Listen to this article
How many beatings will this republic take, before its people wake up? When will the people realize what is really happening and “chase us down the street and lynch us” as George H.W. Bush said to reporter Sarah McClendon?
The passing of George H.W. Bush on November 30th 2018 occasioned torrents of public praise for the forty-first President of the United States, as well as recitations of his perceived failings and alleged misdeeds as a public official.
As regards the latter, some commentators revisited Bush’s pardoning of six former members of the Reagan administration who were involved in the Iran-Contra Affair and cover-up, a decision which, in the words of the New York Times, “decapitated” independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh’s efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice. They also pointed out that Bush withheld documents from investigators that could have shed light on his own suspected involvement in the affair, which took place during his tenure as Ronald Reagan’s vice president.
Memes circulating after the announcement of Bush’s death proffered a quote attributed to him that purportedly amounted to an admission of culpability in those and other nefarious doings:
Variants of this statement have been making the online rounds since the mid-1990s. Whenever a source for those words is cited, it is invariably the famous White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who wrote for several national publications, operated her eponymous news service, and for decades published a widely-read newsletter, Sarah McClendon’s Washington Report.
In other variants the date of the statement is given as December 1992. This version from the Democratic Underground message board was posted in July 2005:
“Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched.”
George Bush Senior speaking in an interview with Sarah McClendon in December 1992
After conducting a bit of research, I was not able to find an official copy of the Washington Report issue where this quote is mentioned. Unfortunately, I was only able to locate five issues, three from June 1992 and two from December of that same year. However, I was able to find a full transcript of several key conversations which reportedly lead up to the statements (below) from Valentine and Martin.
In 1992, Bush had an interesting interview with McClendon on a variety of subjects. At the bottom, there is an interview with retired Lt. Cdr Al Martin by Tom Valentine and was aired on Valentine’s Radio Free America July 10, 1995.
Date: Mon Sep 11, 1995 10:20 pm CST
From: John Q. Public
To: David Beiter
Subject: Sarah McClendon: Are Dems and GOP Using Drug Money?
The following appears in the 9/11 edition of the Washington Weekly:
SARAH MCCLENDON ASKS WHITE HOUSE ABOUT DRUG PROFITS
White House Press Conference, September 7, 1995.
MS. MCCLENDON: Mike, I understand that Vice President Gore has told President Clinton that he understands that the government is letting sale from – profits from narcotics which are coming in here be used, be laundered and be used to finance both political parties. Mr. Clinton was apparently not aware of this, but Mr. Bush apparently was. And Mr. Gore has insisted that it be stopped. And Mr. Clinton, I understand, is now saying that he will take some steps to stop this financing of political parties, both political parties, by profits from drugs coming into this country for sale which are ruining the country. Now, I wonder when Mr. Clinton is going to start his movement on this and what he’s going to do.
MR. MCCURRY: I haven’t heard any of that before. That sounds like the plot for a very good novel. But I haven’t heard
MS. MCCLENDON: Now, don’t make fun of it, Mike, because it’s true. It’s true.
MR. MCCURRY: I’m not making fun of it. If it’s true..
MS. MCCLENDON: Just go and check it with the President.
MR. MCCURRY: All right. I’ll go ask the President if he’s taken any steps on that and report back to you.
[We’ll be waiting -Editor]Copyright (c) 1995 The Washington Weekly (https://www.federal.com)
Date: Tue Nov 28, 1995 2:35 pm CST
To: David Beiter
Subject: Interview With Sarah McClendon — 08/30/95
This article was first published in the October 1995 Conspiracy Nation Newsletter:
CONSPIRACY NATION: I got your phone number from Sherman Skolnick, in Chicago.
SARAH MCCLENDON: Yes, he’s a good friend of mine. I don’t always agree with him! [laughs]
CONSPIRACY NATION: Yeah. I know. Me too.
SARAH MCCLENDON: You wanted to ask me about somethin’.
CONSPIRACY NATION: Okay. My first question would be, there’s a newsletter called Relevance newsletter…
SARAH MCCLENDON: Yes. I’m familiar with it. They send it to me all the time, from Michigan. I haven’t had time to read it! [laughs]
CONSPIRACY NATION: Yeah. I kind of know what you mean. I get a lot of stuff from readers that I don’t have that much time to read everything either.
But they quote you as saying,
Sara McClendon told your editor in mid-May that there were 16 sealed indictments sitting in the Arkansas District Court, three of which indict Hillary Rodham Clinton with bank fraud to the tune of $47-60 million, obstruction of justice, and possibly perjury.
I didn’t give any amount. And I said one time.
I don’t think I said three. I know I said two and possibly three, at one time.
But they were planning to indict her on those things. But I didn’t give any amount of money, and…
You remember what date that was? (You don’t, I guess.)
But anyway, I’ll have to look it up.
People are always quoting me, and quoting me wrong! You know what I mean?
And I understand that she’s not going to be indicted now. And so that was what they were trying to do, and wanted to do. But I think they’ve backed down from that.
Okay. This was in their [Relevance] June/July issue.
Okay. So you’re sayin’ that, “No. She has not been indicted.”
I don’t think she has. I don’t think she will be. That’s based on, you know, my assumption, my analysis of the situation. And there may be something different tomorrow!
Yeah. Okay, I’ve been hearin’ this from a lot of sources. Sherman Skolnick had said that she was indicted. Somebody that may be known to you, Debra von Trapp, said that, yes, Hillary had been indicted.
Debra von Trapp doesn’t know a goddamn thing about it.
Okay. So that would be another question.
Mr. Skolnick is assuming, he’s assuming too much. He gets some talk with some former CIA people, but he assumes a lot of things.
Okay. And goin’ back to Debra von Trapp: I had interviewed her, and she told me quite an amazing story — okay? — about…
Do you give any credibility to that?
No, I do not. But she has her own business connections with them.
She does know a man, she says, that she worked with on the transition from [George] Bush to Clinton, who she says “bugged” the White House machines. And she says that he told her that, “We took down Foster.” He worked at the time, supposedly, for the CIA and the FBI.
Yeah! That would be Robert Goetzman. That she was sayin’…
…that. Do you believe that story?
