, but the Department of Justice gag order on Sibel has prevented her from doing anything more than alluding to the other, and presumably bigger fish involved.” (Ibid.; pp. 1-2.)

3. “That said, a previously unreleased document from September 2002 may contain a key to unraveling the mystery at the heart of the case: who or what are the semi-legitimate organizations that Edmonds has cryptically referred to as being the major players behind the major organized crime rings whom Edmonds charges with endangering American national security?” (Ibid.; p. 5.)

4. “On August 7, 2002, Sibel Edmonds launched a complaint with the US Air Force over the suspected illegal activities of USAF Major Douglas Dickerson and his wife, Turkish-born FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson and his wife, Turkish-born FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson.” (Idem.)

5. “On September 10, Colonel James N. Worth, the director of the Inquiries Directorate in the USAF Office of the Inspector General, sent an official reply. This letter assured Edmonds that the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations (AFSOI) had conducted a complete and thorough review of her concerns, and therefore the case was closed. Of course, this did not deter the indefatigable Edmonds, whose lawyers whipped off a letter challenging the validity and depth of the Air Force’s investigation, had one even taken place on September 19.” (Idem.)

6. Ms. Edmonds wrote a letter challenging the leadership of the Pentagon to respond to her charges. Her letter was addressed to Joseph E. Schmitz! “This 5-page challenge was addressed to Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz, and copied to Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, previous backers of Edmonds’ cause. Earlier today, Sibel Edmonds told that, ‘Nobody has mentioned the DOD angle [of her case] to this date. Therefore we thought it would be appropriate to publish this last letter in its entirety. According to Edmonds, the correspondence can be published because it ‘was never classified and their responses [were] sent via regular mail, thus, not classified either.’” (Idem.)

7. “While this letter mostly refers to long-known aspects of the case, there is one very striking reference which may shed light on a nagging mystery: who or what are the ‘semi-legitimate organizations’ that Edmonds has alluded to in the past? According to the Edmonds team’s reply of September 19, the USAF Inspector General’s letter had referred specifically to one American-Turkish Council, based in Washington, D.C., as being related to the Dickersons. For the Edmonds team, this was a very strange disclosure: ‘Notably, in his letter of September 10th, Col. Worth states that OSI’s investigation focused on Major Dickerson’s relationship with the American-Turkish Council. This statement is very troubling for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Edmonds never even mentioned the name of this organization in any of her communications with the DOD, DOD IG, Department of the Air Force IG, and AFOSI, concerning this matter.’” (Idem.)

8. “We asked Sibel earlier today if the American-Turkish Council was in fact the name of the key semi-legitimate organization that had infiltrated the FBI during her time there. Because of the DOJ gag order she is currently under she could only say, ‘I cannot confirm that they said it, we did not.’ Yet why would the Pentagon specifically name an organization, connecting it with the suspect in the case, if there was no relationship? And why would they bring it to the attention of exactly the people they would have wanted to conceal it from? Did they assume that the story would break, and therefore that it wasn’t worth concealing? Or was the whole thing merely a mistake, a misunderstanding, a typo? In any case, there are clearly suspicious shades of the old paradox, ‘are you still beating your wife’ at work here.” (Ibid.; pp. 2-3.)

9. “Whatever it may or may not be, the American-Turkish Council is a Washington-based business association dedicated to friendship and the promotion of U.S.-Turkish commercial, defense and cultural relations. Again, according to the ATC website, its ‘ . . . diverse membership includes Fortune 500 and Turkish companies, multinationals, non-profit organizations, enterprises and individuals with an interest in U.S.-Turkish relations.’ It boasts a star-studded board of directors, including Chairman and Retired USAF Lt. General Brent Scowcroft; President and CEO G. Lincoln McCurdy; Executive Vice-President George H. Perlman of Lockheed Martin; and several other ranking figures from corporate America. Some of these as well as many other American and Turkish business heavyweights are also well-placed on the ATC Executive Committee.” (Ibid.; p. 3.)

10. “Indeed the ATC is clearly quite an important organization with the ability to bring together highly influential people. According to its website, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan addressed the organization’s ‘Golden Horn’ members (i.e., those companies who cough up $9,500 annually) at a June event sponsored by Motorola, Raymond James, Boeing and Raytheon. In April, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Richard B. Myers addressed the group. Every major company known to man is either a member or a well-wisher. And so on and so forth.” (Idem.)

11. “However, scrutinizing the posted schedule covering the 244-day period of January through August 2004, one finds only 18 days that actually mention scheduled events. And there are no scheduled events at all for September through December (though they’re no doubt still being planned). So unless the ATC is hurting for secretaries to put things down in writing, they don’t do too much meeting. . .” (Idem.)

12. “ . . . If the Pentagon did indeed inadvertently blow the cover of this ‘semi-legitimate organization’ by mistake in the cited letter of September 10, 2002, it would answer a lot of questions besides helping to put the pieces together in this jigsaw puzzle of intrigue.” (Idem.)

13. Next, the program highlights some aspects of Joseph Schmitz’s professional resume. “President Bush nominated Joseph E. Schmitz to be the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DoD) on June 18, 2001. The Senate confirmed him on March 21, 2002. . . .”
(“Hon. Joseph E. Schmitz Inspector General Department of Defense” [from official posting on the website of the Inspector General of the DoD]; p. 1.)

14. Among the formidable Schmitz’s professional credits is his membership in the Federalist Society—an ultra-reactionary judicial organization that many legal professionals feel is destroying the foundations of American jurisprudence. (For more about the Federalist Society, see FTR#’s 289, 445.) Like his brother John P. Schmitz, Joseph is a member of the American Council on Germany. (For more about this organization, see below.) Joseph is also a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Also known as the Knights of Malta, the SMOM is a powerful order of Vatican knights. (For more about the Knights of Malta, see—among other programs—FTR#293, as well as RFA#21, Miscellaneous Archive Show M6—available from Spitfire.) “ . . . He has also served on the Steering Committee of the Washington Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Mr. Schmitz graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1978 and received his J.D. degree from Stanford University in 1986. He is also a Young Leader Alumnus of the American Council on Germany and a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

15. Cataloging some of the cases with which Joseph Schmitz is involved, the broadcast notes his pivotal role in the Abu Ghraib investigation. “The Pentagon’s inspector general, following an eight-day trip to Iraq, said on Friday that abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison appeared to be the fault of a few soldiers he called ‘bad eggs.’ ‘I’m not aware of any illegal orders that came from any leaders,’ said Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, making his first public comments since returning June 19. He said during his visit to Abu Ghraib, the new commander there informed him that past leaders failed to get out enough and oversee the soldiers.”
(“Official Blames Iraq Abuse on Lower Ranks” by Joe Milicia [AP]; Seattle Post Intelligencer; 6/26/2004; p. 1.)

16. “Schmitz, the principal advisor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the prevention of fraud and abuse in the Department of Defense, said he is reserving final judgment until he sees the results of several investigations of prisoner abuse. . . .” (Idem.)

17. Schmitz is also at the center of the debate about the need to balance intelligence collection in the war on terror with civil liberties: “A senior Republican senator yesterday expressed concern that a Pentagon surveillance program could be used on U.S. citizens and may ‘have a chilling effect on civil liberties.’ In a letter to Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) alleged that the Justice Department and FBI are more extensively exploring the use of the Total Information Awareness program than they have previously acknowledged.”
(“Surveillance Plan Worries GOP Senator” by Dan Eggen and Robert O’Harrow Jr.; Washington Post; 1/22/2003; from SecurityFocus.com.)

18. “The TIA program aims to develop technologies to sift through ‘ultra-large’ data warehouses and networked computers for threatening patterns among everyday transactions, such as credit card purchases and travel reservations. The systems would, among other things, help analysts search randomly for indications of travel to risky areas, suspicious e-mails, odd fund transfers and improbable medical activity.” (Idem.)

19. “The effort, a project of the Defense Department’s Information Awareness Office run by former national security adviser John Poindexter, has become the focus of heated criticism from civil liberties groups and some lawmakers, who fear a potential intrusion on privacy rights.” (Idem.)

20. “Bush administration officials have said that the criticism is overblown and that the project is designed only to thwart terrorist activity overseas. But in response to questions from Grassley, Defense Department Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz acknowledged that several domestic agencies, including the Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland Security, have talked with the Pentagon about the project. Schmitz also confirmed that the FBI is negotiating a formal agreement ‘for possible experimentation with TIA technology in the future,’ according to a copy of his response.” (Idem.)

21. Schmitz is also involved with a controversy about the electronic bugging of the IG’s office, as well as the issue of a security clearance granted to a Muslim maintaining multiple aliases: “The Washington Times quoted a Pentagon ‘info memo’ from Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz’s as saying: ‘On January 19, 2002, during a routine meeting with the Director of Security for the Department of Defense, it was reported to my staff and me that a potential ‘listening device’ was previously discovered in the infrastructure of the Department of Defense Inspector General.’”
(“Bugging Found in Pentagon Inspector General’s Office” [PTI]; Hinduonnet; 7/26/2004; accessed at: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/003200407262028.htm.)

22. It is difficult to imagine how the listening device could have been installed in the Pentagon without the knowledge of some people in the military. “ ‘The DoD Directorate of Security conducted a routine sweep for electronic listening devices in certain areas of the ninth and tenth floors of the DoD IG on August 7, 2000. The sweep revealed that a wire had been installed inside the wall structure leading to and from the ninth and tenth floors of the Dod IG areas which comprise the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the personnel office space of the Inspector General,’ the memo says.” (Idem.)

23. “Another touchy issue for Schmitz was that a series of internal memos from his staff showed that a Muslim who was employed as an auditor granted a ‘top secret’ security clearance was not an American citizen. ‘He possesses a Social Security number tied to multiple confirmed aliases,’ a May 2002 memo said.” (Idem.)

24. Supplementing discussion of the elder John Schmitz (the father of John P. and Joseph E. Schmitz) the program notes his writing of the introduction to the John Birch Society tract None Dare Call It Conspiracy. “ . . . He also wrote the Introduction to Gary Allen’s bestseller, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971). . . .”
(“The Honorable John G. Schmitz” [obituary]; MaryKayLetourneau.com; 1/12/2001; p. 1; accessed at: http://www.MaryKayLetourneau.com.)

25. Further developing a theme introduced in FTR#469, the broadcast notes the preponderance of “Germania” in connection with the Schmitz family—a phenomenon that may betoken involvement with the Underground Reich. “ . . . Federation of Citizens of German Descent ‘Outstanding Citizen Award for Integrity and Honor’ . . . .” (Idem.)

26. “ . . . He traveled to Germany as a participant in the official Internationes program and was honored in 1973 by the Cologne daily newspaper Rundschau with the ‘Der Herr Schmitz Ordens’ recognizing his Rhineland ancestry . . . .” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

27. At the conclusion to her obituary for her father, Mary Kay LeTourneau requests that people memorialize her father by contributing to Christendom College, founded by Warren Carroll. Warren Carroll is a very interesting fellow. “ . . . In lieu of flowers, the family suggests charitable contributions to Christendom College, 134 Christendom Drive, Front Royal, Virginia 22630. . .” (Idem.)

28. Warren Carroll was a member of CUSA, part of an ultra right-wing milieu in Dallas that appears to have participated in the assassination of President Kennedy. (For more about CUSA, see FTR#120, as well as RFA#11—available from Spitfire.) “June 13, 1963, Larry Schmidt to B. Weissman in Munich, Germany: ‘Warren Carroll, our only other recruit to CUSA, is already a PhD and two MS’s. Warren is a scriptwriter for Lifeline, the H.L. Hunt television and radio series. Hunt is the millionaire oilman’ . . . ‘Warren is 32, former CIA man. Don’t worry, he has been checked out’ . . . . ‘Hunt checked him out’ . . . After Jack Ruby was arrested for killing Oswald inside the Dallas jail, there were copies of Warren Carroll’s Lifeline on the seat of his car. The section was on ‘Heroism,’ on how to become a ‘hero.’ This is interesting because one of the first reasons Ruby gave for killing Oswald was, ‘I wanted to show them a Jew had guts.’”
(“The Nazi Link to the John F. Kennedy Assassination” by Mae Brussell; The Rebel [now defunct publication launched by Larry Flynt]; 11/22/1983.)

29. More about the prominence of “Germania” in connection with the Schmitz family: “ . . . During his active naval career, he served as . . . the Navigator of a German destroyer (through the Personnel Exchange Program) . . .”
(“Hon. Joseph E. Schmitz Inspector General Department of Defense”)

30. In evaluating the Schmitz brothers, it is important to note their important positions in various aspects of the 9/11 investigations. The program reviews information from FTR#469 about John P. Schmitz. The younger John Schmitz has—as Mr. Emory says—more connections than a switchboard. Among the younger Schmitz’s credits is his representation of the elder George Bush during the Iran-Contra and Iraqgate affairs. Note that he joined with Janet Rehnquist (the daughter of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) in protecting Bush. “ . . . There’s still another chapter to the story. John G. Schmitz’s son John P. Schmitz did not share his father’s disdain for George Bush, whom he served as Deputy Counsel from 1984 to 1993. He was involved in Iran-Contra as a deputy to C. Boyden Gray (and as an associate of Janet Rehnquist.) Schmitz was one of the few Iran-Contra players to refuse to be interviewed by the independent counsel, and was highly instrumental, as was Rehnquist, in protecting Bush. Bush was never questioned, and a diary he kept was never examined; Walsh’s final report read ‘The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete.’ (Chapter 28, second paragraph.).” (Ibid.; pp. 1-2.)

