Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Bin Laden's family link to Bush", by PETER ALLEN, Daily Mail, 9/24/01

Expand Messages
  • Geopilot
    Bin Laden s family link to Bush by PETER ALLEN, Daily Mail, 9/24/01 In summer 1971, Osama and Salem Bin Laden enjoyed a holiday in Sweden with some of
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 1 12:07 AM
      Bin Laden's family link to Bush"
      by PETER ALLEN, Daily Mail, 9/24/01 "In summer 1971, Osama and Salem
      Bin Laden enjoyed a holiday in Sweden with some of their 55 brothers and
      sisters. Yet within a few years, the two teenagers' lives had taken
      stunningly different turns. As the world knows to its cost, Osama
      embraced Islamic fundamentalism and 30 years later was named the world's
      most wanted man. He is prime suspect in the murder of nearly 7,000 in
      the worst ever terrorist atrocities in the U.S. earlier this month.
      Incredibly, Salem went on to become a business partner of the man who is
      leading the hunt for his brother. In the 1970s, he and George W Bush
      were founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr Bush's home state
      of Texas. "... The brothers had recently inherited a fortune from
      their construction magnate father, Mohammed. He left millions to each of
      his 57 children by 12 wives after dying in a plane crash in 1968.... At
      that time the brothers both delighted in their enormous wealth. Salem
      - wearing a polo neck and slacks as he crouches three places from
      Osama, in jeans and a skinny rib jumper - put a large part of his money
      into business ventures, including Arbusto Energy. Mr Bush was not long
      out of Harvard Business School when he started the company in 1978.
      Salem watched it grow into a hugely successful business until his death
      in a microlight plane crash in Texas in 1983. "As he built his own
      business empire, Salem Bin Laden had an intriguing relationship with the
      president-to-be. In 1978, he appointed James Bath, a close friend of Mr
      Bush who served with him in the Air National Guard, as his
      representative in Houston, Texas. It was in that year that Mr Bath
      invested $50,000 (about ?34,000) in Mr Bush's company, Arbusto. It was
      never revealed whether he was investing his own money or somebody
      else's. There was even speculation that the money might have been from
      Salem. In the same year, Mr Bath bought Houston Gulf Airport on behalf
      of the Saudi
      Arabian multimillionaire. Three years ago, Mr Bush said the $50,000
      investment in Arbusto was the only financial dealing he had with Mr
      Bath. Last night a White House spokesman was unavailable for comment.
      "Before his death, Salem was married to Briton Caroline Carey, now 35.
      She has never spoken about her brother-in-law Osama, who was disowned by
      the rest of his family in 1991 when he was expelled from Saudi Arabia
      for his anti-government activities.... 'Salem was the head of the Bin
      Laden family as the oldest of all the brothers and sisters. 'He was a
      man with a powerful presence.'" "...Yesterday FBI agents swooped on a
      Boston suburb where around 20 of the wealthy relatives of Bin Laden
      live. They questioned them at a condominium complex in Charlestown.
      Agents even began visiting nightclubs to collect credit cards of younger
      members of the family. Bin Laden's younger brother Mohammed, who is said
      to have moved back to Saudi Arabia with his wife and children several
      years ago, owns a ten-bedroom mansion in nearby Wayland. Another
      younger brother, Abdullah, is a 1994 graduate of Harvard Law School. The
      family has given it ?2million in endowments to research Islamic law.
      Most of Bin Laden's family have in the past strongly denounced the
      44-year-old fugitive, now living in Afghanistan. The FBI in Boston has
      long been aware of his extended family and began monitoring their
      activities after the 1998 terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in
      Africa. The Bin Ladens still run one of the biggest construction
      companies in the world. What Was Behind The Warming Of Relations
      Between Bush And The Taliban? "...Those who have followed the warming
      of relations between the Bush administration and Kabul are asking why
      the Bush administration wasn't alerted to an impending attack through
      Taliban back-channels. According to sources close to the Taliban and
      Pakistan's Jamiaat-i-Islami Party--the Pakistani fundamentalist movement
      that nurtured and
      trained the Taliban--a senior Jamiaat official, Qazi Husein Ahmad,
      recently traveled to both London and Washington. While in Washington, he
      reportedly re-established ties with the Taliban's old CIA contacts from
      the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "Ahmad is the second
      Islamist radical to have been welcomed by Langley in recent months. No
      sooner had the Bush administration taken over than the Taliban's
      ambassador-at-large, Rahmatullah Hashami, sat down with senior CIA,
      State and Pentagon officials in a meeting arranged by Laili Helms, the
      Taliban's unofficial representative in the United States and
      niece-in-law of Richard Helms, former CIA director and U.S. ambassador
      to Iran. "According to Pakistani sources, the Taliban and the
      Pakistani veterans of the CIA-led mujahedin war against the Soviets had
      been keen to rekindle old ties with the former South Asia CIA chief
      Richard Armitage, now Secretary of State Colin Powell's deputy, and
      Christina Rocca, assistant
      secretary of state for South Asia, who is a 15-year veteran of the
      CIA's Operations Directorate, a position where she also interfaced with
      the Islamist guerrillas. Rocca had previously met in Islamabad with
      Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, and his
      assistant, Sohail Shaheen. Armitage, however, is considered anti-Taliban
      because he favors restoring the elderly ousted Afghan monarch, King
      Zahir Shah, to power. "Powell was reportedly upset about the
      re-establishment of ties with the Taliban and Pakistani Islamists, but
      has apparently been overruled by the dominant CIA interests in the
      administration. Intelligence sources point out that, for its part, the
      CIA wanted to re-establish contact with murky ex-mujahedin and
      Taliban-allied arms- and drug-smuggling fronts in Rawalpindi and
      Peshawar. According to one senior U.S. government source, the Taliban's
      greatest cheerleaders are the CIA and the State Department's Bureau of
      Intelligence and Research.
      The source said the CIA had always argued that bin Laden was
      "overblown" as a threat. "The United States has recently tilted toward
      the Taliban and against the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance of Gen. Ahmed
      Shah Massoud. The Defense Department largely supports Massoud, but the
      CIA and State Department argue that supporting the general would put the
      United States on the same side as Russia and Iran--his two major
      backers. Massoud was the target of a [successful] suicide bomb
      assassination attempt by two bin Laden allies disguised as television
      journalists the day before the attack on the United States....But that
      did not stop Massoud's forces from launching a missile attack on Kabul
      Airport the night of September 11--to the delight of many Americans,
      many of whom were surprised it was not a U.S. military attack. After the
      recovery and mourning period, Washington will go into its traditional
      finger-pointing mode. Then, the CIA and other Bush administration
      officials who
      have had close contact with the Taliban should be asked by Congress
      about the nature of their relationships with the protectors of bin
      Laden. For starters, CIA Director George Tenet should be asked what the
      United States received in return for even talking to the brutal mullahs
      who run Kabul. The State Department should be questioned as to why it
      has banned Massoud's movement from occupying the vacant Afghan Embassy
      in Washington even though it is recognized by the United Nations as the
      legitimate government of Afghanistan...." --Wayne Madsen, posted 9/23/01
      >
      > Mary A wrote:
      > On tv the day before yesterday. (I can't remember where I heard it, so
      > frustrating!) Anyway, I was sort of running back and forth getting
      > ready to go out when I heard this, and when I finally had a chance to
      > sit down and google for it, I found nothing.
      > Apparently, according to someone, (maybe the new Woodward book?) the
      > Taliban offered to turn OBL over to Bush before 9/11. I think I heard
      > Feb 2001. (I know that after 9/11, the Taliban offered to turn OBL over
      > to a 3rd party, this was before 9/11)
      > If anyone else even heard this, and knows who said it, please let me
      > know and I will try to track it down that way!
      > Hugs to all
      > Mary A
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Geopilot
      Below is one of the first articles I have found which clearly states the amounts of money and commissions and coinvestments that people like James Baker
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 1 12:30 AM
        Below is one of the first articles I have found which clearly states the
        amounts of money and commissions and coinvestments that people like
        James Baker associated with this administration are getting and
        commissions they are getting from these countries that are benifitting
        financially by the us military stopping Saddam from pumping Iraq's oil.
        Now we have the clear money trail to those connected directly to Bush.