Yes, I do.
You believe that Goetzman was involved in that?!
Goetzman must have been. Because he told her, according to her, that “We took care of Foster.”
I know how to get in touch with Goetzman. But he was furious when I found him. [laughs]
I could imagine that he would be.
He was furious when I found him.
But the White House said to me, “Are you sure he doesn’t work on any of your maintenance contracts? With your machines?”
And they said, “He will never work here. We can assure you that he will not be working here.” So by that tone of voice (that was a man who manages the White House machines), I am quite sure that
he was watching to see, to check to see if they had been “bugged”.
And what about, Debra von Trapp also, besides the “bugging” of the White House, she says, as far as the Oklahoma City bombing, that there had been some complicated plot. Are you familiar with what she had said about that?
Well she called me the night before the bombing to tell me that something was going to happen. But about all that she did was, she left a message on my answering service for me to call her. And she didn’t say when it was going to be (she didn’t say specifically). The next day, she told the Michigan Militia that she had told me ahead of time where it was gonna be and all about it! [laughs] But she did not! I did not know ahead of time it was gonna be.
But are you familiar with what she’s sayin’, that this bombing in Oklahoma City was in retaliation for a sarin gas attack in Tokyo that had occurred a month previously?
Yes, I’m familiar with it.
Do you give credence to it?
No, I don’t.
But, I mean, I do not, but I know that she had some business dealings over there. And, you know, anything could be possible.
Personally, I don’t think it’s very plausible.
Clinton seems to be causing, or at least assisting, the self-destruction of the Democratic Party…
No. He’s not doing anything of the sort. He wouldn’t do anything like that. That’s ridiculous. The Democratic Party has been goin’ downhill for the last two or three campaigns. And they’re going
downhill because they don’t have enough sense to have any leadership! They don’t take leadership! They don’t do anything! It’s not Clinton’s fault! Clinton is the only leader they’ve got who’s [unclear] for it. It’s not Clinton’s fault that they’re doin’ this. It’s their own fault. And the people inside the Democratic Party who are left-wing liberals want Clinton out! They want him out so bad they’re probably going to get him out and get him so embarrassed that he’ll resign. And that faction of the Democratic Party has been enlarged in the last week, week or two, by more middle-of-the-road Democrats who want him out. At the same time, normal people in the United States — and there are politicians in Washington, Democratic leaders in Washington and I — think the people around the country are very well-satisfied
with Mr. Clinton. And I believe Mr. Clinton can be re-elected. And I think he will.
And the Democratic left-wingers who are trying to get him out of office, I don’t think they have anyplace to go! I don’t know what’s to become of them. And I don’t care.
Okay, that’s interesting. Because my perception, my background is I have always identified with the Democratic Party — until recently.
Well I’ve always been a Democrat, I’m still a Democrat. But at the same time, I think the Democratic National Committee in Washington has absolutely no leadership!
Well there’s definitely a problem. Because I see a lot of the politicians are jumping ship!
Well you know what I think is happening? I think that the same pot of — I can’t prove this, but I know other people that agree with me — I think the same pot of money is behind campaigns for both parties. They may be doing it in the name of other people, but I think that the money is coming from narcotics being sold in this country.
To me, that’s a key part of the problem, is this huge trade in drugs.
It wouldn’t be happening without government approval in some way. It’s gotta be government approval, somehow. And I think that money is being used to finance both campaigns, and they just decide which party will win against the other.
[George] Bush has been mostly the manipulator. Bush has been manipulating the Clinton administration ever since they got in there.
Could you amplify on that a little bit?
Well Bush has been causing to happen, or pulling strings to happen, tragic things to happen. But he… 30 percent of the policy makers in the Justice Department are his people! He owns Louis Freeh, the FBI man. And he owns… And Jesse Helms, the other faction, the right-wing conservative Republicans who want Clinton out, Jesse Helms owns Kenneth Starr.
Okay. And that’s kind of my perception, too, is that… Say with Mena, Arkansas, that whole thing…
That was completely Bush and the CIA, and completely… and not Clinton.
And yet Clinton is somewhat involved, isn’t he?
No. He’s not “somewhat involved”, not at all. And they’re tryin’ to say so, and the people that are saying so have no more proof than the man in the moon that he’s taken any of that money that’s being laundered through there. That’s utterly ridiculous.
The CIA and Bush are responsible for that. And Oliver North. And Bush, and a former congressman from Arkansas, a Republican, set up Mena as a base. Now Mena was only one of a ring of bases, from Florida to Arizona, that Bush set up to take out arms and to import narcotics, because of the Iran-Contra.
Yeah, I’m familiar with that.
And Mena is still going, and Mena is now being used, to a great extent, to bring in money for laundering. And a lot of this money comes from narcotics sales, either in this country or in the islands or somewhere else.
Yeah, it keeps going back to the drug trade. I think that’s the big problem in this country.
And I think that some of the same people are deciding it, whether Democrats or Republicans will get it this time.
But there’s this person named Terry Reed — okay? — that, he wrote a book called Compromised. Are you familiar with that book at all?
I’ve heard of it. But I don’t have it and I haven’t read it.
He insists that Clinton was involved. In fact, he insists that Clinton actually, that he was at a meeting where Clinton attended.
Is this the meeting where Bush went too?
Where they were talkin’ about the money?
I forget, exactly.
But Reed insists that… My perception is that, yes, Bush was the major player here. But that Clinton…
Bush is the major player, by all means. And you know what they did with him. A group of over one-thousand citizens petitioned Clinton to find out what was goin’ on at Mena because they felt they had a right to know. And he agreed to use $25 thousand to investigate it. Then he didn’t spend that money because the CIA came to him and told him, “Lay off. Don’t do a thing to us. We need this operation at Mena, Arkansas, for ‘national security’.”
Okay. So it’s the CIA, really, that… Clinton, it happened to occur in his state, and when he wanted to look at…
This was the CIA who did this, and they did it at Betsy Wright, who was Clinton’s chief-of-staff, who lived in Washington. She was the person whom, everybody had to go through her to see Clinton. And she’s the one that said the CIA came to him and told him to lay off.
