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

Bob Chapman: The Nearly Unfathomable Depths of Pentagon Corruption

Expand Messages
  • Dick Eastman
    Forwarded to me by Jo Ann Castiglione Hi Dick, It seems the article cut off, but what s there is very interesting...JoAnn.
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 3, 2008
      Forwarded to me by  Jo Ann Castiglione
       
      Hi Dick,

      It seems the article cut off, but what's there is very interesting...JoAnn.
       
       
       
      June 2, 2008
       
      THE NEARLY UNFATHOMABLE DEPTHS OF PENTAGON CORRUPTION 
       
      By Bob Chapman
       
      Part I
       

       A  former high-ranking member of the CIA, now retired, who was a career employee, contacted us this week. Due to our reporting on Halliburton and their corruption we were given 46 pages of testimony on how Halliburton, the CIA, the Pentagon and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have been stealing billions of dollars. What we were presented will shortly be presented to Congressman Waxman's Oversight and Reform Committee in the House. These pages of step-by-step criminal procedure are only part of a larger body of evidence being presented to Congress. What is presented is astounding in the scope of the crime and the billions of dollars being stolen by these criminals.

      The text is raw copy never seen by the public previously. This is a long read, but it shows the depth of the official corruption within our government.

      It is our desire that as many Americans as possible read this report. It is devastating.

      The writer worked under Porter Goss until August 2004. V.P. Cheney forced Tenet out of the Agency and later this writer. The writer says Tenet was framed by Goss and Cheney.

      We have not edited any of the text. It would be presumptions of us to do so. 

       The writer was assigned the rank of a Two-Star General when lent to the Pentagon by the CIA.

      Introduction By Sue Arrigo


      http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=137&contentid=5153

      I collected intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan for the CIA until Aug. 2004 when I was outed by Cheney for refusing to make propaganda that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. My official title within the CIA was Special Operations Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence. Since I set up the Remote Viewing Defense protocols for the Pentagon, I was given a title of Remote Viewing Advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a rank of a 2-star general in the US military. That rank was largely a bogus ploy by the Pentagon to get more of my time from the CIA and force me to attend a Joint Chiefs of Staff Meeting once a month. I did so from Oct. 2003 to July 2004.

      On orders of my boss, DCI George Tenet, on Aug. 2001 I collected amoving van full of Pentagon documents showing Defense Contractor kickbacks to Pentagon officials. I removed them from the Pentagon and they were driven to the CIA. It took me about 10 days of time to get the Pentagon people to turn those documents over to me en masse. The ethical intelligence methods I used to do so are beyond the scope of this text. Alas, the CIA's intention turned out not to be to expose and correct the corruption, but to cover it up---as judged by later events.

      Clearly I did not have time to read all of those documents in one week. My job was not to evaluate those documents and address the corruption, it was to run a "counter-intelligence" type of op to collect them. However, I did become aware of the depth of corruption during the course of the week and did read some of them. It is amazing what ended up in print because people in the Pentagon felt so immune from prosecution, esp. under Bush in the White House.

      The main reason for collecting those documents, I believe in retrospect, was to allow CIA analysts to evaluate how to take business away from other US Defense Contractors and give it to Halliburton and Carlyle-related contractors. The mood at the CIA and Pentagon was "war is coming" because the Bush Family stands to make billions from it--so get ready. I did come across reports later which confirmed that the documents had been used in that fashion. That is, they were used to blackmail Pentagon officials into 'working on' the  Halliburton-Carlyle team, or to judge how much to bribe them to switch to that team. So, on later reflection, I am afraid that my actions led to worse, not less, corruption. Certainly that corruption was not in the interests of the US public nor our country's national security interests.

      I want to mention a conversation that I had with DCI Tenet after giving him these documents. The moving van full of them had just arrived at the CIA's headquarters in Langley. Tenet laughed and said to me "You have just given me the keys to the Kingdom". I guess that I was a bit dense, as I did not grasp immediately what he meant. So, I asked him "How?" He said to me in front of McLaughlin the Deputy Executive Director (both of whom I knew rather too well at the time)  "Those documents will make me rich." Horrified that he might sell them on the black market for cash I replied "How dare you sell them to the Russians!" McLaughlin laughed and said "All she thinks of is Russian counter-intelligence." Tenet made a joke of it too and the discussion turned to the serious matter before us having to do with another country. But I believe that some of the documents that I brought back from the Pentagon did get sold to the Russians later to make a buck. I had been sent to collect 3 types of documents at the Pentagon and here I am only writing about one category of them.