        The issue is now clear. Republicans need to clean our own house and work
        as we did in Nixon's time to clean house of the bad seed.

        Mr. Bush should no longer be allowed to call himself a republican, a
        conservative, a christian or indeed an american. Bush has betrayed us
        all for sake of his financial connections to these Arab nations..
        (remember Lawyer James Baker is also the lawyer who defended THE SAUDIS
        when the AMERICAN families of the 9/11 victims sued the Saudis for
        financially supporting the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country.)

        article begins here:


        Bush Special Envoy & Carlyle Group In Scandal Over Iraqi Debt Relief
        Naomi Klein | Guardian | October 13, 2004
        Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to
        collect $27bn (£15bn) on behalf of Kuwait, one of Iraq's biggest
        creditors, by using high-level political influence. It claims Mr Baker
        will not benefit personally, but the consortium could make millions in
        fees, retainers and commission as a result.

        President Bush's special envoy, James Baker, who has been trying to
        persuade the world to forgive Iraq's crushing debts, is simultaneously
        working for a commercial concern that is trying to recover money from
        Iraq, according to confidential documents.

        Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to
        collect $27bn (£15bn) on behalf of Kuwait, one of Iraq's biggest
        creditors, by using high-level political influence. It claims Mr Baker
        will not benefit personally, but the consortium could make millions in
        fees, retainers and commission as a result.

        Other countries, including Britain, have been urged by Mr Baker to
        relieve the new Iraq regime of its $200bn debt burden. Iraq owes Britain
        approximately $1bn.

        One international lawyer described the consortium's scheme as "influence
        peddling of the crassest kind".

        Jerome Levinson, an expert on political and corporate ethics at American
        University in Washington, told the Guardian: "The consortium is saying
        to the Kuwaiti government, 'Through us you have the only chance to
        realize a substantial part of the debt. Why? Because of who we are and
        who we know'."

        When George Bush appointed Mr Baker, a former secretary of state, as his
        unpaid envoy on December 5 2003, he called Mr Baker's job "a noble
        mission". But Mr Baker is also a senior counsellor and an equity partner
        with a reported $180m stake in the merchant bank and defence contractor
        the Carlyle Group.

        A confidential 65-page Proposal to Assist the Government of Kuwait in
        Protecting and Realising Claims Against Iraq was sent in January from
        the consortium to Kuwait's foreign ministry, according to documents
        obtained by the Nation magazine in New York, which are published today
        on the Guardian website.

        In a letter dated August 6 2004, the consortium informs Kuwait's foreign
        ministry that the country's unpaid debts from Iraq "are in imminent
        jeopardy".

        World opinion is turning in favor of debt forgiveness, another letter
        warns, as evidenced by "President Bush's appointment of former secretary
        of state James Baker as his envoy to negotiate Iraqi debt relief."