31. Schmitz’s other clients place him in the “mix” of the various 9/11 investigations and lawsuits. In addition, the younger Schmitz (a partner in a German international law firm) represents many German corporations—more about that below. Among his credits is his presence on the American Council on Germany, an organization whose heritage is at one with the Americans who rehabilitated Third Reich alumni to serve in the Federal Republic of Germany (as well as for U.S. intelligence.) “Since then, John P. Schmitz has popped up every once in awhile. He seems to have had dealings with Iraq before the Gulf War, and with his present law firm has worked for Enron, Bayer (producer of Cipro), and United Airlines (9/11 lawsuit); his firm also has a Central Asian office in Tashkent. Schmitz, along with many men of high repute, is a member of the boards of directors of the American Council on Germany and the Atlantic Council of the US. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

32. The American Council on Germany was founded by John J. McCloy and Eric M. Warburg. McCloy was one of the prime movers of the American power elite in the twentieth century and Warburg a part of the prominent Warburg international banking family. (For more about McCloy, see—among other programs—The Guns of November and RFA#2—available from Spitfire—as well as FTR#’s 428, 446. For more about the Warburgs, see Miscellaneous Archive Show M11—available from Spitfire.) Note that among the officers are Henry Kissinger and a protégé of Kissinger’s—Richard Burt. Kissinger also was deeply involved in the machinations involved in bringing Third Reich alumni into the U.S. national security establishment. (For more about Kissinger, see—among other programs FTR#29.) “The American Council on Germany (ACG) is a private, nonprofit, national organization that was incorporated in New York City in 1952. Its founding leaders were: John J. McCloy; Eric M. Warburg . . . [Officers include] Richard Burt . . . Among the board of directors are: Henry A. Kissinger; Brent Scowcroft.”
(“American Council on Germany”; SourceWatch.org.)

33. As a partner in Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw, the younger John Schmitz is in a very sensitive position with regard to a number of 9/11 related investigations: “We were shocked to observe how tough and somewhat persistent Richard Ben Veniste was during his opportunities for questioning. This is the same Richard Ben Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor, who is a partner in the German international law firm, Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw which happens to be the lead firm representing United Airlines against 9/11 victim families in the New York City litigation in Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s District Court in Manhattan. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.] This famous lawyer even represented the most recognized American drug dealer in the history of the United States: Barry Seal of Mena, Arkansas fame. But interestingly, Ben Veniste won our award as the most tenacious interrogator on both days, even though the lines of questioning were not consistently intense or pressing on a continual basis.”
(“Conflict of Interest?” by Tom Flocco; p. 1; ParaPolitics.info.)

34. “Curiously, no one has questioned whether Mayer-Brown’s partners would have ‘water-cooler and whisper-access’ to all the subpoenaed discovery requests and information flow regarding both the Kean Commission hearings and depositions—public and private, but also Judge Hellerstein’s New York City litigation. But that’s not the half of it. For the Mayer-Brown law firm has another partner named John P. Schmitz, who was the twelve-year deputy counsel to George H.W. Bush during his vice-presidency and presidency—thus affording the White House a behind-the-scenes source for information flow, discovery, subpoenas, and evidence-access regarding both the Commission and the New York litigation. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.]” (Idem.)

35. As discussed in FTR#305 and in the book Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile, the German core corporations are administered by the Bormann organization. (There is more discussion of this in FTR#155). “Additionally, Mayer-Brown also has clients that include Bayer AG (German maker of the antibiotic Cipro which fights Anthrax, about which Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch (JW) will have keen interest. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.] JW has filed suit seeking the Administration’s anthrax documents to ascertain why the White House starting taking heavy doses of Cipro on the day of the attacks—nearly a month before anthrax was even discovered on Capitol Hill, and while postal workers continued to sort mail in contaminated offices—some dying in the process.” (Idem.)

36. “John Schmitz’s Mayer-Brown profile also reveals Enron, adding that ‘we were active in Germany [with Enron] until the end. . . .It [bankruptcy] surprised me as well as anyone else,’ according to Reuters (1-4-2002). [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.] Moreover, Mayer-Brown also represents Deutsche Bank on a regular basis regarding its electronic commerce activities; and curiously, Schmitz’s law firm maintains an office Tashkent, Uzbekistan, along with Enron—if only to make sure oil is well in the Caspian Sea basin. And Deutsche Bank is knee-deep in pre-9/11 insider trading stock profits. Enough said. . . .” (Idem.)

37. Returning to the subject of Joseph E. Schmitz, the show notes his involvement with an organization called U.S. English. (For more about U.S. English, see FTR#429.) Ostensibly formed to promote English as the official language of the U.S., the organization appears to have some white supremacist leanings: “A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Tuesday now makes it harder to prosecute alleged government discrimination—and could raise hopes for English only laws throughout the country. In the Alexander vs. Sandoval case, lawyers representing a Mexican immigrant named Martha Sandoval argued that the state of Alabama’s English only law discriminated against Sandoval’s ability to take a driver’s license exam, which the state provides only in English. In a razor-thin 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Alabama did not violate the Civil Rights Act on the notion that, in this case, not providing Spanish driver’s license exams has a ‘disparate impact’ on minorities. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas comprised of the majority vote. . . .”
(“A Blow to Civil Rights” by Michael O. Collazo [LATino News Network]; p. 1)

38. “ . . . Though this case did not rule whether or not Alabama was allowed to maintain an English-only law, the Court’s ruling can be considered as a victory for proponents of English as this country’s official language. ‘We are delighted the Supreme Court has rejected the ACLU’s attempt to kill official English in Alabama,’ said Joseph E. Schmitz, a board member of U.S. English, an organization pushing for establishing English as this country’s official language. The American Civil Liberties Union helped bring on this case-action suit. ‘Although the majority opinion is limited to a narrow issue of congressional intent, this is a tremendous symbolic victory for official English.’” (Idem.)

39. “ . . . And the plot thickens. Neal further reports that the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Lubinskas as a contributing editor to the racist publication the American Renaissance magazine. The magazine’s editor Jared Taylor, also leader of the white-supremacist group, Council of Conservative Citizens. . . . In fact, Neal reports that Lubinskas has even shared s stage with former Louisiana Klansman, David Duke. . . .”
(“Arnold’s Language Barrier”; Mother Jones; 9/8/2003.)

40. Interestingly (and perhaps significantly) the founder of U.S. English emigrated to the U.S. from Chile in 1965. At that time, many of the Nazis (and their offspring) who had fled to Chile and other Latin American countries began moving to the U.S. (For more about this, see FTR#465.) “Mauro E. Mujica—who was born in Chile and immigrated to the United States in 1965—has been chairman of the Board and CEO of U.S. English since January of 1993.”
(“Mauro E. Mujica: Chairman of the Board and CEO of U.S. English”; thumbnail biography from The Globalist website.)

41. The next point is indeterminate in nature. Exploring further the preponderance of “Germania” in the lives of the Schmitz family, the program notes Joseph Schmitz’s fascination with General von Steuben, the first Inspector General of the Army and a genuine revolutionary war hero. This may well be perfectly innocent. However the Steuben Society was a major element in the Nazi Fifth Column in the United States during the World War II period. Is it possible that Joseph E. Schmitz’s fascination with Steuben has something to do with this? “ . . . While today’s Army Inspector General is the modern day personification of the enduring legacy of General von Steuben, it is also clear that General von Steuben is much more than the founding father of the Army Inspector General system. He is, of course, that. Not only is the first lesson plan of the Army Inspector General School devoted to General von Steuben, the entire 3-week course is permeated with the ‘Von Steuben Model.’ He is the enduring prime role model for every one of the 239 principal Army Inspectors General, a veritable ‘IOG-Network’ of senior officers serving full time in assistance, inspection, non-criminal investigation, and ‘teach and train’ functions at every major command around the world. . . .”
(“The Enduring Legacy of Inspector General von Steuben” by Joseph E. Schmitz; 5/7/2003; p. 1 [PDF download].)

42. About the Steuben Society and its World War II-era Nazi connections. “One such Congressman and Steuben Society member was Republican House member John Schafer from Wisconsin. His congressional record was one of complete opposition to any defense measure. In speaking with [John Roy] Carlson, investigative reporter posing as a pro-fascist, Schafer was quoted as follows talking about a revolution against democracy: ‘The Bloody kind. There will be purges and Roosevelt will be cleaned right off the earth along with the Jews. We’ll have a military dictatorship to save the country.’”
(The Nazi Hydra in America; “The 1930’s: Nazis Parading on Main Street—Part 5: Congressmen and Seditionist”.)

43. “Schafer leaves little doubt as to his feelings about democracy in the quote. Another Senator, Republican Rufus Holman from Oregon, openly praised Hitler on the floor of the Senate. The small excerpt below from the speech leaves no real doubt as to his pro-Nazi views: ‘I doubt if the right is all on one side among the present belligerents. At least Hitler has broken the control of the international bankers and traders over the rewards for the labor of the common people of Germany. In my opinion it would be advantageous if the control of the international bankers and traders over the wages and savings and the manner of living on the people of England could be broken by the English people, and if the control of the international bankers and traders over the wages and savings and the manner of living of the people of the United States could be broken by the people of the United States.’” (Idem.)

44. “The code words of international bankers and traders meant Jews. Holman inserted several pro-Nazi propaganda pieces into the congressional record as well. Nor was this the only time Holman had praised Hitler. As Oregon’s State Treasurer, he had praised Hitler’s sterilization program resulting in the amendment of Oregon’s sodomy law in 1935 to include all moral degenerates and sexual perverts whether, they had committed a crime or not. Oregon at the time used castration rather than vasectomy.” (Idem.)

45. “[Ernest] Lundeen was secretly pro-Nazi and received money not only directly from [Nazi spy George Sylvester] Viereck but also from the German Board of Trade and the Steuben Society. Maloney had determined that other congressmen had accepted Nazi money in deals to publish books through the notorious Flanders Hall, a fascist publisher closely associated with Viereck. Among those that had made deals with Flanders Hall were Burton Wheeler of Montana, Gerald Nye of North Dakota, Jennings Randolph and Rush Holt of West Virginia and William Stratton of Illinois. On June 13, 1940, Thomsen reported to Germany that it was necessary to take literary countermeasures against Roosevelt. In this plan Thomsen made contact with New York literary agent William Lengel and proposed a series of five books.” (Idem.)

46. Joseph Schmitz is closely associated with the World Security Network. An examination of that organization’s executives again raises the question of possible affiliation with the Underground Reich. The program concludes with an examination of the professional biographies of some of the World Security Network’s executive personnel. “Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann: President and Founder—Dr. Hoffmann has worked as advisor in the European Parliament (Office of Prof. Hans-Gert Poettering), the German Bundestag (Parl. State Secretary of Defense Peter Kurt Wuerzbach MP) and the U.S. Senate (Sam Nunn, Gary Hart) in defense affairs for many years. He was Research Fellow at CSIS, Georgetown University. He worked as a journalist in the White House Press Corps, as Editor in ZDF, the largest TV station in Europe, and managing director of large German media companies . . . Dr. Hoffmann is reserve officer in the German Army (Field Artillery.) Dr. Hoffmann has from 1979 to 1983 supported NATO’s Two Track Decision to deploy medium range nuclear weapons in Europe combined with mutual arms reductions (SS-20) on the Russian side which put him on the target list of RAF, the German terrorist organization. He supported the Mujahadin from 1985-1990 against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, visiting them in the mountains in 1985 and writing the Afghanistan report for the European Parliament. In 1992, he was Chairman of the Eesti Committee Report (asked by its President Tunne Kelam) about the Future of the ‘Baltic Hanseatic Region’ (Oblast Kaliningrad; Lithuania; Latvia, Estonia) which helped to create stable democratic states in the Baltics. . . .”
(Professional Biography of Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann; WorldSecurityNetwork.com.)

47. “Dieter Farwick: Global Editor-in-Chief—Former Director of German’s ‘Federal Armed Forces Intelligence Office’. Mr. Farwick is retired Brig. General of the German Army. He was a close aid to former German Defense Minister Manfred Woerner, the later NATO Secretary General and is author of five books about defense policy. . . .”
(Professional Biography of Dieter Farwick; WorldSecurityNetwork.com.)

48. “Hans Walter Janitschek: Vice President—Mr. Janitschek was born in Vienna (Austria), joined United Press and Reuters, and worked as Foreign Editor of Vienna’s largest newspaper ‘Kurier’ and Economic Editor of ‘Express’. He served as Director of the Austrian Information Service in New York in the 60’s and the 70’s as Special Assistant to Under-Secretary General for Public Information and Secretary of the UN Information Committee. . . .”
(Professional Biography of Hans Walter Janitschek; WorldSecurityNetwork.com.)

49. “Klaus Becher is an analyst of international security, defense and technology policy based in Bonn and London. . . .During the same period, he also served as secretary-treasurer of the German group of the Trilateral Commission. From 1988 to 1997, he was a research fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations. . . .” (Professional Biography of Klaus Becker; WorldSecurityNetwork.com.)