      As to the corruption that I came across at the Pentagon in Aug. 2001, I want to say a few words before going on to corruption in the Iraq and Afghan wars. Some of the details may have slipped my mind. I have a good audio memory, but precise dates, names and places are not my forte. But the events themselves I usually render the gist of correctly.

      Case 1: The Ordering of Unneeded New Models of Fighter Planes

      This case has to do with a particular kickback scheme that I read three Pentagon documents on. It involved an Air Force general on the JCS and a Defense Contractor, Boeing. He was due to discuss the Air Force's needs for new fighter planes at an upcoming JCS meeting. I went to talk to him after reading the three documents and asked him to recuse himself from giving that presentation. He refused. I then went to the Head of the JCS, General Shelton, and asked him to appoint someone else to give that presentation. It should be remembered that I had no mandate to address the corruption that I came across. I did not initially bring forward the documents when I made the request, but when he refused then I did show him the documents to make my point. He still refused to make the change.

      I later discovered when back at the CIA that the Air Force General had gone ahead and made that presentation. From within the CIA I verified that he did receive the payment from Boeing that one of the documents had set forth in black and white. I reported that at the time to the Pentagon criminal investigation unit. It was rather like reporting it to the fox guarding the chicken coop. I then reported it to my boss Tenet after the Pentagon's investigation unit did not act on it to my satisfaction. That is, I found out that they had done precisely nothing with my complaint. But nothing happened as a result of my reporting it to Tenet either.

      I then reported it to the GAO on a form designed rather for other problems it seemed to me--but that was the form that they insisted was the correct one. A man from the GAO did come out to the CIA and take down my complaint in person. He seemed to be sincere and thorough. I did read the report that he later wrote after he went out to the Pentagon to investigate. That report confirmed what I had said and gave an estimated amount for the amount lost to the US taxpayer through bidding that was rigged.

      It did not however address the larger issue of whether those new generation planes were needed. The old planes were much, much cheaper and worked fine for their purposes. The new planes were untested and the new features seemed unnecessary to me--it was not as if we were going to be fighting the Russians and what we had was good enough to fight them anyway. Several Air Force Generals I called up on the phone to get their opinion agreed with me.

      Later, I ended up on the JCS meetings myself in Oct. 2003. There was that same high ranking Air Force General still there in the JCS. He knew that I had tried to get him in trouble and he tried to get back at me in a great variety of ways. At one point he circulated the rumor that I was a lesbian--I had to laugh at that one. When I confronted him teasingly about it, he did not deny it. Had I actually been a lesbian his malicious rumor might have caused me grief. Later, he tried to pin a corruption scheme on me that I had nothing to do with but my boss at the CIA had not prevented, investigated, or stopped it.

      While I was at a JSC meeting in early 2004, that same Air Force General had the gall to try to force through another unneeded plane contract for Boeing. I stood up at the meeting and said that the previous new plane had still not been delivered as it did not meet the specifications of the order and here he was trying to force the US military to buy another upgrade. Then I went on about the fact that even the first new plane was not needed. Only one general, another Air Force General, backed me up and said that a new plane did not need to be re-designed. But at the end of the discussion the vote was only the 2 of us against the new order and it went through. That made me angry as soldiers on the ground were dying from not having water in the desert and from not having adequate safety gear. The US did not need fighter planes; there was no air war going on and none in sight. The new planes were very expensive to buy and there was no reason to justify that expense. The only motivation for ordering those new planes instead of more of the ones that were already shown to work was to make big Research and Development bucks for the company and the kickbacks for the military officers. That issue never got satisfactorily addressed. It is a crime to make the companies and the brass rich at the expense of the deaths of the soldiers and civilians on the ground.