        The consortium's proposal spells out the threat: not only is Kuwait
        unlikely to see any of its $30bn from Iraq in sovereign debt, but the
        $27bn in war reparations that Iraq owes to Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's
        1990 invasion "may well be a casualty of this US [debt relief] effort".

        In the face of this threat, the consortium offers its services. Its
        roster of former high-level US and European politicians have "personal
        rapport with the stakeholders in the anticipated negotiations" and are
        able to "reach key decision-makers in the UN and in key capitals".

        Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading
        expert on government ethics and regulations, said this meant that Mr
        Baker was in a "classic conflict of interest".

        "Baker is on two sides of this transaction: he is supposed to be
        representing the interests of the US, but he is also a senior counsellor
        at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its
        debts from Iraq."

        She added: "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's
        current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine
        the interests of the US government."

        Last night, a Carlyle spokesman said the company had scaled down its
        involvement after the Baker appointment: "Neither the Carlyle Group nor
        James Baker wrote, edited or authorised this proposal to the Kuwait
        government. When James Baker was named special envoy, which was before
        the proposal was produced and sent, Carlyle explicitly restricted its
        role to only investing assets on behalf of Kuwait, an activity that
        James Baker would play no role in nor benefit from."

        According to the documents, Carlyle is seeking to secure as part of the
        deal an extraordinary $1bn investment from the Kuwaiti government.

        The main proposal would transfer ownership of $57bn in unpaid Iraqi
        debts. The debts would be assigned to a foundation created and
        controlled by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle
        Group, the Albright Group (headed by another former secretary of state,
        Madeleine Albright) and several other well-connected firms.

        Under the deal, Kuwait would also give the consortium $2bn to invest in
        a private equity fund devised by the consortium, with half of that going
        to Carlyle.

        The consortium would then use its personal connections to persuade world
        leaders that Iraq must "maximize" its repa ration payments to Kuwait.
        The more the consortium gets Iraq to pay over a period, the more Kuwait
        collects, with the consortium taking a 5% commission or more.

        The goal of maximizing Iraq's debt payments directly contradicts the
        stated US foreign policy aim of drastically reducing Iraq's debt burden.

        Chris Ullman, Carlyle's spokesman in Washington, said that the firm was
        aware that a $1bn investment for Carlyle was part of the Kuwait
        proposal: "We were aware of that. But we played no role in procuring
        that investment."

        "So you were willing to take the billion but not to try to get it?" He
        answered: "Correct"

        Mr Ullman said Mr Baker would not benefit from the proposed $1bn
        investment. "We have controls in place that regulate how partners are
        compensated, we have a huge back office. We have the mechanisms."

        Asked whether the White House had been informed that the Carlyle
        consortium had been in negotiation with the government of Kuwait over
        debts at the time of the Baker appointment, he said: "I'll get back to
        you on that."

        In the confidential documents, the consortium appears acutely aware of
        the sensitivity of Mr Baker's position as both Carlyle partner and also
        debt envoy for the US government.

        Immediately after listing all of the powerful players associated with
        Carlyle - including former President George Bush, former prime minister
        John Major and Mr Baker himself, the document states: "The extent to
        which these individuals can play an instrumental role in fashioning
        strategies is now more limited due to the recent appointment of
        Secretary Baker as the president's envoy on international debt, and the
        need to avoid an apparent conflict of interest."

        Yet it goes on to state that this will soon change.

        "We believe that with Secretary Baker's retirement from his temporary
        position [as debt envoy], Carlyle and those leading individuals
        associated with Carlyle will then once again be free to play a more
        decisive role."

        It was on January 21 2004, that Mr Baker's dual lives converged. That
        morning Mr Baker flew to Kuwait as Mr Bush's debt envoy. He met Kuwait's
        prime minister, its foreign minister and several other top officials
        with the stated goal of asking them to forgive Iraq's debts.

        Mr Baker's colleagues in the consortium chose that same day to
        hand-deliver their full proposal to the foreign minister, Mohammad Sabah
        al-Salem al-Sabah, the same man Mr Baker was meeting.

        A covering letter was signed by Ms Albright; David Huebner, chairman of
        the Coudert Brothers law firm (another consortium member); and Shahameen
        Sheikh, chair and CEO of International Strategy Group, a company created
        by the consortium for the purposes of this deal.

        Shahameen Sheikh, who made the delivery, said it was a coincidence. "It
        had nothing to do with Mr Baker's visit ... I was in the region so I
        thought I would stop over on the way to Europe and deliver the proposal."

        The proposal "takes into account the new dynamics that have developed in
        the region," states the Albright letter - dynamics that include
        "Secretary Baker's negotiations" on debt relief.

        If Kuwait accepts the consortium's offer, it states, "we will
        distinguish Kuwait's claims - legally and morally - from the sovereign
        debt for which the United States is now seeking forgiveness."

        Iraq is the most heavily indebted country in the world. "This debt
        endangers Iraq's long-term prospects for political health and economic
        prosperity," President Bush said when he appointed Mr Baker last December.

        At the time, critics expressed concern about whether Mr Baker was an
        appropriate choice. But the White House brushed them off. Mr Bush
        assured reporters: "Jim Baker is a man of high integrity. We're
        fortunate he decided to take time out of what is an active life to step
        forward and serve America."

        Mr Ullman said at the time Mr Baker's post "will have no impact on
        Carlyle whatsoever."