In the July 31st, 1995 issue of your newsletter — this got put on the Internet, a portion of it, and I’m quotin’ what was…
The July 31st newsletter?
Yeah. According to what I have, you write that “To study [Vince] Foster’s death is to learn federal secrets.”
This seems to imply that Vince Foster’s death is just the surface of a much bigger and wider story.
I think it goes into four administrations.
So it goes back to Carter.
Carter didn’t know too much about it. But Jackson Stephens owned a system of communications called “Systematics”. And it was taken off of Inslaw. Inslaw, you know, had PROMIS pulled out of it and
sold by Ed Meese around the world. PROMIS is the system to keep up with criminality. And Systematics is a system to keep up with money transactions around the world. Jackson Stephens took the Systematics system and gave it to Jimmy Carter, because he and Jimmy had been friends at Annapolis, were roommates or somethin’, and they loved each other. And then Jimmy put it into the government.
And then Carter went out, and Bush came in. And Bush took the Systematics and worked it over. And he, it had been in and out of the National Security Agency. If you ask them about it, they say they don’t know what you’re talkin’ about.
Systematics has several branches, one of which was in Boston. And Systematics was something that Hillary and Foster were assigned by the Rose Law Firm to be the lawyers for Systematics. And they
came, several different times they were assigned to work on Systematics. And when they came to the White House, Foster was doing political work for Hillary and Clinton. But he also was still working on this Systematics!
And that’s what happened. And then I think that he [Foster] was used as a messenger boy by Bush, on Systematics.
So the bigger story here is basically Inslaw: the theft of the PROMIS software and the way that that was integrated into a lot of the banking system.
Well, you see, PROMIS is one and Systematics is the other: both came out of Inslaw. And they were both taken!
Now Hamilton, who owns Inslaw — he brought Inslaw forward and tried to sell it to the Justice Department; they beat him out of it — Hamilton says that a former employee of Systematics told him that the Systematics plan came out of Inslaw.
Okay. And what about these recent allegations you may have heard of, that Foster had $2.86 million in a Swiss bank account?
I know nothing about that. I know absolutely nothing about that, and I doubt that the people that say that can prove it.
Are you familiar with Jim Norman’s recent article? [“Fostergate”]
I certainly am. From the beginning I have talked to him and lived with him, before he got fired and after he got fired [from Forbes magazine]. And I don’t believe that part of his story. I don’t believe that Foster was an agent for Israel. I don’t believe Foster was givin’ away atomic secrets to Israel. And I don’t think that could possibly be. [CN — McClendon subsequently changed her mind. As reported on the Internet, 09/07/95, George Putnam said as follows on his radio show: “I want to read something here from Sarah McClendon. ‘An Apology To James Norman.’ She says, ‘I want to apologize to James Norman for
saying I did not think that he had correct sources. I said I did not think his information was right. I was wrong. Norman was the senior editor of Forbes magazine, fired for writing so much of the truth.'”]
I think that stuff was put out by the CIA because they evidently wanted to cover up something else.
All right. But would you say that the part of the story where, towards the end, Norman is concerned about that other, say 200 or so, high-level U.S. officials also had money in Swiss bank accounts? Are you familiar with…
Well they could have. They could very easily have. But you know, that could be any source in the world. That doesn’t mean anything.
Are you familiar with the story that there’s some, so-called, “Fifth Column” of computer hackers in the CIA that…
No, I don’t know anything about that.
Okay. You mentioned how Norman got fired. And you, I think, are experiencing some kind of heat because you’ve been looking into Foster’s death.
I was fired, too.
You got fired!?
I got fired from a new thing: AT&T Interchange Online. I got fired after a few weeks of goin’ to work for them.
And would you say that that’s because you’d been lookin’ into Foster’s death?
I think it was because of the story I wrote where I said, on July the 14th, I wrote that I thought this investigation would go back to George Bush and Caspar Weinberger.
That’s kind of like, Sherman Skolnick has been tellin’ me the same thing: that the story that’s out there, the “Fostergate” story, is a watered-down story; that the real story is that it goes back to Bush and Weinberger. For example, Weinberger…
I think it goes back three or four administrations.
Okay, but there’s a bigger story…
I tell ya, it goes back, all the way back to 1980. I think that Bush and Weinberger wanted Israel to get the atomic secrets so that she could get the bomb ahead of others and she could hit Russia for the United States. So she could protect herself from her enemies.
And I think the reason that Bush wanted Israel to have this is because he wanted to make it up to Israel for what she did for him and Reagan in 1980 when the Israelis handled the weapons that came from the United States, which Iran wanted. We were not supposed to be dealing with Iran at all. And the weapons became Bush and Reagan’s private weapons to Iran. And they promised these weapons to Iran and they came through Israel and were delivered to Iran. And in return for that, Iran agreed to keep the American hostages 71 more days so that they could be, wouldn’t get home in time to help Carter in his campaign for the presidency.
So you agree with the story of the “October Surprise”: that there was some kind of deal.
Oh definitely. There definitely was. And Bush has denied it all along. And people have seen him in Paris at the time he claims he wasn’t there. They saw him there and they know he went to the meeting. And I definitely think the agreement was made there.
Okay. As far as any “heat”, you know that Jim Norman got fired from Forbes. And then you also got fired.
You know who fired him, don’t you?
Caspar Weinberger [publisher emeritus of Forbes].
We’ve got to find out more about Caspar Weinberger. He’s very much involved in this. And why. And we’ve got to find out more about it though.
We know that Bush ran Iran-Contra. We know that Weinberger was very much involved in Iran-Contra, because he kept a diary.
What about Jonathan Pollard? Is Pollard just a bit player in all this? Like, he took the fall for this?
Pollard is a very strange person. And I understand, I think it’s about September the 12th that there’s a hearing for Pollard (I think in Washington); a parole hearing. And Pollard’s friends think he’s gonna be out of prison by November.
And Pollard was apparently just a fall guy, used… They say that, all of a sudden, information about atomic energy started comin’ to his desk. Why’d he pass this on? Why’d he take the fall? I don’t know.