      I then went to the trouble of finding out how much each Pentagon
      official got paid in kickbacks on that new order. It averaged $22,000 for each vote at that Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting according to their bank accounts. These were not their regular US accounts, these were the Swiss bank accounts that the CIA set up for them especially to get the kickbacks into! The highest amount went to the Air Force General who gave the presentation. Only myself and that dissenting Air Force General did not get that kickback---that is how corrupt the JCS members were in the Spring of 2004. I then went further to look at whether those men were witting to their getting kickbacks---even though I considered the vote for the unneeded planes proof of that.  But I looked at whether they would notice if that payment from Boeing was missing from their account and object to it. I did that by circulating at the next JCS meeting a notice that Boeing may have defaulted on some of its payments. It did not give specifics. All but 3 of the members of the JCS, per the phone records I had access to at the CIA, called that Swiss bank to verify that they had indeed gotten that Boeing payment! The other 3 might have gotten the information from others who called that the payments had gone through. At the next meeting, one of the members said to me "Well, of course it looked like to you that Boeing didn't make the payments, because you did not get one. I told Boeing that you had not done your share of the work". Two men standing near him agreed that that was why I had not gotten the payment. One of them added "If you want to join in, there is a good deal coming up with company X." This was at the start of a JCS meeting and most of the members were at the table already. It was not like he took me aside and whispered this in my ear. The fact was that the JCS was so corrupt that they did not have to even try to hide it from other members.

      End of Case 1

      Case 2: Halliburton Delivers Half Full Cartons to the Swing Shift

      Roughly 7 of the Pentagon documents that I had collected over the 10 days dealt with this same scam. I had set aside some to read back at the CIA. It was not until I read the 4th one on this topic that I started to have a clear idea of what the full scam entailed. That was true of much of the van load of documents; an individual document was often not very incriminating. It appeared that the duty roster at the Pentagon was being rigged to ensure that only corrupt personnel would be on duty at certain times. That way not everyone in the receiving dept. had to be bribed or coerced. It was only the swing shift with its fewer numbers of personnel who were on the take. The scam ensured that other personnel never got assigned that shift in the Receiving Dept.

      When I figured that out I immediately tried to get on that shift in the Receiving Dept. under an alias to see what would happen. It was not hard for me within the CIA to make up the alias and a military background and get it assigned to the Receiving Dept.. I then put in a sick notice to say that that alias had a daytime physician's appointment and would be reporting for its first duty at the Pentagon on the swing shift. Immediately upon getting that communication at the Receiving Dept., its duty officer sent off emails to 3 other people in the Pentagon asking them what to do.

      One of those people was in Rumsfeld's office. That person emailed back and told the duty officer to give the incoming man the day off and start him on the day shift the next day. The duty officer did not write back to that man. He complained in other email to one of the other 2 he had contacted that he needed the body to move boxes. One of them asked him if there was a position that he could be put in to ensure that he did not "wise up". The duty officer did not reply promptly. He waited several hours between reading that message while sending out many other messages before he replied. Then he said that the man had already arrived, which was not true, and that he would give him the least chance to 'correct his understanding'. That official took it as a fait accompli and apparently took no further steps. That man I was later able to show was taking bribes from Halliburton as I will discuss below. He worked in the Pentagon at a job that had nothing directly to do with the Receiving Dept. The third man he had emailed was his supervisor in the Receiving Dept., the regular daytime head of it. That man was driving home when the first message was sent to him. He did not read it until the next day by which time the problem of the uncorrupted man showing up had evaporated. The next message I sent was just after the swing shift started. It regretted to inform them that the incoming man had been hospitalized until further notice.

      At that point I was still reading the documents and drawing my own conclusions from them by reading between the lines. I thus initiated the next test of my understanding during that same swing shift. In this case, I sent an email to that same duty officer pretending to be a Halliburton employee. Since I had read his usual traffic in emails,  I knew what he expected from Halliburton's shipping people. My email informed him that the shipment was delayed and gave a specific order number. I used a number from an order that I had reason to believe was crooked. The packing weight on it seemed too low for the goods that were listed on the invoice. I did not say how long the delay would be for sure but I hinted that it might not arrive until the morning. That triggered not 3 emails by the duty officer but 6! I was quite surprised by that. The goods were not perishable, they were military. It should not have mattered that they would arrive on the next day shift---except if they were missing part of the order!  Again, one of the emails was to Rumsfeld's office and got an immediate reply. That surprised me as it was after hours about 9 pm.  This was not a military emergency--this was a delayed carton. The reply from Rumsfeld's office was that he should send a courier out to intercept the delayed carton or wait himself until it arrived and sign it in and deal with it himself, even if he had to wait until morning.  The duty officer apparently had done the overtime many times before and was tired of it. In one of the six emails he sent he complained bitterly that the work was taking over his life and he was getting no sleep. I want to talk about other emails first before saying more about that one.