        The day before Mr Baker's appointment was announced, John Harris,
        managing director of the Carlyle Group, signed a statement to Alberto
        Gonzales, counsel to the president. It stated that Carlyle "does not
        engage in lobbying or consulting" and that "Carlyle does not have any
        investment in Iraqi public or private debt."

        According to the documents, at the time of that statement the Carlyle
        consortium was at least five months into its assignment from the Kuwaiti
        government to "prepare a detailed financial proposal for the protection
        and monetization" of reparation debts from Iraq.

        The assignment was agreed at a high-level meeting with Kuwaiti officials
        in London on July 16 2003, according to the files the Guardian has obtained.

        Ms Clark said both criminal and regulatory statutes prohibited
        government officials from participating in government business in which
        they have a financial interest, including matters that affect an outside
        company that employs the official.

        In the statement to Judge Gonzales, Mr Harris wrote that "Secretary
        Baker has renounced his partnership share of future benefits, if any,
        that might constitute a conflict with his official duties and he will
        not benefit personally through his Carlyle partnership income from his
        work as a special government employee."

        But the proposed deal with Kuwait is so large that it is hard to see how
        Mr Baker could be prevented from benefiting: Carlyle stands to land a
        $1bn investment, which is 10% of the firm's total equity funds.

        And under the proposal, the firm would be benefiting from that
        investment for at least 12 years.

        Ms Clark said: "Even if Baker is somehow being screened from profiting
        from this deal, Carlyle is using Baker's government position to benefit
        themselves."

        She said it was time for the White House to come clean. "There is a
        tremendous need for transparency here."

        According to Mr Levinson, "What they are proposing is to completely
        undercut Baker's mission - and they are using their connection with
        Baker to Ahmed al-Fahad, under secretary to the prime minister of
        Kuwait, said this week: "I have seen it [the proposal] and I am fully
        aware of the situation."

        But asked about Mr Baker's dual role, he said: "It's hard to comment on
        that issue, especially now. I hope you fully understand."
        www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1326037,00.htmlE-mail this article
      • Geopilot
        web address included in this one. Below is one of the first articles I have found which clearly states the amounts of money and commissions and coinvestments
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 1 12:31 AM
          web address included in this one.

          Below is one of the first articles I have found which clearly states the
          amounts of money and commissions and coinvestments that people like
          James Baker associated with this administration are getting and
          commissions they are getting from these countries that are benifitting
          financially by the us military stopping Saddam from pumping Iraq's oil.
          Now we have the clear money trail to those connected directly to Bush.

          The issue is now clear. Republicans need to clean our own house and work
          as we did in Nixon's time to clean house of the bad seed.

          Mr. Bush should no longer be allowed to call himself a republican, a
          conservative, a christian or indeed an american. Bush has betrayed us
          all for sake of his financial connections to these Arab nations..
          (remember Lawyer James Baker is also the lawyer who defended THE SAUDIS
          when the AMERICAN families of the 9/11 victims sued the Saudis for
          financially supporting the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country.)

          article begins here:

          http://www.why-war.com/news/2004/10/13/bushspec.html


          Bush Special Envoy & Carlyle Group In Scandal Over Iraqi Debt Relief
          Naomi Klein | Guardian | October 13, 2004
          Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to
          collect $27bn (£15bn) on behalf of Kuwait, one of Iraq's biggest
          creditors, by using high-level political influence. It claims Mr Baker
          will not benefit personally, but the consortium could make millions in
          fees, retainers and commission as a result.

          President Bush's special envoy, James Baker, who has been trying to
          persuade the world to forgive Iraq's crushing debts, is simultaneously
          working for a commercial concern that is trying to recover money from
          Iraq, according to confidential documents.

          Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to
          collect $27bn (£15bn) on behalf of Kuwait, one of Iraq's biggest
          creditors, by using high-level political influence. It claims Mr Baker
          will not benefit personally, but the consortium could make millions in
          fees, retainers and commission as a result.

          Other countries, including Britain, have been urged by Mr Baker to
          relieve the new Iraq regime of its $200bn debt burden. Iraq owes Britain
          approximately $1bn.

          One international lawyer described the consortium's scheme as "influence
          peddling of the crassest kind".

          Jerome Levinson, an expert on political and corporate ethics at American
          University in Washington, told the Guardian: "The consortium is saying
          to the Kuwaiti government, 'Through us you have the only chance to
          realize a substantial part of the debt. Why? Because of who we are and
          who we know'."

          When George Bush appointed Mr Baker, a former secretary of state, as his
          unpaid envoy on December 5 2003, he called Mr Baker's job "a noble
          mission". But Mr Baker is also a senior counsellor and an equity partner
          with a reported $180m stake in the merchant bank and defence contractor
          the Carlyle Group.

          A confidential 65-page Proposal to Assist the Government of Kuwait in
          Protecting and Realising Claims Against Iraq was sent in January from
          the consortium to Kuwait's foreign ministry, according to documents
          obtained by the Nation magazine in New York, which are published today
          on the Guardian website.

          In a letter dated August 6 2004, the consortium informs Kuwait's foreign
          ministry that the country's unpaid debts from Iraq "are in imminent
          jeopardy".

          World opinion is turning in favor of debt forgiveness, another letter
          warns, as evidenced by "President Bush's appointment of former secretary
          of state James Baker as his envoy to negotiate Iraqi debt relief."

          The consortium's proposal spells out the threat: not only is Kuwait
          unlikely to see any of its $30bn from Iraq in sovereign debt, but the
          $27bn in war reparations that Iraq owes to Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's
          1990 invasion "may well be a casualty of this US [debt relief] effort".