Caspar Weinberger was terrible in denouncing Pollard, and sayin’ that Pollard should get all kinds of punishment. And it sounds rather funny to me.
But I think Pollard was just an agent of — I don’t know how you would say it — but he was apparently used as an agent, somehow, in this business.
It’s almost like they had to find somebody to be guilty for it. And so they just took him to be the one as the scapegoat for all this.
That’s apparently right.
I think we have yet to find out some cause to all this. We should follow the Foster investigation so thoroughly that we finally get back to Bush and Weinberger and find out what really happened!
For me, it’s really frustrating that, it’s obvious to me that there’s a lot of suspicious circumstances surrounding Foster’s
death, and that it hasn’t really been properly investigated.
And if you dare… You know, for me, a somewhat lowly individual, if I dare to state publicly that I’m not happy with the investigation and I think there’s something suspicious about Foster’s death, people automatically laugh at you, they say that you’re “crazy”, you’re “paranoid”.
I know that. I know that. Some of those people are encouraged to do that by the CIA or other people for disinformation. And the disinformation is so prevalent that we can’t get to the facts! And they try to make fun of us for believing in conspiracies and believing in pushing this. They try to make fun of me and everything else.
And we just have to keep on doin’ it.
You say, in your newsletter, that “I am one of the Washington reporters — four that I know of to date — who have been fired or threatened with firing, or worse, in the last few days for writing about Foster.”
You say, “firing, or worse.” What’s “or worse”? You mean an IRS audit? How else are they going to try to go after you for daring to look into Foster’s death?
Well they’ve threatened, they’ve harassed, people who are against ’em, who are trying to get out the truth and who are trying to expose the government. They harass them in many, many ways. They harass them through their relatives, their friends. I know a woman who’s been harassed because she disclosed that a firm up in Pittsburgh was sending tools to Iran. And she’s been harassed for years. And she had, the other day, had loads of diesel fuel oil dumped in her yard.
Okay. But it seems like, that sometimes they can get pretty rough. There’s a lot of suspicious deaths, for example, connected with the JFK assassination: there were a lot of witnesses that suddenly had so-called “heart attacks”.
Well I’m on the board of an organization called “Coalition for Political Assassinations”. And we are studying these… In fact, we are having our second meeting in Washington this fall. And it’s a wonderful meeting. It brings together scientists and all kinds of people who know what they’re doing. And they write papers about Jack Kennedy’s death. And we don’t speculate at all.
So, just for the record, you’re not satisfied with the official version that “Oswald was the lone assassin”.
Of course not. That’s absurd.
And I believe, like Fletcher Prouty says — he’s a colonel in the Air Force who was a liaison, I think, between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA when it was being formed. And he says that, he
thinks that the Kennedy murder was done by a cabal of people in government, for two reasons: one, Kennedy had said he was going to pull the troops home from Vietnam and stop the war; and two, he said he was going to tear the CIA apart.
Again, in your July 31st, 1995 newsletter, you write “I think he” (meaning Vince Foster) “was dispatched on numerous missions overseas to take money of others to Swiss banks.”
So in other words, in slang terms, Foster was what they call “a bag man”. Would you agree with that?
I don’t know anything about the Swiss banks. But I think that Foster was a tool and he was used. And Foster had found out some very bad things that are goin’ on in the government. He wanted to tell Bill Clinton about them on Wednesday, and he was killed Tuesday afternoon.
Yeah. That whole thing, to anybody that can think, that can look at the facts of Foster’s death…
And before they even investigated, routinely investigated his death, they said it was a suicide.
Yeah. There’s just so much. I mean, that somebody would shoot themselves in the head, supposedly, and then lie down with their arms at their sides! [laughs]
Are you familiar with this person (you may not be), his name is Orlin Grabbe?
Yes, I’m familiar with his work. I know what he’s doing. He’s a very talented, very well-educated, qualified person who’s taught at Wharton School of Finance. And he taught, he wrote a textbook
that’s used around the world by bankers. And he is a very well- qualified man. But he’s retired. [CN — Grabbe is not retired.] He just suddenly got in the business of writing. And he’s writing all these exposes’ for Internet every day, and everybody’s readin’ them. And he doesn’t… Some of it he knows, and some of it he knows from experience, and some of it he’s assuming.
But he’s now been writing about the Mellon Bank. And the Mellon Bank has undoubtedly been… Um, I don’t want to stir up trouble… There’s a big story in Pittsburgh right now, a big case in the… The Mellon family is the family that started Gulf Oil, for friends. And all of a sudden the Gulf Oil people are gone, and dead. And they found out that the trust fund that was set up for them had gotten to be billions. And that Mellon Bank has taken these trust funds and re-invested them. And now the Mellon heirs, the Gulf Oil heirs, are in court in Pittsburgh this week, tryin’ to get their money back.
You’re obviously more familiar with this, you’re closer to what’s goin’ on. I just basically know what I read on Internet. I’m not that close to it.
Well I tell you what: I do not believe that any of ’em have the right story about Foster and the Swiss banks, or Foster and secrets to Israel. You stay away from those two things, I think you’ll be better off.
And Hillary is not a lesbian!
[laughs] Okay. That’s good to know.
She’s very brilliant. And he is an honest man, trying to make a real change in government.
Goin’ back to Orlin Grabbe: in one of his articles he proposes that we have got what he calls a “triangular trade” that’s underlying recent events such as Whitewater, the death of Foster. The “triangular trade” involves third-world raw materials such as oil and coca (that’s processed into cocaine) that are exchanged for first-world armaments and technology, with various banks handling the laundering of the money. Hence: the Third World, raw materials; First World, armaments; and the banks would be the third party, would be getting their share of the loot by laundering the money.
That’s right. The banks are doing it like mad. And if you want to know what I really think… This is just my opinion, right now. I can’t prove it. I can’t document it. But I think the narcotics money is dominating the economies of the world. And it’s being laundered in the United States, largely. And in the islands. And the narcotics money is being divided between both parties, and that is financing the election. It’s maybe done under a different name, different people, but that’s what finances the election for presidency. And I think it’s terrible!
It’s a huge industry.
I think that both parties are gettin’ their money for the election from narcotics. And I think the government is letting the narcotics come in here.