      One of the 6 emails was again to the Halliburton bribed Pentagon official. He replied from his home. He advised that the duty officer call Halliburton and see if the carton had actually left its shipping office yet and ask them to send it a day later. He suggested that the Halliburton people in the shipping office sometimes said a shipment was delayed in shipping when in fact it was delayed in their office.  The duty officer did not reply to that email. He complained, in the previously mentioned email about lack of sleep, that the people were always giving him the same meaningless advice. His email to the day time Head of the Receiving asking him if he could just set aside the carton until the next swing shift did not get a reply. The next three emails were to other receivers asking them if they could come in and work that night shift or the next day shift instead of coming in on the next swing shift. There were no immediate replies to those even though they had his tales of woe and lack of sleep in them. The carton did arrive, not unduly late, and that resolved that problem that night. But I had a lot of evidence.

      By morning I had one additional piece of evidence; my boss Tenet asked me to stop looking into corruption at the Pentagon's Receiving Dept.. I had not told him that I was looking at that. That meant someone else had advised him that I was and had asked it to stop. I then set out to figure out who that was and why. It did not take me long to figure it out. I sent an email to a co-worker laying out what I had found and that I had been called off looking into why the military was having trouble getting supplies to the troops on time. I had never been given that assignment, but I had been called off investigating this receiving problem and by then I knew that the two problems were related from the documents. The word Halliburton was in my email. Shortly after I sent that email a CIA official knocked on my office door. That was unusual as there was bold black lettering on the door that no one should knock without the permission of the DCI. That notice was put up by Tenet because he was tired of people taking up my time. He wanted it all to himself and his chores. The man then barged in without waiting for a reply from me and stated loudly that I had been called off looking into supply problems at the Pentagon, not supply problems to the troops. Since the person I had emailed was in the next office, presumably it was for their ears that he was speaking so loudly. He then shut the door and walked off, again without waiting for a reply from me. That man was indeed someone I recognized.

      At the CIA we jokingly called him "Halliburton's Representative to the CIA". Like his counterpart at the Pentagon he handled all of the delivery problems for Halliburton products arriving at the CIA. He was paid by a federal salary, just like that Pentagon man. But after looking into their backgrounds I could find no evidence that either had been hired by the CIA or the military through their personnel depts. Neither had done military training or trained at "the Farm" as a spy. The more I looked into that, which I had not been called off of, the more curious it became.

      Finally one day months later I knocked on the "Halliburton's Representative to the CIA" 's office door. I was surprised when it opened to find not the office of a single man but a whole section of offices. I had worked at the CIA for over 30 years and thought I knew it inside and out. But a new section had been added onto the other side of that door. Over 40 people worked in it and they were all working for Halliburton while being paid by the US taxpayer as if they were CIA. I checked that carefully. The CIA's human resources dept. had no files on them. It had never interviewed them for the job. IT HAD NEVER VETTED THEM! The CIA had a back door in its security created to let Halliburton put anyone they wanted into the hallways of the CIA. It was an outrageous violation of US National Security. And this was after 911 and the terrorism scare.

      I immediately reported it to Tenet and he said, "Yes, I know."

      I checked with the Head of CIA building security and he admitted that he knew too. I asked him what he was going to do about it. He said "Keep my mouth shut so I can stay alive and I suggest you do the same." That sounded like a threat to me, even though indirectly worded. I asked him who would kill me if I talked about it. He hemmed and hawed a bit. I asked him if he would try to kill me if I talked about it. He said no but others would. I went fishing and asked, "Do you think Halliburton will kill me for it?" He didn't say. Then I asked "Will the CIA?" He said, "Not likely, you are inside the CIA."

      Then I asked "CACI?" At that he agreed that they would likely try in defense of their sister enterprise Halliburton. I asked him if CACI had their own back door into the CIA that I should be afraid of them while I was inside the CIA. He acknowledged that they did.

      Now back to my knocking on the Halliburton company offices at the CIA. A security guard immediately asked me for my Halliburton ID.  When I did not have one, he asked me if I had an appointment to see someone. I mentioned the name of the man who knocked on my door and that man came out to greet me. He invited me into his office. The furniture in it was better than the DCI had upstairs though this was on the ground floor. We chit chatted a few minutes and then I got down to business. I asked him if Halliburton intended to short the troops on their supplies on purpose or was incompetent. By then I had the evidence in my office that Halliburton was shipping only half of the invoice contents in many of its cartons. That was true in the war zones as well. It had set up the same corrupt system of swing shift receivers on at least 3 continents. They received the cartons and signed that the goods were all received properly. Then the shortages later were chalked up to thefts or war damage, etc. He looked at me awhile before he replied. Then he said, "I know nothing about it". I then laid copies of some of the documents that I had on his desk that proved that Halliburton was doing that. He said he would look into it and called security to usher me out of the office.