          In the face of this threat, the consortium offers its services. Its
          roster of former high-level US and European politicians have "personal
          rapport with the stakeholders in the anticipated negotiations" and are
          able to "reach key decision-makers in the UN and in key capitals".

          Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading
          expert on government ethics and regulations, said this meant that Mr
          Baker was in a "classic conflict of interest".

          "Baker is on two sides of this transaction: he is supposed to be
          representing the interests of the US, but he is also a senior counsellor
          at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its
          debts from Iraq."

          She added: "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's
          current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine
          the interests of the US government."

          Last night, a Carlyle spokesman said the company had scaled down its
          involvement after the Baker appointment: "Neither the Carlyle Group nor
          James Baker wrote, edited or authorised this proposal to the Kuwait
          government. When James Baker was named special envoy, which was before
          the proposal was produced and sent, Carlyle explicitly restricted its
          role to only investing assets on behalf of Kuwait, an activity that
          James Baker would play no role in nor benefit from."

          According to the documents, Carlyle is seeking to secure as part of the
          deal an extraordinary $1bn investment from the Kuwaiti government.

          The main proposal would transfer ownership of $57bn in unpaid Iraqi
          debts. The debts would be assigned to a foundation created and
          controlled by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle
          Group, the Albright Group (headed by another former secretary of state,
          Madeleine Albright) and several other well-connected firms.

          Under the deal, Kuwait would also give the consortium $2bn to invest in
          a private equity fund devised by the consortium, with half of that going
          to Carlyle.

          The consortium would then use its personal connections to persuade world
          leaders that Iraq must "maximize" its repa ration payments to Kuwait.
          The more the consortium gets Iraq to pay over a period, the more Kuwait
          collects, with the consortium taking a 5% commission or more.

          The goal of maximizing Iraq's debt payments directly contradicts the
          stated US foreign policy aim of drastically reducing Iraq's debt burden.

          Chris Ullman, Carlyle's spokesman in Washington, said that the firm was
          aware that a $1bn investment for Carlyle was part of the Kuwait
          proposal: "We were aware of that. But we played no role in procuring
          that investment."

          "So you were willing to take the billion but not to try to get it?" He
          answered: "Correct"

          Mr Ullman said Mr Baker would not benefit from the proposed $1bn
          investment. "We have controls in place that regulate how partners are
          compensated, we have a huge back office. We have the mechanisms."

          Asked whether the White House had been informed that the Carlyle
          consortium had been in negotiation with the government of Kuwait over
          debts at the time of the Baker appointment, he said: "I'll get back to
          you on that."

          In the confidential documents, the consortium appears acutely aware of
          the sensitivity of Mr Baker's position as both Carlyle partner and also
          debt envoy for the US government.

          Immediately after listing all of the powerful players associated with
          Carlyle - including former President George Bush, former prime minister
          John Major and Mr Baker himself, the document states: "The extent to
          which these individuals can play an instrumental role in fashioning
          strategies is now more limited due to the recent appointment of
          Secretary Baker as the president's envoy on international debt, and the
          need to avoid an apparent conflict of interest."

          Yet it goes on to state that this will soon change.

          "We believe that with Secretary Baker's retirement from his temporary
          position [as debt envoy], Carlyle and those leading individuals
          associated with Carlyle will then once again be free to play a more
          decisive role."

          It was on January 21 2004, that Mr Baker's dual lives converged. That
          morning Mr Baker flew to Kuwait as Mr Bush's debt envoy. He met Kuwait's
          prime minister, its foreign minister and several other top officials
          with the stated goal of asking them to forgive Iraq's debts.

          Mr Baker's colleagues in the consortium chose that same day to
          hand-deliver their full proposal to the foreign minister, Mohammad Sabah
          al-Salem al-Sabah, the same man Mr Baker was meeting.

          A covering letter was signed by Ms Albright; David Huebner, chairman of
          the Coudert Brothers law firm (another consortium member); and Shahameen
          Sheikh, chair and CEO of International Strategy Group, a company created
          by the consortium for the purposes of this deal.

          Shahameen Sheikh, who made the delivery, said it was a coincidence. "It
          had nothing to do with Mr Baker's visit ... I was in the region so I
          thought I would stop over on the way to Europe and deliver the proposal."

          The proposal "takes into account the new dynamics that have developed in
          the region," states the Albright letter - dynamics that include
          "Secretary Baker's negotiations" on debt relief.

          If Kuwait accepts the consortium's offer, it states, "we will
          distinguish Kuwait's claims - legally and morally - from the sovereign
          debt for which the United States is now seeking forgiveness."

          Iraq is the most heavily indebted country in the world. "This debt
          endangers Iraq's long-term prospects for political health and economic
          prosperity," President Bush said when he appointed Mr Baker last December.

          At the time, critics expressed concern about whether Mr Baker was an
          appropriate choice. But the White House brushed them off. Mr Bush
          assured reporters: "Jim Baker is a man of high integrity. We're
          fortunate he decided to take time out of what is an active life to step
          forward and serve America."

          Mr Ullman said at the time Mr Baker's post "will have no impact on
          Carlyle whatsoever."

          The day before Mr Baker's appointment was announced, John Harris,
          managing director of the Carlyle Group, signed a statement to Alberto
          Gonzales, counsel to the president. It stated that Carlyle "does not
          engage in lobbying or consulting" and that "Carlyle does not have any
          investment in Iraqi public or private debt."

          According to the documents, at the time of that statement the Carlyle
          consortium was at least five months into its assignment from the Kuwaiti
          government to "prepare a detailed financial proposal for the protection
          and monetization" of reparation debts from Iraq.