50. Interestingly, Baron von Steuben (the descendant of the Army’s first IG, with whom Joseph E. Schmitz is so taken) is a member of the World Security Network. “Henning von Steuben: Henning-Hubertus von Steuben—Member of the International Advisory Board of World Security Network; President of the Steuben Family Association . . .”
(Professional Biography of Henning-Hubertus von Steuben; WorldSecurityNetwork.com.)

FTR #475 Pryor Offenses

Recorded September 12, 2004
REALAUDIO

Political inertia—political momentum—is a major determinant in human affairs. In examining the political landscape of which the Bushes are a part, it is interesting to contemplate the extent to which the current generation of Bushes have inherited their stances from their ancestors—who were deeply involved with the forces of international fascism. (For more about this, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 273, 332, 370, 435.) This broadcast examines actions of people involved with attempting to dispose of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the interests of furthering the cause of fascism. In particular, the program focuses on Samuel Pryor Sr. and Samuel Pryor Jr.—both of whom were key players in the Bush-Harriman business milieu. (The broadcast derives its title from these two men.) Samuel Pryor Sr. was the head of the Remington firm when it shipped weapons to German rightists (including the Nazis) in the early 1930’s. Pryor Sr. was also a key director of both Union Banking Corporation and the parent company of the Hamburg-Amerika Line—both Bush/Harriman businesses conducted in cooperation with the Nazis. (Again, for more about this, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 273, 370, 435.) Remington was also the company selected by the 1934 coup plotters to provide arms to the unsuccessful attempt to overthrow FDR. (For more about the 1934 coup attempt, see FTR#448.) Was Pryor, Sr.—or his pals the Bush family—involved with the 1934 coup plotters?! Samuel Pryor, Jr. was the point man for the GOP’s plotting with Nazi agent William Rhodes Davis in an attempt to defeat Roosevelt in 1940. The program concludes by examining Attorney General Tom Clark’s suppression of a Justice Department report on the pro-Nazi activities of powerful American political and industrial figures. Tom Clark is the father of Ramsey Clark—the Attorney General who covered up the assassinations of both Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr. To what extent were the activities of the Bush and Clark families determined by the political inertia generated in the years before, during and immediately after, World War II?

Program Highlights Include: Discussion of the possible use of the Hamburg-Amerika Line to ship Remington arms to the Nazis in the 1930’s; the possibility that Samuel Pryor, Sr.’s death in 1934 may have been connected to the 1934 coup attempt; review (from FTR#448) of the 1934 coup attempt; the Third Reich’s channeling of millions of dollars to aid the GOP’s 1940 election campaign; Pryor Jr.’s collaboration with William Rhodes Davis and the Third Reich in obtaining an endorsement for GOP presidential candidate Wendell Wilkie by labor leader John L. Lewis; Tom Clark’s firing of Justice Department whistle blower O. John Rogge, who was attempting to expose the pro-Nazi activities of powerful Americans—including those involved with plotting with the Nazis to defeat Roosevelt in 1940; review of the Bush family’s postwar activities on behalf of the Bormann organization.

1. Beginning with discussion of the family for which the program is named, the broadcast sets forth the Nye-Vandenberg committee’s investigation of Samuel Pryor (Sr.), the Remington (munitions) firm, and the shipping of Remington arms to right-wing political factions in Germany (including the Nazis). Author Kevin Phillips speculates about the possibility that the Hamburg-Amerika line (in which the Bush family was invested) may have been involved in getting the Remington weapons to Germany. “But Bush [Prescott, Sr.] and Walker did know some of the reviled merchants—the World War I-era munitions makers, ‘armor trust’ members and arms manufacturers being investigated during the early New Deal years. Both men knew Samuel Frazier Pryor, the former president of Remington Arms, whose firm was queried by the Nye committee about the clandestine flow of American-made weaponry to Germany through Holland in the early 1930’s. Walker was not investigated by the committee, but the American Ship and Commerce Corporation’s partial ownership and influence over the German Hamburg-Amerika line may have helped Remington firearms reach right-wing political factions in the early 1930’s. The guns were probably illicitly transferred—without inconvenient police inspection—to German-bound river barges in Holland’s Schelde estuaries. . . .”
(American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush; Kevin Phillips; Penguin Group [HC]; Copyright 2004 by Kevin Phillips; ISBN 0-670-03264-6; p. 179.)

2. Exploring Samuel Pryor’s business connections, the discussion highlights the fact that he was a key director of two of the Bush family’s Nazi-linked businesses—the Union Banking Corporation and the Hamburg-Amerika line. Again, this connection spurs Kevin Phillips to ruminate about the possibility of the Pryor/Hamburg-Amerika connection underlying the shipment of Remington arms to the German right, including the Nazis. “ . . . Remington’s Samuel Pryor was part of this cabal, and took a role in the first big Harriman-Walker international gambit: the arrangement of a major participation in Germany’s once great Hamburg-Amerika steamship line. Harriman and Walker held their Hamburg-Amerika shares through another mutual framework, the American Ship and Commerce Corporation. Pryor was named one of AS & C’s directors.” (Ibid.; p. 180.)

3. Another of the key figures in this story—Samuel Pryor, Jr.—became a key director of Harriman Securities Corporation, placing him in the same milieu as his father. We will examine Samuel Pryor Jr.’s role in Nazi-linked intrigue directed against the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt later in the program. “In 1924, when Harriman and Walker set up the Union Banking Corporation in New York on behalf of the politically active German steel baron Fritz Thyssen, control of UBC was held by a Dutch entity, the Rotterdam-based Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart. This Dutch bank, in turn, was owned by Berlin’s August Thyssen Bank. The Rotterdam bank, it has been proven, handled some of Thyssen’s 1920’s contributions to the fledgling Nazi Party—for some reason, Samuel Pryor of Remington was named an original director of UBC. He seems to have been a tight third side of the Harriman-German triangle. Indeed, after he died in 1934, his son became a director of Harriman Securities Corporation, joining the two Harriman brothers, Averell and Roland. This does make one wonder about Remington-made arms going to Thyssen—or Thyssen’s friends.” (Idem.)

4. Next, the program reviews information about the 1934 coup attempt in the United States. (For more about this, see RFA#10—available from Spitfire—as well as FTR#448.) The discussion sets forth the role of the Remington firm as the prospective supplier of arms to the coup plotters. Mr. Emory ruminates about the possible role of Pryor [Sr.] in the coup plot. The elder Pryor died in 1934–is it possible that his death had anything to do with the discovery of the coup plot? Note that Remington (and Pryor) had provided arms to right-wing factions in Germany (including the Nazis). That they would undertake something similar in the U.S. should not come as a surprise. (The material in this excerpt is taken from the soft-cover edition of Trading with the Enemy by Charles Higham.)

5. Next, the program sets forth another fascist intrigue against FDR—this one involving participation by agents of Nazi Germany. In 1940, agents of the Third Reich channeled millions of dollars to the GOP to help elect Wendell Wilkie and defeat Roosevelt. The principal Nazi agent involved in this plot was a powerful Texas oilman named William Rhodes Davis—who was a registered Abwehr operative. [The Abwehr was German military intelligence in WWII.] In order to defeat FDR, Rhodes, the Nazis and the Republicans undertook to persuade John L. Lewis (a popular labor leader and fierce critic of Roosevelt) to formally endorse Wilkie. This, it was hoped, would persuade labor to vote for Wilkie. The principal GOP committeeman involved with arranging this gambit was Samuel Pryor, Jr.! Correction: Note that Pryor is incorrectly identified as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He was not Chairman—he was the pivot man for the RNC in the realization of the Lewis endorsement of Wilkie. “The Germans decided to surreptitiously help Wilkie through secret contributions to the various pro-Wilkie political clubs. To avoid the political ruin of their American friends should the Americans seize the German embassy, Thomsen had all receipts and statements that described who received payments from the Germans destroyed. How much the Germans spent on the 1940 presidential campaign and who received the money will never be known for sure.”
(Mystery Man: William Rhodes Davis, American Nazi Agent of Influence; Dale Harrington; Brassey’s [SC]; Copyright 1999 Brassey’s; ISBN 1-57488-338-0; p. 150.)

6. The sums the Third Reich delivered to the GOP’s 1940 campaign were enormous. “Whether Davis and Hertslet spent all $5 million of their funds on Wilkie’s campaign is unclear. Supposedly, $3 million of the money that Podesta delivered to the Germans was found in the German embassy when the FBI seized it in December 1941. Whether the other $2 million was spent on the Republicans is not known. Some of this money may have been spent on Democratic Party candidates that the Germans favored. The Germans also had other sources of money. Where this other money went and how much there was is also unknown. The entire flow of German money to the presidential election campaigns is murky. What is known is that total Republican presidential expenditures in 1940 were almost $15 million. Regardless of whether the Germans spent only $2 million or the entire $5 million or possibly even more, a large percentage of the Republican Party’s funds in 1940 came from Adolf Hitler. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.]” (Ibid.; pp. 150-151.)

7. “Not surprisingly, following the Germans’ lead, Davis aided Wilkie’s campaign by contributing large amounts of money. He directly gave at least $48,000. To sidestep the federal limit of $5,000 in campaign donations, Davis used several methods. He gave each of his family members $3,000 or $4,000 to donate to the Wilkie campaign. He made contributions to individual Republican Party state committees. He also persuaded several of his longtime business associates, including Ben Smith, to become financial supporters of Wilkie.” (Ibid.; p. 151.)

8. “Davis decided that it would be best for Lewis to support the Republican candidate. In return for Lewis’s endorsement, Davis wanted Lewis appointed U.S. labor secretary if Wilkie were elected. In early July, Lewis predicted that Wilkie would defeat Roosevelt in the fall. Despite efforts to reconcile Lewis with the Roosevelt administration, Lewis remained staunchly opposed to the president’s reelection. Knowing of Lewis’s implacable hostility to Roosevelt’s candidacy, Davis opened negotiations with the Wilkie camp.” (Idem.)

9. “In early September, Davis telephoned Sam Pryor, a Republican national committeeman from Connecticut and an early Wilkie booster. Pryor had been previously introduced to Davis through Arthur Hobson, a Davis and Company employee who knew Pryor from Hobson’s connections with Bank of Boston. Davis asked Pryor to secretly meet with him at Davis’s first wife’s home in Bronxville, New York, to discuss the possibility of a Lewis endorsement of Wilkie. Readily agreeing, Pryor met with Davis a few days later. At this meeting, Davis told Pryor that he was out to defeat Roosevelt and was ready to contribute up to $1 million to that cause. Davis informed Pryor that he would pay for a nationwide radio broadcast in which Lewis would declare for Wilkie. Although no definite assurances had yet come from Lewis, Davis was confident that Lewis would do his bidding. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.]” (Idem.)

10. “Pryor telephoned Wilkie from Davis’s home and told him of the oilman’s willingness to pay for the Lewis broadcast. Wilkie wanted to immediately meet this mysterious man who would make an offer of such dimensions. Pryor used his private plane to fly Davis to meet with Wilkie, who was then at his home in Rushville, Indiana. After Davis repeated his offer to Wilkie in person, the Republican nominee pointed to the contribution limits of the federal election law and suggested that the money be given to various Wilkie clubs to maintain the legalities. Davis concluded the meeting by reiterating to Wilkie his offer to carry the cost of a nationwide radio speech by his friend John L. Lewis, who would publicly endorse Wilkie. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.]” (Ibid.; p. 152.)

11. “Wilkie later said that he had never heard of Davis before being informed that Davis would sponsor the Lewis broadcast, and that he would have rejected the offer if he had known who Davis was. Wilkie’s profession of ignorance seems implausible, because by this time Davis’s Nazi connections had been widely publicized in the newspapers. Soon after the Lewis broadcast, Wilkie wrote Davis a letter asking Davis not to publicly endorse him because of the allegations that Davis had German connections.” (Idem.)

12. “Wilkie’s willingness to take Davis’s money puts a tarnish on Wilkie’s incorruptible image both because of Davis’s known Nazi connections and Wilkie’s early public insistence that the federal campaign finance laws be adhered to in the spirit as well as the letter of the law. When Wilkie was later asked if he was aware of Davis’s contributions to the Republican Party, Wilkie lied and said he never knew about these funds. These questionable actions show that Wilkie, like many politicians, was more interested in winning than in the morality of what he had to do to win.” (Idem.)

13. “At the conclusion of the Davis-Wilkie meeting, an arrangement was made for Wilkie to meet Lewis in New York on the night of September 28. To prepare for this meeting, Davis and Wehrle met with Pryor and several other Wilkie supporters, including Gene Tunney, the famous boxer, to discuss his support for Wilkie at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel. Pryor wanted assurance that Lewis would endorse Wilkie. Davis said, ‘I’ll call Lewis and I think he is ready to make a pro-Wilkie statement.’ Davis telephoned Lewis and Lewis agreed to endorse Wilkie. Davis returned to the meeting and told Pryor of Lewis’s answer, and the Wilkie supporters left the meeting excited about the boost that Lewis endorsement would give Wilkie’s campaign. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.]” (Idem.)

14. “Soon after, Lewis called Wilkie from Davis’s home in Scarsdale to confirm their upcoming meeting. Wilkie met with Lewis at the Manhattan apartment of Sam Pryor. Joe Martin, the national chairman of the Republican Party, was also present. Late into the night, Lewis and Wilkie engaged in a brisk conversation about their politics. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.]” (Ibid.; pp. 152-153.)