      Later that day, (it was after Christmas in 2001) I reported to Tenet that I had found evidence that Halliburton was short shipping to the Pentagon and war zones. He at first said, "That is nothing new." And then realizing that he had just admitted knowing about it without correcting it said, "Have a report about it on my desk before Christmas." He had been saying that probably for weeks and now under the stress of my asking him about this corruption, automatically repeated that comment. Christmas had passed about 3 days before at the very least. When he caught his mistake a moment later, he said "I just can't get rid of that problem." I then asked him what he had tried to do about it. He did not reply. Instead he sent me to speak to another man he said that he had put to work on the problem.

      Yes, you guessed it--he sent me to speak to "Halliburton's Representative to the CIA". I had just come from his office that morning and I said so. Tenet played ignorant of the fact that the man worked for Halliburton. I reminded Tenet that I had been asked to show my Halliburton ID to even get to his office. He offered to call down there to make sure I could get in when I went. I told him that it was his responsibility to correct Halliburton's short shipping and its invasion of the CIA, not Halliburton's. He said that he couldn't because his "hands were tied behind his back" by the White House. I made a mock walk around to the other side of him to look for his hands tied behind him and said "That is not what I see." He said  "There is nothing I can do about it." I picked up his phone and handed it to him and said, "You can start by calling Congress, the FBI, and the New York Times. They would believe you, if you did so."  He declined to make those calls. I told him that the head of the CIA should be a man of courage. But he never did make the calls.

      I went to my office and started making calls. First I faxed the documents I had over to the GAO. I needed to have copies of them outside of my office before it got raided. They were not national security secrets, they were Halliburton short shipping papers. One of them was even a memo on Halliburton stationery discussing the short shipping policy and how well it was working to make profits for the company. It appeared that each time they got a call complaining that an order was short or missing that they considered it another new order. I say that because the documents I had showed that they created a new order number that did not refer back to the order number of the missing goods or mention that any goods had been missing. In that way they never lost by having to make good for the part of an order that was missing. When I called the GAO to make sure that they received the documents they checked them carefully to make sure that they were all legible. There were over 100 pages of documents and it took them awhile. After they finished they agreed to look for the GAO investigator who had come out to speak to me before.  But before they could get him on the phone to me, there was a knock at my door and in barged "Halliburton's Representative to the CIA".

      He yanked my phone out of the wall. Then he had his security guards ransack my office and take every shred of paper out of it. Then he had me bodily hauled off to a prison cell inside the Halliburton offices at the CIA. It was in the basement. There I was intimidated and my life was threatened. I wondered if it would be ended. It occurred to me that the CIA head of building security might not know that Halliburton had its own torturers and assassins. I decided to cooperate. I promised not to investigate Halliburton for the rest of the year. I figured I could keep my promise for the about 2 days left in the year. The date was probably Friday, Dec. 28, 2001, now that I look at a calendar. Somehow they accepted my promise and let me go.

      I immediately went up to Tenet's office and complained and showedhim the bruises that they had given me. He said, "There, there, everything will be all right in the morning." That was not true.  Halliburton was still stealing the US taxpayer's dollars in the morning and the troops were still doing without. But at that time Iwas too tired to fight any more that day. I decided to put myself in a place that I could keep my promise and asked leave to fly back to my home in California. Tenet agreed and I managed to get out of the building without further incident.

      I believe that the GAO still has the documents that I sent them buried in its files. They started an investigation into it and then it was "interrupted". But I believe that they are willing to go forward with the investigation now, if asked to. I believe that you're asking them to do that would be enough to accomplish that. The GAO has done a lot of good work. You could write a letter to its Head and ask them to restart that investigation.