Are you familiar with a book called Dope, Inc. by Lyndon LaRouche?
I think I bought that book years ago. Lyndon LaRouche said, when I bought it, he said I had contributed to his campaign. I know about that book, yes.
But apparently you don’t have a high opinion of Lyndon LaRouche.
I don’t have a high opinion of Lyndon LaRouche. I know he’s been tortured and mistreated and all that stuff. It’s certainly sad that, to tell people his story. And I think he has some, may have some information. But I have never understood his economics.
The main thing, his drug book, as I recall it, is the drug trade was being financed and largely put over the world by England. Wasn’t that right?
SARAH MCCLENDON: I think we’re pretty silly to sit here every day and not do more investigation about the dope and the narcotics. It’s a bigger issue than a lot of the issues that we’re playin’ with.
The following interview with Lt. Commander Alexander Martin (retired) took
place on Tom Valentine’s Radio Free America program on July 10, 1995.
Valentine’s comments follow “Q” while Martin’s follow “A“
Q: Only 3 percent? That means 97 percent went somewhere else.
A: It went into people’s pockets. General Secord certainly profited handsomely. General John Singlaub and a host of others did likewise. However, would it have been possible for these men to carry out such an enormous conspiracy, to traffic in such enormous quantities of illegal items, without the duplicity and complicity of the United States government?
Q: I don’t see how it would have been possible.
A: It would not have been possible, and it was not possible at the time to do so. I think George Bush said it very well in an interview with Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the Washington press corps. When Bush consented to an interview with Mrs. McClendon in June of 1992, he said on record, which she printed in her newsletter that month, when she asked him about Iran-contra and he said, (and I’m quoting from her newsletter): “If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched.” This was a public comment by George Bush.
Q: George Bush actually admitted that?
A: He said it and it was printed in Mrs. McClendon’s newsletter in June of 1992.
The Case for Sedition: High Crimes of the Bush Cabal
By Al Martin, April 8th, 2002:
A case for sedition can be made against the Bush Cabal, including George Herbert Walker Bush, James Baker, Cappy Weinberger, and the late Bill Casey et al. They perpetrated a series of frauds against the public purse under the thinly disguised veil of political policies, to wit, the tremendous increase in military and defense expenditures, in order to try to defeat the “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union, which in itself was a ruse.
This enormous multi-trillion dollar increase in defense spending was used by the Bush Cabal to suck money out of the public purse by the commission of a variety of schemes and to bleed money out of defense appropriations by incessant payments from defense contractors to a shadowy network of Republican-controlled arms companies, security research consultant companies, and offshore research institutes.
This can be ascertained when you look at the big Research and Development (R & D) expenditures that were done on the so-called Star Wars missile defense program. You can see the endless list of “security consultants” that were put on as subcontractors, most of whom had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the weapons.
These security consultant firms would put together proposals for estimated usage of weapons, etc, but since they knew the weapons were never going to work, they knew it was really meaningless anyway.
In addition, there was the “spare parts industry” that goes along with the Bush Cabal, which increases the cost of spare parts (which don’t work) by ten or twenty times.
These actions of the Bush Cabal then constitute gross economic malfeasance, which, in my view, could rise to the level of sedition. The definition of sedition is four pages long, and it can be found in Statute 792 of US Title Code 18.
In other words, the Bush Cabal knew that what they were doing would severely weaken the United States, both militarily and economically. The country is weakened militarily by loading US military inventories with a lot of high tech weapons systems that don’t work. The country is weakened economically by many years of purported multi-hundred billion dollar deficits, claimed to be $350 or $400 hundred billion dollar deficits, but which were actually (as we have pointed out before) twice as high as claimed at any given time.
The Bush Administration just disguised the numbers through a series of smoke-and-mirror accounting tricks, as we have said before. (See Numbers Don’t Lie, Bushes Do. http://www.almartinraw.com/column50.html)
The premise of the case is that this malfeasance was created, not under the Reagan-Bush Regime, as referred to before, but by the Bush I Regime.
The Bush I Regime, the period from 1980-1992, is so named because Ronald Reagan was simply a figurehead. Reagan never formulated any policies on his own and he hardly had any of his own people in the cabinet. When you think about it, the only pure Reaganite was Donald Regan, and he was intimidated by George Bush. He even publicly said so. The big powerhouses in the administration, like James Baker, Bill Casey, Cappy Weinburger, Brent Scowcroft, were all old Bush Cabalists. These were not Reaganites.
We need to remember that prior to 1980, before the use of the word “Reaganite,” Ronald Reagan didn’t have any political faction of his own. He wasn’t a politician. He was a two-term governor of the state of California. When he left office, the State of California was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. That says a lot for his ability to manage things. People should have known then. When he first came in as governor of California, the state budget had a record surplus and all state accounts had surpluses. When he left two terms later, the state was nearly bankrupt and had a record deficit. California had asked for federal assistance to bail out several state agencies, and the surpluses were all gone.
Reagan never had a vested political constituency of his own. People ask — where did this term “Reaganite” or “Reaganomics” come from? It was the Bush people in the Reagan Administration, who fostered the use of these terms. James Baker used it all the time, and that was to lay all the crap in Reagan’s lap.
In marketing, it’s called branding. They knew Reagan was the popular figurehead, not George Bush — so why not name everything after him?
It was easier to sell because of Reagan’s popularity, and it also disguised the real power in the administration. The Bush people knew that what they were doing would severely weaken our government and our economy, but later on they’d have some political dodge by being able say, “Hey, Reagan was the president.” In fact, everyone knew that George Bush controlled things, which was particularly true in Reagan’s second term, when Reagan frankly didn’t have any idea what was going on anymore.
Regarding the sedition issue, we must remember what George Bush said in 1992, when he was asked what Iran-Contra was all about. This was all done, as George Bush Sr. himself once said, for “the continuous consolidation of money and power into higher, tighter and righter hands.” The implication is that there was a grand design behind this illegal covert operation of government, the greatest ever committed by the US Government, which had nothing to do with providing a bulwark against the growing Red Tide in Central America. In fact, it was a covert operation and like all other covert operations, which is what Bush implied, its real agenda was simply to form a political machine under the guise of an illegal covert operation of State to suck ever-increasing quantities of money out of the US Federal Treasury.