15. “Wilkie’s highly personalized campaign needed a shot in the arm. He was trailing in the polls and a personal endorsement by Lewis just might provide the margin of victory that Wilkie needed. Wilkie wooed Lewis by declaring that when he was elected, he would honor the gains labor had won through the New Deal. He did not promise Lewis a post in his cabinet, but Wilkie did say that his secretary of labor would come from the ranks of labor. In return, Lewis offered his support if Wilkie agreed to repeat these promises publicly in Wilkie’s upcoming labor speech, which was scheduled for Pittsburgh on October 3. Wilkie agreed and their meeting concluded.” (Ibid.; p. 153.)

16. “Wilkie kept his part of the bargain. In a Pittsburgh speech before an audience of 30,000, he promised to uphold the gains made by labor and to appoint someone from the ranks of labor as his secretary of labor. Now it was Lewis’s turn to keep his part of the bargain. . . .” (Idem.)

17. “ . . . Lewis sent a telegram to Wilkie asking him to send his press aide, Paul C. Smith, to Washington to discuss with Lewis the terms on which the labor leader would deliver a speech in support of Wilkie. After working out the details with Smith, Lewis agreed to make his endorsement on October 25 in a nationwide radio broadcast.” (Ibid.; p. 154.)

18. “Lewis was keeping his actions secret. Until two weeks before the radio broadcast, Lewis was still assuring some of those closest to him that he would not endorse the Republican candidate. He told one of his aides after his private interview with Wilkie that he considered the Republican a man of narrow intellectual outlook, with ‘the mind of a fixer.’ During the week before his speech, Lewis retreated into almost total isolation and wrote a Wilkie endorsement speech without consulting even his close associates. A few days before the speech, Lewis met with several high CIO officials and announced that he was coming out for Wilkie and was prepared to take full responsibility for his decision and to stand or fall by it.” (Ibid.; pp. 154-155.)

19. “On October 21 Davis called the three radio networks to schedule the broadcast and identified himself as a personal representative of Lewis. He arranged for the payment of $55,000 for a thirty-minute radio broadcast in which John L. Lewis would deliver a speech on the national election to more than 362 stations on all three major radio networks. Davis also paid for the printing of millions of copies of Lewis’s speech to be distributed across the country after the broadcast.” (Ibid.; p. 155.)

20. “Davis financed the Lewis broadcast by passing the money to the Democrats for Wilkie political committee, which included in its leadership such prominent anti-New Deal Democrats as former presidential candidates Al Smith and John W. Davis. This political committee then paid the radio networks for the broadcast. This indirect arrangement was used to get around the federal campaign finance laws and to hide the source of the contribution. There was a furious exchange of checks to ensure that no one individual would be listed as contributing more than the $5,000 limit of the federal campaign law, and Republican lawyers scanned all the transactions and scrutinized the checks to make sure there were no violations.” (Idem.)

21. “The White House was aware of who paid for Lewis’s broadcast almost immediately, but chose not to publicize the information until after the election. . . .” (Idem.)

22. “ . . . With an estimated 25-30 million listeners, Lewis delivered in his deep baritone voice a bitter attack on Roosevelt and asked trade unionists to oppose his reelection. He accused the president of not ending unemployment and of neglecting labor, but his most emphatic accusation was that he was leading the nation into war. What was the president’s objective, asked Lewis? ‘It is war. His every act leads to this inescapable conclusion. The President has said that he hates war and will work for peace but his acts do not match his words. The President has been scheming for years to involve us in war.’ Vehemently denouncing Roosevelt and asserting that his election could very well mean both war and dictatorship, Lewis declared for Wilkie.” (Ibid.; pp. 155-156.)

23. “He praised Wilkie’s integrity and described Wilkie as someone who was not an aristocrat but a common man. ‘He has the common touch. He was born in the briar and not to the purple. He has worked with his hands, and has known pangs of hunger.’ This description of Wilkie was pure fantasy and was intended for Lewis’ labor constituents. Lewis then reviewed the candidate’s promises and aims, including the promise that Wilkie would give labor full representation in his administration.” (Ibid.; p. 156.)

24. “Lewis concluded his speech with a dramatic pledge. He placed his personal prestige squarely on the line in support of the Republican nominee by vowing that if Roosevelt received a third presidential term he would consider it a vote of no confidence in his own leadership of the CIO. Therefore, he would resign from his position as president of the CIO if Roosevelt were reelected. He implored his followers: ‘Sustain me now or repudiate me.’” (Idem.)

25. The Davis/Nazi/GOP/Pryor stratagem was unsuccessful. “After the speech, Davis and Lewis waited expectantly for labor to move into the Wilkie camp. If the CIO vote were captured, it would ensure a Wilkie victory. However, virtually all of Lewis’s followers, whether they said so or not, were dismayed by his endorsement of Wilkie. The pro-Roosevelt faction in the CIO had hoped Lewis would limit himself to vigorous criticism of the president. What had been expected was a vitriolic attack on Roosevelt and a new ‘plague on both your houses.’ After his endorsement of Wilkie, Lewis pressured union officials to support his stand for Wilkie or resign. Several union officials resigned, including the head of labor’s Non-Partisan League, Gardner Jackson.” (Idem.)

26. “Jackson may have been referring to the Davis dealings in his letter of resignation: ‘These are critical days when, more than ever, men seem to become captives of their personal ambition for wealth, social position and influence, and when their adventures in power politics and in finance politics, both at home and in the international field, also make them captives.’ It is possible that Jackson’s resignation was closely tied to the Lewis-Davis link. Because the radio networks sent the bill for the broadcast to the Non-Partisan League, which then passed it on to the Democrats for Wilkie, it is likely that Jackson was aware of the source of funding for the broadcast and that he could not condone taking money from a Nazi sympathizer. . . .” (Idem.)

27. Another malefactor on the US political scene in the 1940’s was Attorney General Tom Clark—the father of Ramsey Clark, himself an Attorney General. (For more about Ramsey Clark, see—among other broadcasts—FTR#’s 350, 398, 401, 408, 433.) O. John Rogge—a Justice Department official who was investigated Nazi subversion in the U.S.—was working to expose the Third Reich’s links to U.S. industrialists, financiers and politicians. Among those he was working to expose were the figures who had conspired to defeat Roosevelt in 1940. (See above.) “The Rogge mission painstakingly scrutinized thousands of confidential documents from the files of the German War Ministry, Foreign Office, Propaganda Ministry, and Abwehr. Rogge later said, ‘Our investigation showed us that we had completely underestimated the scope and scale of Nazi activities in the United States. When I went to Germany I felt that the biggest threat to American democracy emanated from the machinations of persons like the defendants in the sedition trial [i.e. Fascist crackpots]. I found that a far more dangerous threat lay in the inter-connections between German and American industrialists, and that some of the best known names in America were involved in Nazi intrigue.’” (Ibid.; p. 206.)

28. Tom Clark blocked the public release of the report. “When Rogge returned to Washington toward the end of June, he was confident that he had uncovered sufficient evidence to warrant federal prosecution of a number of Americans. Working at fever pitch, Rogge began preparing a comprehensive report to Attorney General Clark on the voluminous data he had collected in Germany. In early July, Rogge submitted to Clark a draft of the first section of his report.” (Idem.)

29. “To Rogge’s surprise, the report’s references to links between the Germans and American business and political leaders clearly disturbed Clark. . . After reading the report, Clark declared that it could not possibly be published and would have to remain a secret document. Rogge was not happy with Clark’s proposal and asked that Clark hold off on a final decision until the report was completed. Rogge continued to work on the report through August. As he neared the end, one of Clark’s aides proposed that Rogge omit all names of American politicians and businessmen. Rogge refused.” (Idem.)

30. “By the time Rogge finished writing the report, he knew that the Department of Justice would never agree to publish his findings. Accordingly, he decided that he might as well put everything in the report regardless of whether it was politically expedient. The incendiary final recommendation of the report was for the Justice Department to begin an investigation of the collaboration between German and American industrialists before the war. On September 17, 1946, Rogge delivered his 396-page report to Attorney General Clark. As Rogge expected, Clark told him ‘the report would not be made public.’” (Idem.)

31. Rogge took a leave of absence to make a college speaking tour, on which he was able to successfully publicize some of the contents of the suppressed report. “ . . . Shortly afterward, Rogge obtained permission to take a two-week leave of absence to make a lecture tour on the fascist menace in the United States. Rogge told Attorney General Clark that he was going to make a speech on Nazi penetration of the United States. Rogge said Clark ‘asked me whether I would say that the department had not attempted to restrain me in any way. He again stated that my report was not going to be made public. I told him that I would not mention the report.’” (Ibid.; p. 207.)

32. Rogge disclosed the 1940 plot to defeat Roosevelt: “But in a Swarthmore College speech, Rogge revealed to his college audience some of his report’s discoveries. He stated that Goering and Ribbentrop had told him that John L. Lewis, William Rhodes Davis, Senator Burton Wheeler, former vice president John Garner, former postmaster general James Farley, and former president Herbert Hoover had all conspired with the Germans in an attempt to defeat Roosevelt in 1940 and keep the United States out of the war. He also mentioned that Hertslet played a key role in the German scheme to prevent Roosevelt’s reelection in 1940.” (Idem.)

33. Tom Clark fired Rogge!! Covering up fascist intrigue apparently runs in the family—Ramsey Clark (his son and also an Attorney General of the U.S.) helped to cover-up the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. He has represented Nazi war criminals, the fascist Lyndon Larouche, and Sheik Rahman among others. (Sheik Rahman is linked to al-Qaeda and the first plot against the World Trade Center.) Clark also lobbied against the establishment of the Office of Special Investigations—the Justice Department unit encharged with ferreting out Nazi war criminals living in the U.S. (This unit was headed by John Loftus.) “On the morning of October 25, Rogge left New York by plane for a speaking engagement in Seattle, Washington. Due to bad weather, the plane made an unscheduled stop in Spokane. At the airport Rogge was informed that there was no room for him on the next leg of the flight. Stuck in Spokane, he was told that a Mr. Savage was on his way to the airport to see him. Soon afterward, a man approached Rogge at the airport and said, ‘My name’s Savage, I’m from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.’ He handed Rogge an envelope. The envelope contained a letter to Rogge from Attorney General Clark. The letter curtly notified Rogge that he was dismissed from the Justice Department immediately. Clearly, the FBI had been following Rogge and had arranged to keep him in Spokane so that he could be handed his termination letter. Attorney General Clark wanted Rogge’s authority as a federal official stripped away before he could speak at another college.” (Ibid.; pp. 207-208.)

34. Reviewing material presented in a number of previous broadcasts, the program underscores information about Prescott Bush, Sr.’s role in assisting with the post-World War II Nazi flight-capital program directed by Martin Bormann. At the meeting of 8/10/1944 during which the plans for the flight-capital program were developed, SS General Dr. Scheid (who presided over the meeting as a surrogate for Martin Bormann) mentioned the Bush-Harriman controlled Hamburg-Amerika Line as one of the companies that would prove useful in the postwar resurrection of the Third Reich. “ . . . Dr. Scheid also affirmed, ‘The ground must now be laid on the financial level for borrowing considerable sums from foreign countries after the war.’ As an example of the kind of support that had been most useful to Germany in the past, Dr. Scheid cited the fact that ‘patents for stainless steel belonged to the Chemical Foundation, Inc. New York, and the Krupp Company of Germany, jointly, and that of the United States Steel Corporation, Carnegie, Illinois, American Steel & Wire, National Tube, etc., were thereby under an obligation to work with the Krupp concern.’ He also cited the Zeiss Company, the Leica Company, and the Hamburg-Amerika line as typical firms that had been especially effective in protecting German interests abroad. He gave New York addresses to the twelve men. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.]”
(Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Manning; Copyright 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stuart Inc.; ISBN 0-8184-0309-8; p. 25.)

35. Reviewing information presented in FTR#370, the broadcast notes the suspicious death of the former Dutch manager of the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart—part of the financial triumvirate set up by Fritz Thyssen to mask ownership of his steel enterprise. “ . . . In 1945, the former Dutch manager of the Rotterdam bank resumed control only to discover that he was sitting on a huge pile of hidden Nazi assets. In 1947, the manager threatened to inform Dutch authorities, and was immediately fired by the Thyssens. The somewhat naïve bank manager then fled to New York City where he intended to talk to Union Bank director Prescott Bush. As Gowen’s Dutch source recalled, the manager intended ‘to reveal [to Prescott Bush] the truth about Baron Heinrich and the Rotterdam Bank, [in order that] some or all of the Thyssen interests in the Thyssen Group might be seized and confiscated as German enemy property. ‘The manager’s body was found in New York two weeks later.”
(“How the Bush Family made its Fortune from the Nazis” by John Loftus; p. 4.)

36. Reviewing another item from FTR#370, the broadcast reviews the equally suspicious death of a Dutch journalist who was investigating the Bush/Nazi money connection in 1996. For more information about the Bush family’s involvement with Nazi industry (including their postwar efforts on behalf of the flight capital program), visit http://www.debatecomics.org/BushFamilyFortune.“Similarly, in 1996, a Dutch journalist Eddy Roever went to London to interview the Baron [Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza], who was neighbors with Margaret Thatcher. Roever’s body was discovered two days later. Perhaps, Gowen remarked dryly, it was only a coincidence that both healthy men had died of heart attacks immediately after trying to uncover the truth about the Thyssens.” (Idem.)