      End of Case 2

      Case 3: The White House Conspiracy to Cook the Books: Halliburton, Carlyle and the CIA

      When I returned to the CIA in the New Year in 2002, I had to put my office back in order. As I did that I thought about what I had done wrong and decided to try not to end up with a stripped office the next time. So, I decided to tackle the problem from a different angle, one I hoped would be tamer. Thus, I went down to the "Halliburton's Representative to the CIA"'s office and profusely apologized to him. Then I did something that I knew Tenet would not like, I offered to give him some of my time. Tenet had not protected me from his apparent 'boss' judging by his behavior and the man's office furniture. So, I figured that I needed to kowtow to him appropriately on the surface. My offer would also get me inside of his office with a Halliburton security clearance. He accepted my offer of 10 hours a week of my time. Then I went and told Tenet. He was furious with me but he did not oppose it in any meaningful way. I did not get the title of Special Operations Advisor to the DCI by letting red tape and meaningless 'No's' stand in my way. It was a title I had been given just prior to the 1991 Iraq War and I had a lot of experience in getting past No.

      My work for Halliburton ran only until late May 2002, about 4 and a half months. In that time I learned a very great deal about Halliburton and how it works. Thus, I find that it is unlikely that I can write it all down in less than a full length book and do it justice. But I still want to give some of the overview and highlights of what I learned.

      First off, it was not true that Cheney stopped running Halliburton.That is a complete myth. He called in orders to the man I worked for almost every day and sometimes twice or more times a day. He remained the functional head of it in all but name. No one at Halliburton had the power to override his orders.

      Second, it is not true that he divested himself of the profits of the company. He merely hid how they got to him through a series of shell companies. Some call that "creative accounting" at the CIA. One of my jobs became to liaison between the Halliburton "creative accounting dept." and the CIA's "creative accounting dept."  They had incompatible computer software. As I had overseen a software development change in the CIA's creative accounting computer, I was in the position to oversee the software development to make Halliburton's software compatible with it. I have a Master's Degree in Mathematics and advanced training in software to the extent of having written a compiler by myself. So, I am a person of many talents and have had many uses of them within the CIA.

      In this context I want to mention that in 1983 the CIA sent me to
      investigate the NYPD Internal Affairs computer. The NY Police Dept. was alleging that they were unable to print out data that a regulator wanted to examine because the KGB had hacked into their computer. I was able to show that the KGB had not done that. The problem was that some people in the NYPD were corrupt and wanted to hide the data that would prove that. If you watch the movie based on a true story, Serpico, you will see that the NYPD was heavily on the take in at least certain years of its existence. That is just to say that I had some espionage grade experience in looking for corruption in computer files and software.

      I only mention it in passing to assure you that no one at the CIA thought that it was inappropriate for me to be overseeing software development for the CIA or Halliburton's creative accounting computers. I thus had the opportunity to write software programs to answer some of the questions that I had. It was safer for me to investigate that way than by sending emails. Anyone can read and understand your emails with an unencryption program. Not anyone can understand your computer programs especially when you write them in a computer language extension that you create specifically for the task.  When the consequences can be severe, it is worth some extra effort. I was able to run that software on both Halliburton's and the CIA's creative accounting computers. On the surface of events, I had offered to improve security of Halliburton's financial data and was doing so. But while one is doing so, one has to test the security of the data. And that means that one comes to understand how that security was set up and why it was set up that way. That depends on what a company needs to hide. And that depends on what they know they are doing illegally and who they think might be trying to uncover it.

      Some schemes to hide that corruption are extremely clever. The CIA's library has a wealth of How-to books on the subject. And new methods are always being devised. The Halliburton and CIA software was incompatible because their software developers had used different ways of hiding the corruption that were incompatible. It was as if an axe murderer hid the axe under the woodpile to say he had not done it and his brother gave an alibi for him saying that he had been out chopping wood at the time. In this case, Halliburton's methods exposed the CIA's wrongdoing and Carlyle Industries at the same time.  That was because Bushes had used the CIA's creative accounting theft methods. Bizarrely, the CIA's accounting methods caused no problem for Halliburton. It was because I was able to help the CIA by overseeing the making the two systems of cover-up compatible that Tenet was unable to object to losing my time. So, I became an expert in how the CIA and Halliburton decided to jointly cover-up their financial illegalities.