The “plan” was well publicized. To build an envisioned 50,000-man contra-army. That never happened. To impede the Soviet build-up of arms and influence in Central America. That never happened. To shore up our right wing dictatorial regime friends in Guatemala and El Salvador. That never happened.
All the stated goals of the stated cover story were not accomplished because nobody cared about accomplishing them. It was just a ruse.
Star Wars was the same thing – just a ruse – and they all knew that Star Wars was just a ruse. Jack Verona, then chief of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), probably could have gotten himself assassinated because he had loose lips. He used to like to drink at these Republican cocktail parties, and he was often reported off the record in the Washington Post, saying that the weapons systems we’re spending hundreds of billions on are pie-in-the-sky. He stated that they either won’t work, or in the case of the few that do have a chance of working, we wouldn’t have the technology to make them work for another fifteen or twenty years.
The billions and billions (an aggregate $2.77 trillion dollars) that was spent on Star Wars programs at the time (the so-called “Brilliant Pebbles,” “Bright Star” the ASAT program) was all wasted.
The Bush people would say that you have to commit to research and development in order to make a weapons system that works. That seemingly would make sense, but they knew going into it that it was untrue, based on what Verona kept telling them. Since he was the technical guy (the chief of DARPA), that was his job. He was supposed to tell the administration what was technically possible with technology at the time and what wasn’t. And he told them that the technology to build what you want to build just doesn’t exist – and it won’t exist for decades.
The Star Wars program then had contractors making enormous soft-money donations to Republican institutions. You saw all these newly created companies in 1985 with names like VigiTech and SynDyne and SolarPlex — names that would imply “high tech.” In fact, they were just shell companies with offices in McLean, Virginia with offshore accounts that were run by Republican interests. They had enormous subcontracting fees.
And what does this have to do with sedition? You must realize that most of the big, big Republican money (the trillion-dollar type money) was made by huge short positions in the market during the time frame of 1987-1989.
This was extensively discussed by Jeb Bush and others in 1985 — and rather openly so. They were shorting entire indexes, and that’s what distorted the markets. That’s why there was so much distortion in ’87, ’88 and going into ’89, when all these different types of spreads came up, and people couldn’t figure out what they were.
In other words, the Bush Cabal entered into a policy, which they knew would weaken the economic marketplace, the capital marketplaces of the United States, and hence worldwide, since when we sneeze, the rest of the world gets the flu, economically speaking.
They capitalized on it further by instituting enormous short positions in a market because they were themselves the ones causing the economic damage to the underpinnings of the nation, which would eventually be felt in the nation’s capital marketplaces.
The companies used were the same old list of favorites. Merrill Lynch. Goldman Sachs. Practically every Republican I knew at the time did business there. They would form offshore investment groups that they would all pool into. Trilateral Investment Group Ltd. was one name I remember. The Omni Investment Group Ltd. They would all be Republican-controlled, and they would institute huge short positions in the markets. A lot of times they were dealing with Republican controlled institutions, so if they got into an unsecured debit balance position, nobody ever put the arm on them for the money. They could carry positions much longer, outside of market rules.
They made enormous amounts of money. Alan Greenspan sent a series of secret memorandums to George Bush, prior to the market crash of 1987. He was very nervous during this time. He knew what they were doing, and he told George Bush secretly that you’re undermining the capital markets of the United States. Where do you think this is all going to lead?
I have made this contention before – that the stock market collapse in October of 1987 was caused by a massive draining of capital out of the United States, principally due to a variety of schemes originally proffered by the Bushites.
The market did not reach its bottom until December 4, 1989, and enormous amounts of money were made in that period of time. It’s a zero sum game. What was being done again is shifting money from the American citizen, this time in his capacity as an investor, to the all-powerful Bush Cabal. Previously we had simply been shifting money to the all-powerful Bush Cabal through citizens wearing their hats as taxpayers.
The Bush idea was (I remember Jeb used to say this) that, “Look, you hit them in every single hat they wear.” That was the idea. He used to call them fodder. You hit the fodder in their hats as Taxpayers. You hit them in their hats as Investors and Savers. You hit them in their hats as Insurance Policy Owners through all these insurance scams his brother was involved in. Then there was, of course, Jeb’s International Medical Corporation. Jeb also liked health care scams. But that was the idea the Bushes had, that you take the American taxpayer (which they called “One Fodder Unit,” or OFU) and you hit them in every single hat they wear.
I don’t know where the term came from, but “One Fodder Unit” became a popular term on the Republican cocktail party circuit in 1985. According to them, each individual American citizen equals One Fodder Unit.
Today we have the results of that. When George Bush left office, the federal budget deficit was actually twice what they claimed it was. They were able to hide about half of the federal budget deficit through the Bush Regime. Then Clinton came in, and he had a pretty good idea of what the problems were up front. That’s one reason why he kept Alan Greenspan, by the way. It was because the marketplaces both here and abroad had a lot of faith in Greenspan. He told Greenspan early on that we’re going to have to bring interest rates down and flood the market with money, which was done in ’93. Interest rates fell precipitously, and then there was the sharp spike in ’94. This was necessary to bleed some of the problems out of the economy.
After Bush got out of office, it was important that the economy be re-liquefied as quickly as possible, regardless of the inflationary impact. You can always control the inflationary impact later on by raising the interest rates.
Clinton had a good idea of the problems that the Bush Administration had created. Congressman Bill Alexander, who knew Clinton personally for years and used to have lunch with him, used to tell me (this is when they were trying to work out a deal for me) that Clinton was absolutely appalled and even frightened about the enormity of the situation. At the lunch that Bill Alexander had with him at the White House, Clinton looked at him and said, “Bill, I hope you have enough to pay for that lunch. The United States government doesn’t have any money left.”
When he got there, he realized there was nothing left. He said we are probably 14 or 15 trillion dollars in debt and we’re continuing to bleed. Three days after taking office, he begins to discover the real story. And he was frankly scared out of his wits.