FTR #472 Miscellaneous Articles and Updates

Recorded August 15, 2004
REALAUDIO

Taking a break from coverage of the events in and around 9/11, this broadcast brings up to date two paths of inquiry covered in past programs—the subject of AIDS as a possible biological warfare weapon and the Port Chicago explosion of 1944. (For more about AIDS as a biological warfare weapon, see—among other programs—RFA#16—available from Spitfire—as well as FTR#’s 4, 11, 19, 24, 25, 35, 56, 73, 76, 102, 132, 140, 148, 156, 212, 220, 225, 229, 269, 282, 316, 324. For more about the Port Chicago Explosion, see—among other programs—Miscellaneous Archive Show M23—available from Spitfire—as well as FTR#’s 129, 163, 444.) The research presented here reinforces the working hypotheses about AIDS and Port Chicago—that both were man-made events and not the accidents as which they are usually portrayed.

Program Highlights Include: Proof that people of Northern European extraction (“Aryans”) contain a gene that provides immunity to infection by the AIDS virus; proof that no other races contain this gene; discussion of the implications of this finding; projections by German power brokers working in conjunction with the Underground Reich that Africa would be an area of major interest to Germans and other Northern Europeans as a potential target for colonization; scientific evidence of a “radiation plume” in Suisun Bay that may have derived from Port Chicago; discussion of the possible utility for terrorists of the Mark II device apparently used at Chicago.

1. Beginning discussion of the gene providing people of Northern European extraction with immunity from the AIDS virus, the program highlights the CCR5 (Delta 32) gene’s role in providing some people with immunity from bubonic plague. (Bubonic plague infects hosts in a manner not altogether dissimilar with the manner in which the AIDS virus infects and destroys its victims.) “ . . . In September 1665, George Viccars, a tailor in the small, central-England village of Eyam, received a parcel of cloth ridden with plague-infected fleas from London. Four days later, Viccars died. By the end of the month, five more villagers had succumbed to the plague. The panicked town turned to their rector, William Mompesson, who persuaded them to quarantine the entire village to prevent the bacterium from spreading throughout the region. It seemed like suicide. A year later, the first outsiders ventured into Eyam, expecting a ghost town. Yet, miraculously, half the town had survived. How did so many villagers live through the most devastating disease known to man?”
(“Secrets of the Dead—Case File: Mystery of the Black Death; Background”; Secrets of the Dead; p. 1.)

2. “Local Eyam lore tells befuddling stories of plague survivors who had close contact with the bacterium but never caught the disease. Elizabeth Hancock buried six children and her husband in a week, but never became ill. The village gravedigger handled hundreds of plague-ravaged corpses, but survived as well. Could these people have somehow been immune to the Black Death?” (Idem.)

3. “Dr. Stephen O’Brien of the National Institutes of Health in Washington D.C. suggests they were. His work with HIV and the mutated form of the gene CCR, called ‘delta 32,’ led him to Eyam. In 1996, research showed that delta32 prevents HIV from entering human cells and infecting the body. O’Brien thought this principle could be applied to the plague bacteria, which affects the body in a similar manner. To determine whether the Eyam plague survivors may have carried delta 32, O’Brien tested the DNA of their modern-day descendents. What he found out was startling . . .” (Idem.)

4. “For a disease-causing microorganism to infect the human body there must be a gateway or portal through which it enters into human cells. The plague bacterium works this way, hijacking the white blood cells sent to eliminate it. Traveling inside the white blood cells to the lymph nodes, the bacteria break out and attack the focal point of the human immune system. Dr. Stephen O’Brien felt that the mutated CCR5 gene, delta 32, may have prevented the plague from being able to enter its host’s white blood cells.”
(“Secrets of the Dead—Case File: Mystery of the Black Death; Clues and Evidence”; Secrets of the Dead; p. 1.)

5. “Eyam provided O’Brien an ideal opportunity to test this theory. Specifically, Eyam was an isolated population known to have survived a plague epidemic. Everyone in the town would have been exposed to the bacterium, so it’s likely that any life-saving genetic trait would have been exposed to the bacterium, so it’s likely that any life-saving genetic trait would have been possessed by each of these survivors. ‘Like a Xerox machine,’ says O’Brien, ‘their gene frequencies have been replicated for several generations without a lot of infusion from outside,’ thus providing a viable pool of survivor-descendants who would have inherited such a trait. . . .” (Idem.)

6. “ . . . DNA samples could only be collected from direct descendents of the plague survivors. DNA is the principle component of chromosomes, which carry the genes that transmit hereditary characteristics. We inherit our DNA from our parents, thus Eyam resident Joan Plant, for instance, may have inherited the delta 32 mutation from one of her ancient relatives. Plant can trace her mother’s lineage back ten generations to the Blackwell siblings, Francis and Margaret, who both lived through the plague to the turn of the century. The next step was to harvest a DNA sample from Joan and the other descendants. DNA is found in the nuclei of cells. The amount is constant in all typical cells, regardless of the size or function of that cell. One of the easiest methods of obtaining a DNA tissue sample is to take a cheek or buccal swab.” (Idem.)

7. Note that no other ethnic groups or races have the delta 32 gene that prevents infection by HIV. “After three weeks of testing at University College in London, delta 32 had been found in 14% of the samples. This is a genetically significant percentage, yet what, really, did it mean? Could the villagers have inherited delta 32 from elsewhere, residents who had moved to the community in the 350 years since the plague? Was this really a higher percentage than anywhere else? To find out, O’Brien assembled an international team of scientists to test for the presence of delta 32 around the world. ‘Native Africans did not have delta 32 at all,’ O’Brien says, ‘and when we looked at East Asians and Indians, they were also flat zero.’ In fact the levels of delta 32 found in Eyam were only matched in regions of Europe that had been affected by the plague and in America, which was, for the most part, settled by European plague survivors and their descendants.” (Idem.)

8. “Meanwhile, recent work with another disease strikingly similar to the plague, AIDS, suggests O’Brien was on the right track. HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, tricks the immune system in a similar manner as the plague bacterium, targeting and taking over white blood cells. Virologist Dr. Bill Paxton at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York City noticed, ‘the center had no study of people who were exposed to HIV but who had remained negative.’ He began testing the blood of high-risk, HIV-negative individuals like Steve Crohn, exposing their blood to three thousand times the amount of HIV normally needed to infect a cell. Steve’s blood never became infected. ‘We thought maybe we had infected the culture with bacteria or whatever,’ says Paxton. ‘So we went back to Steve. But it was the same result. We went back again and again. Same result.’ Paxton began studying Crohn’s DNA, and concluded there was some sort of blocking mechanism preventing the virus from binding to his cells. Further research showed that that mechanism was delta 32. Scientists studying HIV first learned about the gateway-blocking capacity of the CCR5 mutation in 1996. Several drug companies, then, quickly began exploring the possibility of developing pharmaceuticals that would mimic delta 32 by binding to CCR5 and blocking the attachment of HIV. . . .” (Ibid.; pp. 1-2.)

9. The devastating implications of the findings discussed above were eloquently presented in an online editorial: “This is the nightmare of AIDS no one wants to believe. As we come closer to celebrating, on December 1, yet another World AIDS Day, let’s take a good hard look at what’s really going on before we pour more of our ever diminishing hard earned money down yet another horrendous sinkhole. It has been found that some Caucasians who have tested positive for the HIV virus were found to take a very long time to actually develop ‘full-blown’ AIDS (as they call it). It has since been discovered (since 1997) that 20% of European Caucasians have the so-called ‘Aryan’ genetic disposition. If both your parents, in other words, are of Aryan descent, it appears you can never die of AIDS even though you might be infected.”
(“Aryan Genes Immune to Death from AIDS” by geminiwalker_ink; p. 1.)

10. “The reason for this is in the genetic coding of the killer T-cells, which are part of the body’s immune system protective shield. These are the cells that are attacked by the HIV retrovirus. The location of the attack has been discovered. It is on the CCR5 gene in the 3rd DNA gene pair. The particular location is the Delta 32 RECEPTOR SITE. If either of your DNA pairs (from either your mother or your father) is DELTA 32 POSITIVE then the HIV virus can attach itself at that point. If you are DELTA 32 NEGATIVE then HIV just floats around in your blood harmlessly for you.” (Idem.)

11. “But even though you may be DELTA 32 NEGATIVE at both sites, you can supposedly still spread the virus. What has been discovered is that these 20% of European Caucasians are members of the Aryan gene pool. Also it has been discovered that the farther north you go in Europe, say in Norway, Finland, Sweden, etc., you find the highest percentage of people that are DELTA 32 NEGATIVE at the CCR5 gene allele.” (Idem.)

12. “That this would be a simple coincidence is beyond all human reason. To say that HIV suddenly crawled out of the woodwork in Central Africa by someone being bitten by a green tree monkey is one thing. But then to say that the only human gene pool on Earth that is immune to HIV is the Aryan Race is a coincidence that even Howdy Doody wouldn’t buy.” (Idem.)

13. “What we are looking at is a genocide perpetrated on racial groups of the world that makes the Nazi Holocause look like Romper Room. Add to that the global trafficking in drugs that specifically targets minorities, the poor, and people of color, and while it may not look like the holocaust during WWII, it doesn’t have to. The AIDS epidemic isn’t a mysterious virulogical disease, it is calculated murder. And a genocide that is beyond human comprehension. And since it is the venerated Aryan Race that is immune to it, then one has to assume that they are the ones who promulgated it.” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

14. “Of course, one shouldn’t assume anything, so we will continue to explore this terribly distressing theory as evidence presents itself. This disease has the ability to wipe all of humanity off the earth. If it is true that everyone is at risk, that HIV is sexually transmitted and that mothers and children are most at risk, half the population would be gone already—in one generation. That, clearly, isn’t happening. But something else is. . . .” (Idem.)

15. With Africa among the areas most profoundly threatened by the virus and with Third Reich alumni implicated in the development of AIDS (see the programs discussed above), it is interesting to view Germany’s (and Northern Europe’s) plans for Africa as a major focal point for colonialization. Could HIV be the “Aryan” infection that will facilitate the task of subjugating Africa? The person quoted here is Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, quoted in a 1950 article. “ ‘ . . . A federated Europe will become a Third Force in the world, not as strong as Russia or the United States, but powerful enough to intervene successfully—in a decisive moment—to safeguard the peace . . . Germany has again become a factor with whom others will have to reckon in international affairs . . . There is also a long-range economic goal: the colonization of Africa . . . If we Europeans colonize Africa, we create at the same time a supplier of raw materials for Europe which will be of the greatest importance.’”
(Germany Plots with the Kremlin; by T.H. Tetens; Copyright 1953 [HC] by Henry Schuman, Inc.; p. 16.)

16. Next, the program switches focus from AIDS to the Port Chicago explosion. (Veteran listeners should note that Peter Vogel’s online book about Port Chicago is no longer available for free on the Internet. Researchers must now pay for the book.) Discussion begins with a letter home written in July of 1944 by an officer stationed at Port Chicago. “ . . . Did the late Richard Rendleman, Salisbury businessman, legendary golfer and good friend to all who knew him, see the first atomic bomb blast during World War II? Not on Hiroshima. On U.S. soil at the Navy’s Port Chicago on the California coast where he was stationed during World War II. ‘There’s not only a reasonably credible hypothesis that it’s possible,’ says his son, Dr. Dick Rendleman, finance professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ‘but there’s also documentation that it could have happened.’”
(“Did He See First Atomic Explosion?” by Rose Post; Salisbury Post; 5/31/2004; p. 1.)

17. “ . . . Peter Vogel, author of ‘The Last Wave from Port Chicago,’ has worked on this, Rendleman says, for 20 years, ‘and he believes it was actually the first atom bomb explosion. The Hiroshima bomb did eventually go through Port Chicago. People from the Los Alamos labs were on the scene the morning after this explosion. And there were all sorts of other documents that led Vogel to believe it was the first atom bomb. . . . Nobody has ever been able to say what really happened that night. ‘There is speculation,’ Margaret Styles says. ‘No hard core proof. Some believe it was actually an experiment’ with an atom bomb. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

18. Highlighting a key point of debate with regard to the Port Chicago explosion (the presence/lack of residual radiation), the program presents information (from a skeptical observer) that reinforces Peter Vogel’s working hypothesis. “As of the week this is being written, it’s been 60 years since the accident at Port Chicago on July 17, 1944, where a munitions ship exploded. The explosion was so large that some myths and urban legends claim it was a nuclear accident, 10 months earlier than the Trinity test. This web page is about my effort to collect real data on background radiation levels in the area with a mobile Geiger counter data collection system. Then the point is to see if the urban legends still hold water. . . .”
(“Background Radiation Measurements near Port Chicago” by Ian Kluft; p. 1.)

19. In evaluating the significance of the information that follows, it is important to understand that the author of this document was openly dismissive of Peter Vogel’s hypothesis. “ . . . Whatever the story, I’m not into conspiracy theories. The ‘leaps of logic’ typically found in them are annoying at best, and serious misinformation at worst. Most are written to sound convincing and can take in a large audience. The best-known example in this case is an online book released in 2002, The Last Wave from Port Chicago by Peter Vogel as an accumulation of his earlier research. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 3.)