      Defense contractors since before the Civil War have been padding their bills, delivering shoddy goods, under delivering, etc. The methods to cover it up are basically to say A=B when they do not equal each other in quantity, quality, longevity of usage, or cost.  The ways of preventing others from uncovering that A and B are not equal is to use corrupt experts or others who 'certify' that A=B without letting the taxpayer see for themselves. The cure is transparency and letting everyone look at A and B and make the judgment. Computers are good ways to fool most people because most people are not willing to spend the time to "look inside of them". Computers can be made to print out one set of books for the regulators, another set for the Defense Contractors, another for the Pentagon, another for the taxpayer, ad infinitum. Really they are like black box voting. You tell them what you want them to say and they can print it out for you. But most criminals are not smart enough to know how to do it seamlessly. They are not technical and patient enough, so they have to rely on other people to do it. That means that their illegality is never 'secret'. The Clint Curtis testimony at Congressman Conyer's hearing in 2004 on hacking the vote showed that fatal flaw in the criminal's planning. Clint Curtis showed that it was possible to write self-destructing code to hack the vote; but it also showed that his having been asked to write it was not kept secret. Thus there are many, many people who wrote the software to cover-up the CIA's and Halliburton's dirty secrets. It takes a lot of people to write software. The CIA's creative accounting dept. had over a hundred of them, not all working at Langley. Some of them worked at Swiss banking concerns like the Bank of InternationalSettlements in Basel. Some of them had worked at BCCI, Bank of Creditand Commerce International, http://www.apfn.org/APFN/BCCI.htm  The CIA has been trying to hide its financial crimes since its inception.

      The reason that I am pointing out that there are a lot of people in the know about Halliburton's corruption is that I think that that makes a difference in how this case is handled. This is not a murder case were the only person at the scene of the crime still living is the murderer. Of the 40 people working at the Halliburton offices at the CIA, about 8 of them were software programmers for their creative accounting computer on site. Halliburton's head offices employed many more of them. I was involved in conference calls with them in which60 programmers were in the audience listening to the latest CIA plan of how to cover up the illegalities in the Halliburton computer. It was generally agreed that Halliburton did not have the expertise in cover-ups that the CIA had. Thus making the two systems compatible meant that Halliburton had to do 90% of the changing towards the CIA model of doing it. The CIA had to do the other 10% roughly. It was not quite that simple because there were many other third parties involved in the change including Swiss banks, other govts. and corporations. All told the process took a few years of full time work by over a hundred programmers. Not all of them were completely witting. But many were and a significant number of them no longer work for Halliburton or the CIA. Programmers change jobs readily.  They are not like CIA operatives who can only work for one countryafter having invested a lot of time in training that cannot be transferred. Those programmers that leave take the strategies for covering up corruption with them elsewhere. No one at Halliburton recalled them and retrained them out of using their old methods. That means that they kept on making software at other companies that exposed the CIA's and Carlyle's financial crimes, if their excuses and records were compared with those. That means that the CIA's front companies, Carlyle, and the Bank of International Settlements in Basel are at risk of exposure of their crimes when other companies are investigated. There are many investigations already in progress. One of the main reasons that the Justice Dept. does not make progress on hardly any of them is because there is a lot of pressure on them to not go through with any investigations. Those in the know fear that it will start unraveling this whole ball of yarn.

      That situation is worse than I have explained to you properly yet.  There were many Defense Contractors who in secret made their own creative accounting cover up software. The CIA tried to get all of the Defense Contractors to come to a conference to upgrade to use methods which would be compatible with the CIA's and Halliburton's.  That was after those 2 ironed out their differences. That conference was offered in early 2004; that is how long it took for the programmers to make a reasonable software merger. The conference had to be cancelled 'for lack of interest'. The Defense Contractors heard via the grapevine that many millions of dollars had to be spent to make their systems compatible and refused to come. I believe that no serious effort has been made since to make the systems not incriminate other companies when they print out a false set of books.

      That means that investigators should take 3 or more separate investigations of companies that had business transactions and start comparing the books. The CIA in trying to get Defense Contractors to come to that conference put out all sorts of true information to frighten them into coming. That included the information that it had run tests of multiple companies books being compared and that even looking at one month of data was often enough to prove that the books were cooked. I was not directly involved in overseeing that project after the 4 months were up. I had left the CIA in late May 2002 and was not forced back into it until Oct. 2003. Even so, in early 2004 my opinion was sought on how to get ALL Defense Contractors to that conference. I thus had an opportunity to spend almost 2 days reviewing the tests that the CIA had done. Remember that it was the CIA and Carlyle Industries that could easily be exposed by simpler cover-up technologies so they had a lot of incentive to study the problem thoroughly. They found that even if they just focused on the  Defense Contractors making 80% of the Defense dollars spent, they still had 24 different software cover-up schemes to make 'compatible'. When they looked at how to make themselves compatible with the top 90% of the Defense dollars that figure went from 24 to 134. They considered the cost not worth it to shepherd 134 companies through redeveloping their software. So, the conference they were intending to host just invited the top 80% dollar companies. They did not have to be making military products to have financial transactions and cover-up software that would prove the books of the CIA front companies were cooked. Even a company like Pepsi being investigated could cause them a problem, IF THE COOKED PRINT OUT WERE COMPARED IN DETAIL AT THE LEVEL OF A MONTH OF TRANSACTIONS. The CIA decided though to limit its invitations to actual military equipment makers!  They did not even include the makers of torture equipment, civilian stun guns, and espionage bugging equipment. They were seriously betting on investigators not comparing the records of separately held companies.