Can you imagine coming into the Oval Office and finding out that there are no capital reserves left, the nation is $14 trillion in debt, all of the capital marketplaces are shaky as hell, and the nation is bleeding red ink at the rate of one billion dollars a day, as the Bush Administration publicly admitted?
Clinton then found out that the actual red ink was about twice that amount (about $2 billion a day) and that there was an accumulated $14 trillion in debt – with the rest of the world still in recession.
And then there was another bombshell – an unknown and much more serious malfeasance by the Bush Cabal which Clinton inherited. The West German and Japanese governments started pressing Clinton for repayment of an aggregate $150 billion in secret loans they made to the Soviet Union in 1987, after George Bush Sr. put the arm on them to keep the “Evil Empire” financially afloat a little longer.
The concept was that Bush knew that the Soviet Union was going to collapse in 1987, and he was scared because it would reveal his lies to the American people about why he needed more money for “defense” and other military expenditures. Bush obviously knew that the United States couldn’t lend them the money, a country we had spent trillions of dollars to defeat.
If the Soviet Union had collapsed in 1987, people would say – why did we have to spend trillions of dollars on “defense”? The Bush Cabal’s lies were premised on the idea that the Soviet Union wouldn’t fall apart until 1992. Then they could say they were responsible for the collapse (the “defeat” of the “Evil Empire”) rather than being responsible for wasting trillions of dollars.
The CIA’s annual report of the Soviet Union’s strength assessment was that the Soviet Union was falling apart. The Bush Administration would then issue two reports, one of them indicating that the Soviet Union was falling apart and the other, a false report, stating that the Soviet Union continues to get stronger.
George Bush Sr. then talked the German, Japanese and Korean governments into making direct intergovernmental loans to the Soviet Union in 1987 totaling about $150 billion dollars. The deal was that the United States would be the ultimate guarantor. That’s another $150 billion dollars that US taxpayers would be responsible for.
After lending $80 billion to the Soviet Union at Bush’s request, Germany’s Chancellor Kohl told him that he couldn’t hide any more from his government.
George Bush Sr. then lied to the Japanese about the money he wanted them to give the Soviet Union. He told them if the Japanese gave them the money, then the Russians would give back the northern island possessions the Russians illegally seized from the Japanese at the end of the Second World War. It was a complete lie.
After Gorbachev was gone, Yeltsin said he wouldn’t honor the deal because he knew that this was a scam just between Bush Sr. and Gorbachev. It was a political scam that Bush and Gorbachev did in order to make Bush look good and make his policies “viable.” Yeltsin actually knew the extent of the conspiracy that existed between Gorbachev and Bush.
It is no wonder that George Bush told reporter Sarah McClendon that “if the American people really knew what we had done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched.” What George Bush said then is a case of what happens in Washington when you don’t take your Prozac and you have a “lie lapse.”
When Clinton came into office, he had a real sense of fear and foreboding.
Knowing what he knew, he used to kid about it. Bill Alexander told me this in April or May of ’93. He said, “Six months after being here, I got high blood pressure. I got hemorrhoids. I got all these things wrong with me that I never had before.”
If people understood what happened within the Clinton Regime – the fact that Clinton (who was a weak politician to begin with) was forced to accept a lot of Bush holdovers. That was one of the distinctions of the Clinton Regime. There was a record number, over 1,700 Bush holdovers in senior positions in various federal agencies.
Clinton managed to weed out some of them, although he didn’t do it as quickly as he wanted because even he understood the bigger picture. He understood the temerity of the situation. He was often criticized – why didn’t he weed out these Republican Cabalist holdovers? But he knew what they were there for – to control the liability of the Bush Administration. He was surprised by the numbers, but as he came to realize the enormity of the crime committed by the Bush I people, and the fact that it could literally take the whole world down economically, if the total of this gross economic malfeasance was to be revealed. And then there was the wholesale looting of the federal treasury, and the fact that trillions and trillions couldn’t be accounted for.
Clinton understood that you needed Bush Cabalists who know how to control liability — even within his own administration. He used to tell Alexander that we’re Democrats, and we don’t have this inherent liability control structure that the Republicans have.
A Republican can go into a room full of a million documents in file cabinets, take one breath, and know exactly which one document you have to shred in the whole million. Republicans have an intuitive instinct of this that they’ve built up over the years.
Clinton did the right thing. Even he understood, at least early in his regime, what the Bush Cabalists (he used to call them the Bush Faction, or Cabalists, or Trilateralists) had done. He should be commended because he let this Republican control apparatus stay in his government and he gave them a very free hand.
Unfortunately there were many people who suffered because of it, whistleblowers who knew too much. You have to remember that in ’91-’92, and even later in ’93-’94, people were still suffering. People who knew too much were disappearing and dying under mysterious circumstances. And I was one of the people who suffered — but at least I understood the necessity of my suffering. There were some people who whined about it, but I maintained a constant position, that is, I am owed money. I was mistreated, lied to, and I was owed money — after always doing what I had been told to do. And that wasn’t right – the way I was treated. I didn’t whine about it. I didn’t threaten anyone about it because I understood.
People have asked me why I didn’t write the book (“The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider” http://www.almartinraw.com/book.html ) in ’91, or ’92, or ’93. I would answer that it would have been politically impossible at the time to write it. That’s true, but I could have self-published it. The real reason I didn’t is because I understood the bigger picture as well. As my attorney used to say to me back in ’91 or ’92, “Al, if you write a book now, we had better pray that people don’t believe it.”
But even I understood what the Bigger Picture was, and so did Clinton, who was smart enough to let that Republican control group exist because he knew what the repercussions would be, if everything that the Bushes had done became public. He knew there would be havoc. It’s global in nature, but we’re talking about a time in 1992 when the Bush Administration had just re-capitalized the nation’s Savings and Loans – which the very same people including some of the Bush family’s relatives had taken down.
When you just re-capitalized that at an enormous cost to the American taxpayer, the economy was still losing two billion dollars a day. The world’s financial markets were tenuous at best. The Soviet Union had now converted over, but was in a state of crisis. Brazil had now effectively fallen apart. Argentina was falling apart for the first time. Mexico was right on the verge.