          The assignment was agreed at a high-level meeting with Kuwaiti officials
          in London on July 16 2003, according to the files the Guardian has obtained.

          Ms Clark said both criminal and regulatory statutes prohibited
          government officials from participating in government business in which
          they have a financial interest, including matters that affect an outside
          company that employs the official.

          In the statement to Judge Gonzales, Mr Harris wrote that "Secretary
          Baker has renounced his partnership share of future benefits, if any,
          that might constitute a conflict with his official duties and he will
          not benefit personally through his Carlyle partnership income from his
          work as a special government employee."

          But the proposed deal with Kuwait is so large that it is hard to see how
          Mr Baker could be prevented from benefiting: Carlyle stands to land a
          $1bn investment, which is 10% of the firm's total equity funds.

          And under the proposal, the firm would be benefiting from that
          investment for at least 12 years.

          Ms Clark said: "Even if Baker is somehow being screened from profiting
          from this deal, Carlyle is using Baker's government position to benefit
          themselves."

          She said it was time for the White House to come clean. "There is a
          tremendous need for transparency here."

          According to Mr Levinson, "What they are proposing is to completely
          undercut Baker's mission - and they are using their connection with
          Baker to Ahmed al-Fahad, under secretary to the prime minister of
          Kuwait, said this week: "I have seen it [the proposal] and I am fully
          aware of the situation."

          But asked about Mr Baker's dual role, he said: "It's hard to comment on
          that issue, especially now. I hope you fully understand."
          www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1326037,00.htmlE-mail this article
        • Geopilot
          I have been doing some investigating of all this and have found this free film you can download or watch right on the internet. If you watch this film you will
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 1 3:06 PM
            I have been doing some investigating of all this and have found this
            free film you can download or watch right on the internet.

            If you watch this film you will see the actual founding director Steve
            Norris of the Carlyle group talking about the direct financial conflicts
            the Bush's have with doing international business and governing the
            country (so it isn't nonsense or liberal conspiracy) as well as
            reporters and organizations like judicial watch founder larry klayman
            (who went after Clinton for lying) saying what a problem it is.

            film is titled
            Exposed the carlyle group
            watch it online here
            http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

            download the whole thing here
            http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/sb.20040125.rm

            start
            27 min
            Steve Norris founding director of carlyle at 28min

            The first 2 minutes are in Dutch.
            After that is is all English

            I think we have a real problem with all these former and current
            politicians including the whole bush family around the world in bed with
            this Carlyle group who is investing all this Arab oil money.

            This needs to be investigated
          • Geopilot
            http://www.why-war.com/encyclopedia/organizations/Carlyle_Group/ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Carlyle Group is a private investment firm which
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 1 3:27 PM
              http://www.why-war.com/encyclopedia/organizations/Carlyle_Group/


              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

              The Carlyle Group is a private investment firm which describes
              itself as "one of the world's largest global private equity investment
              firms" with more than "$16 billion of equity capital". They employ more
              than 500 people in 12 countries.

              In 2003, Carlyle managed 21 individual funds in five investment
              disciplines: buyout, venture, real estate, turnaround, and high yield.
              The industries the group currently specializes in are: Aerospace &
              Defense, Automotive, Consumer & Industrial, Energy & Power, Healthcare,
              Opportunistic Real Estate, Technology & Business Services, Telecom &
              Media, and Transportation.

              The Group's aerospace and defense investments are a source of
              criticism since the Group is alleged to have connections to the Middle
              East, and detractors state that defense industries cannot remain
              profitable unless wars and threats of war continue to occur. However,
              its investments are focused on Asia, Europe, and North America and
              defense investments represent only about 7% of the group's portfolio.

              Critics of The Carlyle Group also frequently note its political
              connections. The company is headquartered in Washington, DC. Notable
              people affiliated with the Carlyle Group include:

              o James Baker III, former United States Secretary of State
              under George H. W. Bush, Staff member under Ronald Reagan and George W.
              Bush, Carlyle Senior Counselor
              o George H. W. Bush, former U.S. President, Carlyle Senior
              Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board,
              o Frank C. Carlucci, former United States Secretary of
              Defense from 1987 to 1989, chairman emeritus and currently strategic
              business advisor
              o Richard Darman, former Director of the U.S. Office of
              Management and Budget under George H. W. Bush, Senior Advisor and
              Managing Director of The Carlyle Group
              o William Kennard, former chairman of the U.S. Federal
              Communications Commission, Carlyle's Managing Director in the
              Telecommunications & Media Group
              o Arthur Levitt, chairman of the United States Securities and
              Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle Senior
              Advisor
              o John Major, former U.K. prime minister, Chairman, Carlyle
              Europe
              o Fidel Ramos, former president of the Philippines, Carlyle
              Asia Advisor Board Member

              George Soros is also a notable client of the Group.

              The current chairman of The Carlyle Group is Louis V. Gerstner,
              Jr., former CEO and chairman of the IBM Corporation.

              The Saudi Arabia relatives of Osama bin Laden (not Osama bin
              Laden himself) were also minor investors in the Carlyle Group until
              October 2001 when the family sold its $2.02 million investment back to
              the firm in light of public controversy surrounding the family after the
              September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack.