20. After discussing the equipment and methodology he used to test for residual radiation at Port Chicago, Kluft presents an account of his 7/15/2004 expedition to Grizzly Island State Wildlife Area. “ . . . Once off the paved road and driving on the levee on Grizzly Island, I was able to turn the screen so I could glance at the data collection. The highest number I saw here was 15uR/hr, which is definitely not normal. What I didn’t notice until reviewing the data at home was that the highest number at Grizzly Island was actually 17 uR/hr. There’s at least a 2 mile stretch along Grizzly Island Road with these abnormally-high levels. (Though these numbers are not dangerous, I only took them from on the road, which is made from imported materials. Levels could be different off the road. So Grizzly Island could use an inspection by experts.) . . . Travis [Air Force Base] seems to be ruled out as the source of the radiation on Grizzly Island, the Potrero Hills and the Montezuma Hills because there is no evidence of a plume leading there . . .” (Ibid.; p. 6.)

21. The author presents his conclusions, all the more significant because of his overt skepticism of Vogel’s working hypothesis. “ . . . CONCLUSIONS: The Grizzly Island data is disturbing. With the new data collected on July 15, it looks like I’ve discovered a possible 2-mile wide radioactive plume, which faces Port Chicago. The nuclear accident theory at Port Chicago isn’t looking so far-fetched any more. But it certainly still isn’t proven by a long shot either. The 2-mile stretch has large patches of 13-17 uR/hr readings. 10-12 is about normal background, the highest you’d expect in most cities. (That’s at sea level. Average background is higher with more elevation.) Back on the July 11 drive, one possibility was that the elevated readings could be something natural in the Montezuma Hills, possibly granite rocks or something else in the ground there. But now we see it’s also on the flats and marshes at the shore of the Bay. So we can rule out a geological cause linked to the hills. It certainly isn’t just in the hills. . . . So just like on July 11, the highest background radiation readings on the July 15 drive were at the point closest to the Port Chicago accident location, now only 5 miles from it. And it’s in a direction that would be normally downwind on a clear summer night in this area. I found both sides of the higher-background area, and the shape continues to match that of a northeast-bound plume from Port Chicago, or shipping on Suisun Bay in front of the base. . . .If we ask ‘what happened there?’ the July 17, 1944 explosion has to be included on the list. I can’t ignore the coincidence that the measured elevated radiation is in the place it would have to be if the nuclear accident scenario was true. That doesn’t prove it’s true, but if confirmed it would take away an objection many of us had about it. Namely that no one knew of any radiation in the area. . . . The area that we found elevated background [radiation] appears to me like it’s parallel to the direction of the runways (wind direction), and lined up with Port Chicago. That was the thing that startled me most when I noticed it. . . .” (Ibid.; pp. 6-8.)

22. Another Internet posting by an observer openly critical (at first) of Vogel’s hypothesis calls attention to the potential danger posed by the acquisition and use by a terrorist group of a Mark II-type weapon. (That was the device apparently used at Port Chicago.) It is to be hoped that US intelligence agencies are factoring the Mark II/Port Chicago eventuality into their planning for terrorism. “ . . . Assuming that it [Port Chicago explosion] happened about as Vogel has documented, the most alarming thing about this incident to me (aside from the shameless coverup) is that the Mark II weapon contained only about five kilograms of moderately enriched fuel, and it used that fuel inefficiently. But that was enough to cause major damage! There are perhaps 300 university or govm’t research reactors worldwide that contain this much fuel, many with even higher enrichment. Scary thought.”
(“Nuclear Terrorism on US Soil” by Jones Beene; p. 2 )

23. The author makes the central point of his presentation: “The sad news for the future of terrorism on US soil is that even when such a crude bomb is detonated—as ‘inefficient’ and poorly designed as it was—and even if only one percent of the fuel actually fissions, the results can be devastating. A second chorus of sad news derives from the fact that CF [Cold Fusion] and LENR do in fact relate closely to this kind of weapons technology, which was patented, by the way. And it is probably for this precise reason that progress in the CF field has been squashed and officially ignored (because if officials had actually intervened 15 years ago, then that would have been a ‘give-away’ as to the real underlying motivation).” (Idem.)

24. “If you read the whole document, you will probably realize that they key patent, now expired, which describes how and why moderately enriched Uranium deuteride is able to work at all as a bomb (and most experts will tell you straight-faced that it will not work) was held by no other than who else . . . MIT. The very folks who doctored their own early results to show that CF was just . . .pathological science. I think that I now understand why they chose those words: pathological science.” (Idem.)

25. “There are two well documented ‘smoking guns’ here, which defy all attempts at explanation. 1) Two high ranking officials from Los Alamos National Laboratory appeared in Port Chicago in 1944, an out-of-the way backwater port that would have taken days to drive to, in a time when there were no commercial flights, the morning after an explosion that occurred after 10 the evening before, and had not even made the national newspapers—despite the fact that there was absolutely no apparent reason for the involvement of a secret lab which supposedly had its hands-full with unrelated important research. Obviously they had been there for some time, for some reason.” (Ibid.; pp. 2-3.)

26. “2) About 500 pages of classified documents are admittedly held in the LANL archives, despite the act that there was officially no nuclear material at Port Chicago, nor had there ever been. . . nor was the place remotely related to anything they were doing . . . except that it was the ideal testing ground for understanding a water based delivery system of the type that could have been used, had the fortunes of war turned against us.” (Ibid.; p. 3.)

FTR #471 Death Trap

Recorded August 1, 2004
REALAUDIO

Developing a line of inquiry presented in past programs, this broadcast examines the Bush administration’s policies in the war on terror. Specifically, this program highlights the possibility that the Bush forces are deliberately trying to lose the war, as a device for eliminating American democracy. It is Mr. Emory’s view that this administration is the point element for the Underground Reich’s attempts at destroying the United States from within, while Islamofascist elements attack it from without. Beginning with a column by Paul Krugman, the program examines George W. Bush as the Al Qaeda candidate. While publicly proclaiming its efforts against Al Qaeda, this administration has actually drawn funds away from the protection of domestic security targets. As attested to by a former CIA officer in charge of the hunt for bin Laden, this administration’s Iraq misadventure was the best thing that bin Laden could have desired. By invading Iraq, the US: drew essential forces away from Afghanistan (allowing bin Laden and Mullah Omar to escape and jeopardizing attempts at bringing that country under control); convinced much of the world’s Muslim community that the US was waging a war against Islam (as bin Laden has claimed); has convinced much of the Muslim world that a defensive Jihad against the US is warranted by circumstances; transformed Al Qaeda from an organization into an ideology; reduced America’s credibility with its allies. The program concludes with discussion of the Bush administration’s anti-democratic viewpoint and a comparison with the French elite’s subversion of French democracy in the run-up to World War II.

Program Highlights Include: General Tommy Franks’ prediction that a terrorist incident involving WMD’s will result in the elimination of American democracy; Bush ally Paul Weyrich’s views on the importance of eliminating existing American democratic institutions; the view of Gerald Ford’s personal secretary that we were on the wrong side in World War II.

1. Introducing the major focal point of the broadcast, the discussion begins with a column by Paul Krugman, in which he examines the Bush administration’s pursuit of Al Qaeda. As Krugman notes (and as we will examine at length later in the program), Bush’s policies in “The War on Terror” have made things immeasurably worse, not better. It is Mr. Emory’s belief that the current administration is a tool of the Underground Reich, and that the goal of its policies is the destruction and/or subjugation of the United States. This subject will be discussed at greater length later in the program. “In the original version of ‘The Manchurian Candidate,’ Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting to put in the White House, is a right-wing demagogue modeled on Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert wrote, the plan is to ‘use anticommunist hysteria as a cover for a communist takeover.’ The movie doesn’t say what Iselin would have done if the plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he wouldn’t have openly turned traitor. Instead, he would have used his position to undermine national security, while posing as America’s staunchest defender against communist evil.”
(“The Arabian Candidate” by Paul Krugman; The New York Times; 7/20/2004.)

2. “So let’s imagine an update—not the remake with Denzel Washington, which I haven’t seen, but my own version. This time the enemies would be Islamic fanatics, who install as their puppet president a demagogue who poses as the nation’s defender against terrorist evildoers. The Arabian candidate wouldn’t openly help terrorists. Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending to be their enemy. After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist base, a necessary action to preserve his image of toughness, but botch the follow-up, allowing the terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public’s attention shifted, he would systematically squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid. Soon, warlords would once again rule most of the country, the heroin trade would be booming, and terrorist allies would make a comeback.” (Idem.)

3. “Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear weapons. Again, he would take care to squander a military victory. The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators would block all planning for the war’s aftermath; they would arrange for our army to allow looters to destroy much of the country’s infrastructure. Then they would disband the defeated regime’s army, turning hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers into disgruntled potential insurgents.” (Idem.)

4. “After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied country’s reconstruction, simply by failing to spend aid funds or rein in cronyism and corruption. Power outages, overflowing sewage and unemployment would swell the ranks of our enemies. Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.” (Idem.)

5. “At home, the Arabian candidate would leave the nation vulnerable, doing almost nothing to secure ports, chemical plants and other potential targets. He would stonewall investigations into why the initial terrorist attack succeeded. And by repeatedly issuing vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure public indifference if and when a real threat is announced. Last but not least, by blatantly exploiting the terrorist thret for personal political gain, he would undermine the nation’s unity in the face of its enemies, sowing suspicion about the government’s motives.” (Idem.)

6. “O.K., end of conceit. President Bush isn’t actually an Al Qaeda mole, with Dick Cheney his controller. Mr. Bush’s ‘war on terror’ has, however, played with eerie perfection into Osama bin Laden’s hands—while Mr. Bush’s supporters, impressed by his tough talk, see him as America’s champion against the evildoers. Last week, Republican officials in Kentucky applauded bumper stickers distributed at G.O.P. offices that read, ‘Kerry is bin Laden’s man/Bush is mine.’ Administration officials haven’t gone that far, but when Tom Ridge offered a specifics-free warning about a terrorist attack timed to ‘disrupt our democratic process,’ many people thought he was implying that Al Qaeda wants George Bush to lose. In reality, all infidels probably look alike to the terrorists, but if they do have a preference, nothing Mr. Bush’s record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four more years.” (Idem.)

7. Krugman’s viewpoint was echoed in a column about a recent book by a CIA bin Laden expert. In that book, “Anonymous” maintains that our policies in Iraq have played into the hands of al Qaeda. It is his view that we are losing the war against radical Islam. “A new book by the senior Central Intelligence officer who headed a special office to track Osama bin Laden and his followers warns that the United States is losing the war against radical Islam and that the invasion of Iraq has only played into the enemy’s hands. In the book, Imperial Hubris, the author is identified only as ‘Anonymous,’ but former intelligence officials identified him as a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is still serving in a senior counterterrorism post at the agency and headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999.”
(“Book by C.I.A. Officer Says U.S. Is Losing Fight Against Terror” by Douglas Jehl; The New York Times; 6/23/2004.)

8. “The 309-page book, obtained by The New York Times, provides an unusual glimpse into a school of thought inside the C.I.A., and includes harsh criticism of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. ‘U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious,’ the officer writes. ‘We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency—not criminality or terrorism—and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces.’” (Idem.)

9. “The author says the threat is rooted in opposition not to American values, but to policies and actions, particularly in the Islamic world. It is rare for a C.I.A. officer to publish a book while still serving at the agency and highly unusual for the book to focus on such a politically explosive topic. Under C.I.A. rules, the book had to be cleared by the agency before it could be published. It was approved for release on condition that the author and his internal agency not be identified.” (Idem.)

10. “The book identifies ‘Anonymous’ only as ‘a senior U.S. intelligence official with nearly two decades of experience in national security issues related to Afghanistan and South Asia.’ It identifies a previous book, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, as being written by the same author. Former intelligence officials identified the officer to The Times and noted that he was an overt employee of the C.I.A., but an intelligence official asked that his full name not be published because it could make him a target of Al Qaeda. . . .” (Idem.)

11. “ . . . In the book, the author denounced the American invasion of Iraq as ‘an avaricious, premeditated unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,’ and said it would fuel the anti-American sentiments on which Mr. bin Laden and his followers draw. ‘There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq,’ he writes. In warning that the United States is losing the war on terrorism, Anonymous writes: ‘In the period since 11 September, the United States has dealt lethal blows to Al Qaeda’s leadership and—if official claims are true—have captured three thousand Al Qaeda foot soldiers.’ At the same time, he ads, ‘we have waged two failed half-wars and, in doing so, left Afghanistan and Iraq seething with anti-U.S. sentiment, fertile grounds for the expansion of Al Qaeda and kindred groups.’. . . ” (Idem.)

12. “ . . . The author expresses ‘a pressing certainty that Al Qaeda will attack the continental United States again, that its next strike will be more damaging than that of 11 September 2001, and could include use of weapons of mass destruction. After the next attack,’ he adds, ‘misled Americans and their elected representatives will rightly demand that heads of intelligence-community leaders; that heads did not roll after 11 September is perhaps our most grievous post-attack error.’” (Idem.)