In other words, Clinton accurately understood that, had the Grand Bushonian Malfeasance been revealed, the massive loss of investors’ confidence could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. Therefore he appropriately did was keep a guy like Greenspan with a good market reputation. Greenspan understood the temerity of the economic situation and stepped on the economic gas pedal. This is something that George Bush tried to get him to do in 1992 and he refused.
George Sr. has always blamed Greenspan for his defeat. He was fond of saying that the economy was on the upswing at election time — had Alan Greenspan stepped on the economic gas pedal earlier.
Bush threatened to have Greenspan dismissed, which is the president’s power. And Greenspan said, go ahead and see what happens to the remaining confidence in the nation’s marketplace. This was a real battle, which was unknown in history. Greenspan told George Bush Sr. that the nation’s and the world’s economy cannot survive another Bush term. He said I’m not going to get you reelected. And that’s why he purposely kept the economic reins tight in ’92, when the economy was showing some nascent signs of recovery, at a time when prudent economic policy would have dictated that the Fed would have begun to loosen. He purposely dragged his feet, thus choking off the nascent recovery and giving Bill Clinton a double whammy for free.
The double whammy was that the repressed consumer demand that was going on in the last half of ’92 because Greenspan was keeping his foot on the economic brake was creating a repressed consumer demand. The minute you stepped on the gas, what would happen is that interest rates would come down.
Greenspan didn’t do it to help Clinton politically. It was really done to pump up the economy in 1993. Greenspan was trying to provide every ounce of monetary stimulus he possibly could. One way was to keep pent-up demand that was occurring in 1992 pent up. He did it by refusing to lower interest rates. Then in the next administration, you step hard on the economic gas.
He dramatically increased the nation’s short term (M1) and intermediate term (M2) money supply. He dramatically increased the liquidity, and in so doing, he increased short and intermediate term liquidity, thus allowing rates to fall quite substantially. This brought in additional consumer demand. There was a two-fold action going into the first quarter of ’93 with left over demand from ’92 (pent-up demand.) It was a demand for housing, for consumer goods, big-ticket durables, but that demand wouldn’t come forth until rates came down. And that allowed this tremendous economic growth to happen which we had in ’93 and for interest rates to fall so low.
The interest rates on the 30-year long bond had fallen 400 basis points from October ’92 to October ’93. That is a tremendous drop in interest rates. Because of that, Greenspan was able to get, through some crafty manipulation of monetary policy, an awful lot of bang for the monetary buck in terms of economic stimulation. It really changed the tone of the nation’s capital marketplaces.
I’ve always said this, and I know that Greenspan personally thinks the same: 1993 was the pivotal year that saved the nation’s (and possibly the world’s) economy. There was a tremendous increase in GDP. A lot of banks and brokerage firms were able to re-liquefy again. It was re-liquefied by over-stimulating the economy. That in turn allowed previously illiquid assets to become liquid.
Greenspan shifted the economy into neutral, stepped on the economic brake hard (4th quarter of 1993), and contracted money supply very quickly, instead of doing it over 18 months. He knew that was a risk in an economy still so debt-leveraged. So he compressed the economic cycle. He knew he had over-stimulated which he felt necessary to save the whole world essentially and created incipient inflation in an economy that had to be weeded out. Instead of doing it the traditional way by creating a recession, he took a chance and compressed the entire cycle into less than twelve months, a cycle which ordinarily would have taken twenty-four months.
The key in the case for sedition against the Bush Cabal is that they knew what their policies would lead to. The Bush Administration knew they were creating policies in order for a certain cabal within government, a faction, a segment of society, industry that supports that cabal, to bleed ever larger and larger amounts of money out of the public purse. And they knew what they were doing.
“Industry” here refers to the entire Military-Industrial Complex and perhaps the entire Bush faction within government and the civilian population, which represents about 3,000,000 people or so. This was indeed a continuation of the consolidation of money and power to which Bush referred.
The key is that they knew what they were doing. They knew what the long-term economic impact would be for the United States. They purposely created that negative impact so they could capitalize on it by instituting huge amounts of institutional short positions, when the eventual and inevitable economic effects of all of this missing money began to be felt in the summer of 1987. At that time, suddenly banks looked around and said we don’t have any capital left. Our capital base is depleted. Insurance companies looked around and said our insurance net reserves are depleted. There was nothing left. By the third quarter of 1987, the great and all-powerful Bush Cabal had drained so much money out of the economy, combined with perpetual federal budget deficits, that there literally was no money left in the country.
The actions of the Bush Cabal, George Bush Sr. and his cabal, some of the men we’ve named, and the profits they made, based on policies that they themselves enacted, or proffered and fostered, both legally and illegally — this rises to the level of sedition, insofar as they knew what they were doing.
And what is sedition? To willfully and maliciously act in a fashion as to sap, suborn or otherwise undermine the United States of America, its lawful authority, thereunto as duly constituted government, or its national security.
Is not economics the ultimate national security of the country? This is the key in the case for sedition against the Bush Cabal.
Iran-Contra did happen.
The CIA offically admitted running operations at the Mena airport.
Oliver North’s own diary records the presence of drug traffic connected to the gun running operation (itself illegal under the Boland Amendment).
Prior to the start of Iran-Contra, Reagan’s Attorney General William French Smith (with a young Kenneth Starr as assistant) exempted the CIA from the requirement to report on drug activity it encountered during intelligence operations. In historical hindsight, there was good reason to.
During the Iran-Contra hearings, the gun running was the limited hangout, but every time the discussions got near that airport at Mena, Senator Inouye would declare an “executive session” and kick the public and media out the door. Again, in historical hindsight, there was a reason.
That Clinton’s donors included and still include drug criminals is a fact. That Clinton was governor of Arkansas when the gun and drug running was taking place at Mena, Arkansas is a fact. That four of Clinton’s 1992 fundraisers who handled large amounts of cash donations are all dead is a fact.
That the quote by George Bush was in Sara McClendon’s newsletter is a fact.
That opioid overdose among our children has doubled in the last 10 years is a fact.
The drug money corruption which besets our nation is a bipartisan problem. And only bipartisan tar and feathers (maybe some rope) will rid us of it.