              See also: private equity, private military contractor

              External references

              o The Carlyle Group home pages
              o Making a mint inside "the iron triangle" of defense,
              government, and industry, Dan Briody, Red Herring, January 8, 2002
              o Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid: Those Spooky Carlyle Rumors,
              Jonathan A. Knee, page 26 of June 9, 2003 edition of The New York Observer
              o Exposed: The Carlyle Group and VPRO Tegenlicht: Carlyle
              Group (uses Flash), documentary created by Dutch VPRO TV program Tegenlicht

              Further reading
              o Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of
              the Carlyle Group, John Wiley & Sons, 2003, ISBN 0471281085.




              Carlyle Group
              Sort By:

              * How Bush Got Bounced from the Carlyle Board (June 30, 2003)
              ...David Rubenstein, co-founder and Managing Director of The
              Carlyle Group, the "world's largest private equity firm," recently
              recounted his first m...
              * Bush Special Envoy & Carlyle Group In Scandal Over Iraqi Debt
              Relief (October 13, 2004)
              ...ecover money from Iraq, according to confidential documents.
              Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to
              collect $27bn (£15bn) on b...
              * War with Iraq Would Benefit Bush Circle Mightily (September 15, 2002)
              ... friend, Frank Carlucci, a former defence secretary himself,
              now heads the Carlyle Group, an investment consortium which has a big
              interest in the contracting firm...
              * Four Generations of the Bush Dynasty (January 11, 2004)
              ...second term as president, Bush joined up in 1993 with the
              Washington-based Carlyle Group. Under the leadership of ex-officials
              like Baker and former Defense Secret...
              * Interview with Author of 'Forbidden Truth' (August 13, 2002)
              ...u're not saying President Bush 1, the president's father, went
              to-with the Carlyle group to the Middle East, or to that region, for the
              purpose of promoting the pi...
              * True Lies (August 3, 2003)
              ...The president's father, George Bush, Sr., works as a senior
              advisor to the Carlyle Group, which has financial interests in U.S.
              defense firms hired by the Saudis t...
              * Dark Heart of the American Dream (June 16, 2002)
              ...t now moves, in the form of the father, to the apex of global
              finance. The Carlyle Group defines the next phase of power: a
              Washington-based private equity fund wi...
              * What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire (July 5, 2004)
              ...film appears to argue that those business interests, primarily
              through the Carlyle Group, led the administration to favor the Saudis to
              the point of ignoring poten...
              * A Post-Absurd, Post-Camp Activist Moment (February 5, 2004)
              ...the streets and into the jails of New York City for protesting
              outside the Carlyle Group's offices in Manhattan, asserting that the
              Bush family was profiting from...

              1–9 of 9 records found matching your criteria.
              Carlyle Group

              I have been doing some investigating of all this and have found this
              free film you can download or watch right on the internet.














              If you watch this film you will see the actual founding director Steve
              Norris of the Carlyle group talking about the direct financial conflicts
              the Bush's have with doing international business and governing the
              country (so it isn't nonsense or liberal conspiracy) as well as
              reporters and organizations like judicial watch founder larry klayman
              (who went after Clinton for lying) saying what a problem it is.

              film is titled
              Exposed the carlyle group
              watch it online here
              http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

              download the whole thing here
              http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/sb.20040125.rm

              start
              27 min
              Steve Norris founding director of carlyle at 28min

              The first 2 minutes are in Dutch.
              After that is is all English

              I think we have a real problem with all these former and current
              politicians including the whole bush family around the world in bed with
              this Carlyle group who is investing all this Arab oil money.

              This needs to be investigated
            • Geopilot
              http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html?ex=1317268800&en=c6ea4450122c3e93&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Op-Ed Contributor Pirates of the
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 1 7:56 PM
                http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html?ex=1317268800&en=c6ea4450122c3e93&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

                Op-Ed Contributor
                Pirates of the Mediterranean

                * Sign In to E-Mail This
                * Print
                * Single Page
                * Save

                Article Tools Sponsored By
                By ROBERT HARRIS
                Published: September 30, 2006

                Kintbury, England
                Skip to next paragraph
                Enlarge This Image
                Anthony Russo

                IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt
                a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very
                heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet
                destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards
                and staff, kidnapped.

                The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention
                from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely
                a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a
                fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the
                attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the
                destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty.
                One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.

                Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault
                were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to
                attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the
                earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great
                19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a
                peculiar esprit de corps.”

                Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread
                a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed
                themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin
                husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing
                visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of
                their property or their life for a single moment.”

                What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of
                ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances
                intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single
                individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two
                men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular
                renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of
                liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a
                guarantee of safety throughout the world.

                But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were
                willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the
                38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey
                the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius,
                to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.

                “Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what
                amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over
                everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many
                places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”

                Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman
                Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which
                included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000
                infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was
                unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the
                bill was debated.

                Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome,
                Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed
                (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea,
                it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire
                Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military
                strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated
                so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the
                first place.

                But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the
                political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting
                voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had
                been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in
                the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout
                the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.

                (Page 2 of 2)

                Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the
                similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the
                individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of
                9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas
                corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge
                their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which
                forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering
                to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the
                United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president
                to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant —
                all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between
                the citizen and the executive.

                An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought
                that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a
                centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent,
                skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.

                In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the
                Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius
                Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of
                Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar,
                extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through
                the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed
                forces began to assume direction of the state.

                It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been
                designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all
                the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and
                used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the
                result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the
                most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed
                completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is
                ancient history.

                It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the
                disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened
                the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and
                corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years
                before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect
                though it was — rose again.

                The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended
                consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to
                protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have
                the same result.