13. A recent article in the San Jose Mercury News corroborates what Krugman and “Anonymous” have had to say about Afghanistan—the administration’s policies there are losing the war in that country. “A violent resurgence of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan is putting U.S. soldiers and international aid workers at increasing risk, especially in the southern part of the country, the back yard and birthplace of the Taliban. U.S. military patrols are frequently coming under attack. Highway construction workers—foreigners and Afghans—have had their throats slit merely for tampering with Taliban flags placed along roadsides.”
(“Taliban, Al-Qaida Gain Strength” by Mark McDonald [Knight Ridder]; San Jose Mercury News; 7/30/2004; p. 12A.)

14. “Nearly three years after the U.S. military toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan, it’s increasingly obvious that the military effort has failed to fully defeat the enemy, which has regrouped and now threatens efforts to create a stable government there. Election workers are being abducted, shot and beheaded. Voter-registration sites are being bombed, even when they’re located at mosques. . . .” (Idem.)

15. Much of the rest of the program is devoted to presenting a Mother Jones article detailing just how bad the situation is. Analysis of the effect of the Iraq war on the overall war effort concludes that the Iraqi adventure seriously jeopardized the US position. Past programs have presented Mr. Emory’s view that the Iraq war was an Underground Reich trap—designed to immerse the United States into a protracted, politically and economically draining war against Muslim populations of “the Earth Island.” (See discussion of this in the description for FTR#391.) Again, note what the Arabian Candidate has done: “ . . . In more than a dozen interviews, experts both within and outside the U.S. government laid out a stark analysis of how the war has hampered the campaign against Al Qaeda. Not only, they point out, did the war divert resources and attention away from Afghanistan, seriously damaging the prospects of capturing al Qaeda leaders, but it has also opened a new front for terrorists in Iraq and created a new justification for attacking Westerners around the world. Perhaps most important, it has dramatically speeded up the process by which Al Qaeda the organization has morphed into a broad-based ideological movement—a shift, in effect, from bin Laden to bin Ladenism. ‘If Osama believed in Christmas, this is what he’d want under his Christmas tree,’ one senior intelligence official told me. Another counterterrorism official suggests that Iraq might begin to resemble ‘Afghanistan 1996,’ a reference to the year that bin Laden seized on Afghanistan, a chaotic failed state, as his new base of operations. . . .”
(“Backdraft” by Peter Bergen; Mother Jones; July/August 2004; p. 41.)

16. Far from weakening Al Qaeda, the Iraqi adventure has strengthened it. By outraging the average Muslim man or woman in the street, the Iraqi adventure has played into Bin Laden’s hands by convincing much of the Muslim world that the US is pursuing a war against Islam. Such a war would necessarily mandate defensive Jihad on the part of the world’s Muslim population. “ . . . The damage to U.S. interests is hard to overestimate. Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lankan academic who is regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on Al Qaeda, points out that ‘sadness and anger about Iraq, even among moderate Muslims, is being harnessed and exploited by terrorist and extremist groups worldwide to grow in strength, size, and influence.’ Similarly, Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of counterterrorism at the CIA under presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, says the Iraq war ‘accelerated terrorism’ by ‘metastasizing’ Al Qaeda. Today, Al Qaeda is more than the narrowly defined group that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001; it is a growing global movement that has been energized by the war in Iraq.” (Ibid.; p. 42.)

17. Although world opinion was very sympathetic to the US after 9/11, the Iraqi misadventure has changed that: “This turn of events is a dramatic shift from the mood in the months following the 9/11 attacks. When the United States went to war against the Taliban, it was understood by many in the global community, including many Arabs and Muslims, as a just war. The war in Iraq not only drained that reservoir of goodwill; it also dragged the United States into what many see as a conflict with the Muslim world, or ummah, in general. Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University, says the Iraq war has convinced ‘many Muslims around the world, perhaps a majority, that the war on terrorism is in fact a war against Islam.’ Jason Burke, author of the authoritative 2003 book Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, adds that the Iraq war ‘appears to be clear evidence to many that the perception of the militants is in fact accurate and that the ummah is engaged in a war of self-defense. This has theological implications—jihad is compulsory for all Muslims if the ummah is under attack.’” (Idem.)

18. “This is not an arcane matter of Islamic jurisprudence, but a key reason why Americans are now dying in significant numbers in Iraq and an important factor behind the rise of a revitalized Al Qaeda movement. The Koran has two sets of justifications for holy war; one concerns a ‘defensive’ jihad, when a Muslim land is under attack by non-Muslims, while the other countenances offensive attacks on infidels. Generally, Muslims consider the defensive justification for jihad to be the more legitimate. It was, for instance, a defensive jihad that clerics invoked against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980’s.” (Idem.)

19. “To the extent that Sunni Muslims—the vast majority of Muslims—have a Vatican, it is Al Azhar University in Cairo, the pre-eminent center of Muslim thought. Before the Iraq war, Al Zahar released a fatwa, a ruling on Islamic law, to the effect that if ‘crusader’ forces attacked Iraq, it was an obligation for every Muslim to fight back. The clerics of Al Azhar were not alone in this view. The prominent Lebanese Shiite scholar Sheikh Fadlullah also called on Muslims to fight American forces in Iraq. In contrast, after 9/11, Sheikh Fadlullah had issued a fatwa condemning the attacks, as did the chief cleric of Al Azhar. Throughout the Muslim world, leading clerics who condemned what happened on 9/11 have given their blessing to fighting against the occupation of Iraq—and as demonstrated by the attacks in Madrid in March, jihadists are prepared to take that fight to the invaders’ home turf.” (Idem.)

20. “Harry ‘Skip Brandon, a former senior counterterrorism official at the FBI, says the Iraq war ‘serves as a real rallying point, not only for the region, but also in Asia. We’ve seen very solid examples of them using the Iraq war for recruiting. I have seen it personally in Malaysia. The Iraq war is a public relations bonanza for Al Qaeda and a public relations disaster for us the longer it goes on.’ Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s prediction that the occupation of Iraq would create ‘a hundred bin Ladens’ is beginning to look prescient. We may soon find ourselves facing something akin to a global intifada.” (Idem.)

21. In addition to the ideological/public relations disaster stemming from the Iraqi invasion, the mission diverted essential resources away from the war against Al Qaeda, enabling much of its leadership to escape and reform. Al Qaeda as an institution has been re-constituted. “Perhaps the most emblematic failure of the war on terrorism has been the continued ability of Al Qaeda’s top leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, to set the agenda for a string of terrorist attacks around the world. A bin Laden call for attacks against Western economic interests October 2002 was followed by bombings of a French oil tanker and a Bali disco catering to Western tourists. In September 2003, Zawahiri denounced Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf for supporting the U.S. campaign against Al Qaeda; Musharraf narrowly survived two assassination attempts over the months that followed. And after bin Laden called for retaliation against countries that were part of the coalition in Iraq in late 2003, terrorists attacked an Italian police barracks in Iraq, a British consulate in Turkey, and commuter trains in Madrid. According to a May report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, Al Qaeda is now ‘fully reconstituted,’ with a ‘new and effective modus operandi,’ a presence in as many as 90 countries, and ‘over 18,000 potential terrorists still at large.’” (Ibid.; pp. 42-43.)

22. “Yet despite Al Qaeda’s undiminished global influence, the United States has pulled vital resources away from the hunt for bin Laden and Zawahiri. Soon after the fall of the Taliban, substantial numbers of Arabic speakers at the CIA and the National Security Agency were directed to focus on Iraq rather than the hunt for Al Qaeda. ‘By January 2002, serious planning began for the invasion of Iraq,’ notes Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism chief, ‘and that meant drawing down Arabic language resources from CIA and electronic intelligence gathering.’ In addition, says Richard Clarke, who headed counterterrorism efforts under both presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, unmanned Predator spy planes were deployed away from Afghanistan to Iraq in March 2003, and satellites surveying the Afghan-Pakistani border were diverted to the Gulf region.” (Ibid.; p. 43.)

23. “Special Operations soldiers with critical skills—including Arabic language training—were perhaps the U.S. military’s key asset in the effort to capture Al Qaeda leaders. But according to Larry Johnson, who used to work on counterterrorism issues at the CIA and State Department and who now advises the U.S. military on terrorism, those forces were pulled out of Afghanistan in the spring of 2002 to look for Scud missiles in western Iraq. It was only following the capture of Saddam Hussein, last December, that those troops were directed back to searching for Al Qaeda, leaving the pursuit of Al Qaeda’s leaders significantly impaired for a year and a half.” (Idem.)

24. “Today, the hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan is largely a waiting game. Last summer, when I went out with a platoon from the 82nd Airborne on a mission into the badlands along the Afghan border to look for Al Qaeda and other ‘anti-coalition’ forces, I found that the three-day mission did little more than chase shadows. Sergeant Joe Frost, a demolitions expert in his mid-30’s, summed it up by noting that U.S. troops often found themselves attacked after sundown but could rarely find their assailants: ‘They’re like shoot and run. We’ve seen one Al Qaeda person in the last six months.’ And therein lies the crux of the problem: The United States did not effectively crush Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan during the war and its aftermath, which meant that those forces in Afghanistan during the war and its aftermath, which meant that those forces were able to slip away into the border region, where they can hide and organize attacks both inside Afghanistan and around the world.” (Idem.)

25. “Today, only 20,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Afghanistan, a country the size of Texas and nearly 50 percent larger than Iraq, where 140,000 U.S. troops haven’t been enough to create stability. Kathy Gannon, who has covered Afghanistan for the past 16 years for the Associated Press, says that the security situation is ‘as bad as it’s ever been’—and that includes the years during and before the Taliban reign. The power of regional warlords has surged, challenging Hamid Karzai’s central government and creating space for the Taliban to quietly emerge from the shadows. Taliban leader Mullah Omar and military commander Jalaluddin Haqqani both remain at large, as does Gulbuddin Hakmatyar, a Pashtun warlord whose forces are regularly engaging U.S. soldiers. Meanwhile, Afthanistan has become the world’s largest source of opium, the raw material for heroin. The country is now one of the world’s leading narco-states, and money from the $2.3 billion drug trade is reportedly making its way into Al Qaeda’s coffers. According to Barnett Rubin, a senior fellow at New York University and an authority on the region, Afghanistan is ‘obviously in danger of reverting to a failed state.’” (Ibid.; pp. 43-44.)

26. Gauging the ideological gains Al Qaeda has reaped from the Iraq war, the program presents some very disturbing numbers: “But the administration’s focus on the war in Iraq has not only caused it to shortchange the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan—it has also undermined the war on terrorism around the world. A poll taken by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in March 2004 found that bin Laden is viewed favorably by large parts of the population in Pakistan (65 percent), Jordan (55 percent), and Morocco (45 percent), all countries that are key allies in the war on terrorism. These results echo those of a Pew survey taken shortly after the invasion of Iraq in which Indonesians, Jordanians, Turks, and Moroccans all expressed more ‘confidence’ in bin Laden than in President Bush. During the buildup to the war, the polling company Zogby International found that favorable views of the United States had declined from 34 to 10 percent in Jordan, 38 to 9 percent in Morocco, and 12 to 3 percent in Saudi Arabia. Of course, admiration for bin Laden and dislike for the United States do not necessarily translate into a desire to attack Westerners. But the war against bin Laden is in large part a war of ideas—and on that front, the war in Iraq has damaged the United States’ cause and broadened the pool of Al Qaeda recruits.” (Ibid.; p. 44.)

27. “Nowhere is this shift more visible than on the Internet—a significant fact in itself, since Internet chatter reflects the opinions of a relatively educated, elite segment of the Muslim world. To the extent that Al Qaeda—‘the base’ in Arabic—has a new base, it is, to a surprising degree, on the web. According to a U.S. government contractor who specializes in analyzing jihadist chat rooms and websites, web traffic was ‘tremendously energized’ in the period before the Iraq war. ‘When it was clear that the war was about to occur, there was more participation, more rhetoric, more anger,’ the contractor says. ‘The war in Afghanistan provoked some anger, but not as much as the Iraq war.’ And while such chatter often amounts to mere venting, online discussions can also generate a road map for terrorist acts. Veteran Middle East reporter Paul Eedle, who closely monitors Arabic language websites, points to a document posted on an Al Qaeda site in December 2003 ‘reflecting the thinking of senior Al Qaeda leaders’ that discussed how to best break up the coalition in Iraq. The document noted that countries like the United Kingdom were unlikely to withdraw from Iraq, while Spain was the weakest link in the coalition. Three months later, 191 Spaniards lost their lives in a bombing timed to coincide with Spain’s election, and Spain subsequently withdrew its troops from Iraq.” (Idem.)

28. “Another shift in Internet traffic came this spring, when visits to websites with information about Iraq—such as Al Jazeera’s home page—skyrocketed during the standoff in Fallujah and the prison abuse scandal. ‘Iraq has become transformed beyond a cause that energized the jihadists,’ Eedle says. ‘It has caused outrage at every middle-class dinner table in the Middle East.’” (Idem.)

29. “Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—despite the administration’s arguments to the contrary—was hardly a haven for Al Qaeda. But now, Iraq has become what some experts call a ‘supermagnet’ for jihadists. ‘We’ve created the World Series of terrorism,’ a senior government counterterrorism official told me.” (Idem.)

30. The story highlights a comparison between present-day Iraq and Peshawar (Pakistan) during the muhahideen war against the Soviet Union: “Judith Yaphe, who was the CIA’s senior analyst on Iraq during the first Gulf War, says Iraq is ‘open to terrorism in a way that it was not before. The lack of central authority makes it more amenable to terrorists,’ Iraq is convenient for Arab militants, who can blend into its society in a way they did not in Bosnia, Chechnya, or Afghanistan. Dr. Saad al-Fagih, a leading Saudi dissident, says that hundreds of Saudis have gone to fight in Iraq; one source of his, he says, compares Iraq to ‘Peshawar during the 1980’s,’ a reference to the Pakistani city that attracted Muslims from around the world seeking to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.” (Idem.)

31. “Given that large numbers of U.S. forces are likely to be in Iraq for years, it is clear that the country will remain an important theater of operations for Al Qaeda and its affiliates. The irony of this development hardly needs to be stated. A key reason the Bush administration was able to sell the Iraq war to the American people was the widely held belief that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime had entered into an unholy alliance and were jointly responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon—something 2 out of 3 Americans believed, according to a Pew poll released in October 2002. To date, the largest criminal investigation in history has turned up no evidence of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11; nor have the occupation of Iraq and the efforts of the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus uncovered any such link. Yet Al Qaeda-like groups, both homegrown and foreign, have now become well established in Iraq. ‘Prior to 2003 and our invasion, Iraq rarely figured on the international terrorism charts,’ notes Larry Johnson, the military adviser. ‘Now Iraq had had the third-largest number of terrorist fatalities after Israel and India.’. . .” (Idem.)

32. “ . . . Over the past year, more than 100 people have died in attacks against Western and Jewish targets in Turkey and Morocco; car bombs in Saudi Arabia have killed scores more; a suicide attacker in August 2003 bombed a Marriott hotel in Indonesia, killing 12, and the train bombs in Madrid left 191 people dead. And these numbers do not take into account the thousands of people who have been killed in the past year in insurgencies in places such as Kashmir, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia—all conflicts in which the broader Al Qaeda movement plays a significant role.” (Ibid.; p. 45.)

33. Documenting Al Qaeda’s metamorphosis from an organization into an ideology, the program notes the significance of this development for the future: “Which brings us to an important question: What is Al Qaeda? The network is perhaps best understood as a set of concentric rings, growing more ill defined as they spread outward. At the core is Al Qaeda the organization, which bin Laden and a dozen or so close associates formed in 1989, and which eventually expanded to 200 to 300 core members who have sworn an oath of allegiance to bin Laden, their emir, or prince. It was Al Qaeda the organization that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.” (Idem.)

34. “The second concentric ring consists of perhaps several thousand men who have trained in Al Qaeda’s Afghan camps in bomb making, assassination, and the manufacture of poisons. Beyond that ring are as many as 120,000 who received some kind of basic military training in Afghanistan over the past decade. An undetermined number of those fighters are now sharpening their skills as insurgents from Kashmir to Algeria.” (Idem.)

35. An ideologized Al Qaeda will be much deadlier and more difficult to combat than the organization has been so far. “The Madrid attacks in March are emblematic of what is emerging as the fourth and perhaps most ambiguous—and potentially most dangerous—ring in the Al Qaeda galaxy. The attacks were carried out by a group of Moroccans with few links to Al Qaeda the organization. Some of the conspirators did try to establish direct contact with the inner core of Al Qaeda, but that effort seems to have been unsuccessful, and they carried out the attacks under their own steam. These attacks may well represent the future of ‘Al Qaeda’ operations, most of which will be executed by local jihadists who have little or no direct connection to bin Laden’s group. This is a worrisome development, because it suggests that Al Qaeda has successfully transformed itself from an organization into a mass movement with a nearly unlimited pool of potential operatives. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.] . . .” (Idem.)

36. “ . . . What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was the United States’ long-term goal in the region. We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised, ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a ‘defensive’ jihad that has galvanized jihad-minded Muslims around the world. It’s hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism.” (Idem.)

37. Reviewing information from FTR#404, the program highlights disturbing indications of Saddam Hussein’s possible recruitment of Al Qaeda as a “backup unit” in the event of an American invasion. Is this part of the Underground Reich’s conspiracy against the United States? Have we walked into a trap? “It appears, however, that this version is only the publicly admissible one, the one that can pass political muster. According to the same sources, there was another scenario more in keeping with the calculating mentality of Saddam Hussein and his secret services. In 1998, after declining all offers that had to them through official diplomatic channels, those services are reported to have established a secret operational ‘connection’ with bin Laden in Manila and in Kashmir. It was indeed difficult for Iraq to ignore an Arab like Osama bin Laden who ‘so effectively humiliated the Americans.’ Colonel Khairallah al Takiriti, brother of the head of Mukkhabarat, the intelligence services, is reported to have been named case officer for the connection. The arrest of two Morroccan associates of bin Laden in Rabat on November 11, 1998, made it possible to establish to establish the link with certainty. According to Western sources, the Iraqi services have sought to secure the assistance of bin Laden’s networks, in case Iraq were again to be attacked by the United States, in order to carry out attacks against American targets in Arab countries.”
(In the Name of Osama Bin Laden; by Roland Jacquard; Copyright 2002 [SC]; Duke University Press; ISBN 0-8223-2991-3; pp. 112-113.)

38. “According to Arab sources, in anticipation of a foreseeable reversal of alliances in Kabul, bin Laden had been in discreet contact since September 2000 with associates of Oudai Hussein, another of Saddam’s sons; the ground for agreement was the anti-Israeli and anti-American battle. Bin Laden and the Iraqis are said to have exchanged information about chemical and biological weapons, despite the opposition of some of the Baghdad leadership, including Tarik Aziz.” (Ibid.; p. 113.)

39. Restating a point made in FTR#’s 372, 412, 441, the program recounts the behavior of the French power elite in the run-up to World War II. In order to eliminate democracy in France, the power elite conspired with the nation’s German enemies in order to insure France’s military defeat in World War II. Such a defeat was seen as essential to eliminating democratic government. It is Mr. Emory’s view that the Bush administration and those associated with it are behaving in an analogous fashion. The damage done to American democracy by a future terrorist attack involving WMD’s may well have the effect of doing to the US what a German victory in WWII did for France. “The activity of the Fifth Column will not be considered by historians a special phenomenon of French public life, but as an integral part of Fascism. The Fifth Column has appeared wherever Fascism has tried to gain a foothold. It was at work in Spain, Austria, and Czechoslovakia before it turned up in France, and there are Fifth Columns in the United States, India, and Latin America. By the Fifth Column I do not mean only spies and licensed traitors. The Fifth Column includes all who, by accepting fascist doctrines or methods, become the conscious or unconscious accomplices of a foreign power. Treason and complicity have their degrees and nuances. The General Staff of the Fifth column consists principally of ambitious men who try to seize power by destroying or paralyzing the democratic system. The body of the Fifth Column is composed of people who think they are saving their country from the ‘communist menace’ or from ‘British imperialism,’ and who do not even know in whose favor their actions are operating. Through hate of the Poplar Front, good Frenchmen, or men who considered themselves such, served Hitler gratuitously by doing work to which they would never have consented, had they had been offered payment. Why? Because they detested the Republic and democracy more than they loved France. They accepted the idea of the defeat as a necessary evil which permitted them to rid France of the democratic system and to keep in power, in the neighboring countries, the Fascist dictators whom they considered solely capable of maintaining order in Europe. They afterwards became unconscious collaborators of these dictators. They thought they were doing their duty in letting Hitler free France from the ‘Judeo-Masonic’ influence, and Europe from the Communist peril. These people who had never read Marx, considered the ‘Marxist danger’ more immediate than the Hitlerian. They preferred the risks of an entente with a victorious Hitler to the risks of a democratic victory that would cause the collapse of the Fascist dictators in Europe. Considering Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, and Franco in Spain as knights of an anti-Bolshevist crusade, they became precursors and later partisans of ‘collaboration with Hitler’s New Order.’”
(Triumph of Treason; by Pierre Cot; Copyright 1944 [HC]; Ziff-Davis; pp. 62-63.)

40. “Enough evidence has been published already to prove that France was stabbed in the back by those who saw in Hitler the new St. George who would slay the Communist dragon. When Pierre Lazareff, former editor-in-chief of Paris Soir (the French newspaper with the widest circulation), reports royalists as saying: ‘We need the defeat to wipe out the Republic;’ when Elie Bois, former editor of the Petit Parisien (the most influential political newspaper), reports great industrialists ad admitting to him, during the winter of 1939-1940, that a plot had been organized to replace the democratic regime by a ‘government of authority’ and that this plot presupposed a Nazi victory; when Anatole de Monzie writes, in a book passed by the censor of the Vichy government, that marshal Petain said in February, 1940: ‘They will appeal to me in the third week in May’; when Genevieve Tabouis tells of the work accomplished in the Parisian salons by the Fifth Column’s ‘brigade mondaine’; when Henri de Kerillis, former officer and nationalist deputy, exposes the inroads of the Fifth Column in the conservative and military circles which he knew; when Henry Torres reveals to us what was going on in the offices of the official propaganda . . . we have every reason to accept their affirmations, which tally so perfectly with the events.” (Ibid.; p. 63.)

41. Should Al Qaeda succeed in its goal of attacking the US with WMD’s it is altogether possible that such an event will end American democracy. Former General Tommy Franks noted this in an interview that he gave in late 2003. “Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Afficionado. In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.”
(“Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack” by John O. Edwards; NewsMax.com; 12/21/2003; p. 1.)

42. “Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that ‘the worst thing that could happen’ is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties. If that happens, Franks said, ‘ . . . the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.’” (Idem.)

43. “Franks then offered ‘in a practical sense’ what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack. ‘It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world—it may be in the United States of America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.’” (Idem.)

44. Influential conservative Paul Weyrich and his political allies have noted their contempt for existing American political institutions. The possibility that Weyrich (along with Karl Rove and Grover Norquist—architects of the Islamist/GOP alliance) would welcome an event such as that forecast by General Franks is not one to be too readily dismissed. “On January 28, 2002, The American Prospect, Inc. published ‘Fair-Weather Friend; Going Down as it Came Up; School Sprays; They’re Back!’ a brief excerpt reads: ‘Two years ago, ur-conservative Paul Weyrich stunned the religious right by calling for a retreat from temporal concerns. ‘Conservatives have learned to succeed in politics,’ he wrote in an open letter that’s still available on the Web site www.freecongress.org. ‘But that did not result in the adoption of our agenda. The reason, I think, is that politics itself has failed. And politics has failed because of the collapse of the culture.’ The right no longer had a ‘moral majority,’ he wrote. The solution? ‘To look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture.’ In essence, he said, the religious right should espouse cultural and political separatism—by setting up its own schools, television networks, and even courts of law. The rest of the country breathed a sigh of relief. No more silly Disney boycotts by southern Baptists. No more flaky school-board members, pushing creationism. No more Paul Weyrich!” (Ibid.; pp. 1-2.)

45. Weyrich’s ally Heubeck has noted the importance for reactionaries of destroying US political institutions: “ ‘The whew, alas, was premature. It turns out that what Weyrich and his folks really had in mind was less separatism than guerilla warfare—a ‘New Traditionalist’ movement that, according to its manifesto, written by Weyrich protégé Eric Heubeck and bearing the grandiose title ‘The Integration of Theory and Practice: A program for the New Traditionalist Movement,’ would seek ‘to advance a true traditionalist counter-culture based on virtue, excellence, and self-discipline.’ The New Traditionalists—who sound a lot like the Old Traditionalists—will ‘reject the materialism, hedonism, consumerism, egoism, and the cult of self-actualization which permeate modern life.’ Heubeck elaborates: ‘We will not try to reform existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. [Italics are Mr. Emory’s.] We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. . .’” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

46. “ . . . The Bush administration is apparently quite cozy with Weyrich. This quote from a Time magazine article is apropos, Time magazine wrote this: ‘Each Wednesday, Rove dispatches a top administration official to attend the regular conservative-coalition lunches held at Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation. When activists call his office with a problem, Rove doesn’t pass them off to an aide. He often responds himself. When Weyrich heard a few weeks that Bush’s budget slashed funding for a favorite project called the Police Corps, which gives scholarships and training to police cadets, he complained to the White House. To Weyrich’s surprise, Rove called back, ‘We’ve taken care of it,’ Rove said. ‘the problem is solved.’” (Idem.)

47. The program concludes with a look at the pro-fascist views of Mildred Leonard, Gerald Ford’s personal secretary when the latter was House Minority Leader. Attitudes such as those identified by Pierre Cot in France in the 1930’s and 1940’s are not alien to the United States. “In January 1968, Haden Kirkpatrick, publisher of racing’s bible, Thoroughbred Record, and his wife gave a small dinner party at the Pavillon Restaurant in New York. During dinner, we all started discussing the state of national and international affairs. Haden turned to me and said: ‘The trouble is and always has been Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He got us in the Second World War on the wrong side.’ I was speechless.”
(The Washington Pay-Off; by Robert N. Winter-Berger; Copyright 1972 by Robert N. Winter-Berger; Lyle Stuart, Inc. [HC]; ISBN 73-185421; p. 297.)

48. “Several days later, back in Washington, I recounted this story to Mildred Leonard, for many years Jerry Ford’s private secretary. [This refers to former House Minority Leader, Vice-President and President Gerald Ford.] Before I could add my personal reaction to Haden’s remark, Mildred looked up at me and said: ‘You know, he’s right, Mr. Winter-Berger.’ I was even more amazed, hearing this in the Capitol of the United States from the secretary of the House Minority Leader.” (Idem.)