                Robert Harris is the author, most recently, of “Imperium: A Novel of
                Ancient Rome.”
              • Geopilot
                There are more CORPORATIONS in the top 100 world economies than COUNTRIES. See the list belwo. It s amazing. Yet Corporations have no world laws that regulate
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 1 10:58 PM
                  There are more CORPORATIONS in the top 100 world economies than
                  COUNTRIES. See the list belwo. It's amazing. Yet Corporations have no
                  world laws that regulate them like countries do and no United Nations
                  controls them.
                  When a country makes a law they don't like they just claim a different
                  home country to escape jurisdiction.

                  They are not humans and they last for forever unlike people.
                  Is that the way it should be? the founding fathers didn't think so.they
                  wrote our constitution for Citizens not inhuman, unnatural, permanent
                  creations of law.
                  God didn't write the bible for inhuman corporations. It's written for
                  people. We need to force the UN and the world to get these superunatural
                  beings known as "Corporations" under control or we will be their servants.

                  Here is the list


                  Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations
                  and 49 are countries.
                  compiled by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the of the Institute for
                  Policy Studies in their Report on the Top 200 corporations released in
                  December 2000

                  (Corporations are in bold italics)

                  Rank Country / Corporation GDP / sales ($mil)
                  1 United States 8,708,870.00
                  2 Japan 4,395,083.00
                  3 Germany 2,081,202.00
                  4 France 1,410,262.00
                  5 United Kingdom 1,373,612.00
                  6 Italy 1,149,958.00
                  7 China 1,149,814.00
                  8 Brazil 760,345.00
                  9 Canada 612,049.00
                  10 Spain 562,245.00
                  11 Mexico 474,951.00
                  12 India 459,765.00
                  13 Korea, Rep. 406,940.00
                  14 Australia 389,691.00
                  15 Netherlands 384,766.00
                  16 Russian Federation 375,345.00
                  17 Argentina 281,942.00
                  18 Switzerland 260,299.00
                  19 Belgium 245,706.00
                  20 Sweden 226,388.00
                  21 Austria 208,949.00
                  22 Turkey 188,374.00
                  23 General Motors 176,558.00
                  24 Denmark 174,363.00
                  25 Wal-Mart 166,809.00
                  26 Exxon Mobil 163,881.00
                  27 Ford Motor 162,558.00
                  28 DaimlerChrysler 159,985.70
                  29 Poland 154,146.00
                  30 Norway 145,449.00
                  31 Indonesia 140,964.00
                  32 South Africa 131,127.00
                  33 Saudi Arabia 128,892.00
                  34 Finland 126,130.00
                  35 Greece 123,934.00
                  36 Thailand 123,887.00
                  37 Mitsui 118,555.20
                  38 Mitsubishi 117,765.60
                  39 Toyota Motor 115,670.90
                  40 General Electric 111,630.00
                  41 Itochu 109,068.90
                  42 Portugal 107,716.00
                  43 Royal Dutch/Shell 105,366.00
                  44 Venezuela 103,918.00
                  45 Iran, Islamic rep. 101,073.00
                  46 Israel 99,068.00
                  47 Sumitomo 95,701.60
                  48 Nippon Tel & Tel 93,591.70
                  49 Egypt, Arab Republic 92,413.00
                  50 Marubeni 91,807.40
                  51 Colombia 88,596.00
                  52 AXA 87,645.70
                  53 IBM 87,548.00
                  54 Singapore 84,945.00
                  55 Ireland 84,861.00
                  56 BP Amoco 83,556.00
                  57 Citigroup 82,005.00
                  58 Volkswagen 80,072.70
                  59 Nippon Life Insurance 78,515.10
                  60 Philippines 75,350.00
                  61 Siemens 75,337.00
                  62 Malaysia 74,634.00
                  63 Allianz 74,178.20
                  64 Hitachi 71,858.50
                  65 Chile 71,092.00
                  66 Matsushita Electric Ind. 65,555.60
                  67 Nissho Iwai 65,393.20
                  68 ING Group 62,492.40
                  69 AT&T 62,391.00
                  70 Philip Morris 61,751.00
                  71 Sony 60,052.70
                  72 Pakistan 59,880.00
                  73 Deutsche Bank 58,585.10
                  74 Boeing 57,993.00
                  75 Peru 57,318.00
                  76 Czech Republic 56,379.00
                  77 Dai-Ichi Mutual Life Ins. 55,104.70
                  78 Honda Motor 54,773.50
                  79 Assicurazioni Generali 53,723.20
                  80 Nissan Motor 53,679.90
                  81 New Zealand 53,622.00
                  82 E.On 52,227.70
                  83 Toshiba 51,634.90
                  84 Bank of America 51,392.00
                  85 Fiat 51,331.70
                  86 Nestle 49,694.10
                  87 SBC Communications 49,489.00
                  88 Credit Suisse 49,362.00
                  89 Hungary 48,355.00
                  90 Hewlett-Packard 48,253.00
                  91 Fujitsu 47,195.90
                  92 Algeria 47,015.00
                  93 Metro 46,663.60
                  94 Sumitomo Life Insur. 46,445.10
                  95 Bangladesh 45,779.00
                  96 Tokyo Electric Power 45,727.70
                  97 Kroger 45,351.60
                  98 Total Fina Elf 44,990.30
                  99 NEC 44,828.00
                  100 State Farm Insurance 44,637.20

                  Sources: Sales: Fortune, July 31, 2000. GDP: World Bank, World
                  Development Report 2000.

                  Note: When Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh first did this comparison in
                  their original report in 1996, there were still 51 corporations out of
                  the top 100 economies, even though the order has changed.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.