      That means a strategy for uncovering the proof of corruption at Carlyle Industries is for investigators to compare its books with companies that it had business with (outside of Halliburton and CIA fronts).

      However, the CIA had also proven that there were computer book making scams which exposed Halliburton. That is like the mother of the murderer trying to give her son an alibi by saying that he is allergic to gas fumes so he wouldn't have gone into the victim's house. It still points to the axe in the wood pile. Plus it is not a very plausible alibi in the first place which is even worse. How did the mother know the victim used gas to heat with if her son had not been in the victim's house? Why did the son look to see what type of heating she had--was it to try to explode the house to cover up the crime, or was it another way that he thought of to kill her? Let me explain it now in terms of the computer software cover-up programs.

      Suppose that Halliburton sold on its billing books a product=A in Lot Size=100, in Quantity=X at Price= Y to the Buyer=Pentagon on date=MM/DD/YYYY. Most invoices have all that data on them, IF THEY ARE CIVILIAN INVOICES. The Pentagon helps the Defense Contractors cheat by not requiring all of that information on their invoices. The price and lot size is often left off. The Quantity refers to the number of Lots in the box, not the number of Items in the box! That is to make it so that the average receiver cannot tell by looking at the contents of the box if it is all there. Instead they have to look at the side of the box which tells them how many lots it should contain. One can package the same gismos in clear plastic sacks in 1s, 2s, 3s, 10s, or 100s and the receiver will 'assume' that each plastic bag is a 'lot's worth.

      By leaving the price off the invoice the receiver is unable to judge easily on his experience of the price of goods whether a shipment is shorted by looking in the box. The CIA did an experiment in which it tested receivers at some of its front companies whether they knew the price of the goods going through their hands. It tested receivers who got accurate information on invoices, those that got artificially twice the price on them, and those that got half the price on them and those that got no price information at all. The results of the study showed that the receivers by the end of 3 months usually had a pretty accurate idea of the price of the military goods, even if the price was not marked on the invoices or boxes. They figured it out by talking to others including those who made the deliveries. They figured it out fastest and most accurately when the goods were overpriced. That was because they wanted to prove that those goods could not possibly cost that much. That was why the CIA switched to a different method from the most obvious one which is just to overcharge. That overcharge method was the one that had been favored by Halliburton originally. It is the one that most businesses try first and use until they are caught doing it and forced to stop. But no price information also incited the curiosity of receivers and although they learned the information the slowest of the groups, they did eventually have a pretty accurate idea of it. The strategy that caused the receivers to be the most inaccurate was to keep shifting the prices around like random noise; one day it costs 20 dollars, the next week 10 dollars, and the week after 30. That is what sales are designed to do---to confuse the consumer's price intuition. So, the CIA's front companies had gone to using that most sophisticated of the ways to throw the receivers off.

      A company using the gross overcharge method caused the receivers to investigate and learn what the real price should have been and that undercut the CIA's method. This is just one example of the difference in strategy directly applied to the receivers. But one could apply that same idea in cooking the books. One could over-inflate the amount on a line of an accounting ledger, undercut it, omit the line, add a line, or vary the amounts on similar transactions. The CIA, as if it were a professional crime institution, had also studied how accountants catch on to the books being cooked. They had then studied how to print false books to try to prevent them from catching on. They concluded that varying the price randomly around the number that they wanted kept the accountants from seeing the patterns of the corruption as well. For example, if the accountant came to have a firm belief that 1 lot of Product A cost 200 dollars, then if a carton of A had a cost with a 300 at the end of the number, the accountant become suspicious that the lot sizes had been changed.

      So here was the CIA varying the prices of the goods that its front companies sold almost every month. But suppose that it is selling those goods to Halliburton when it was using a cost inflation idea of cheating. Halliburton had an incentive to inflate the cost of its purchases in order to justify the high cost of what it sold to the military. So, it had been fairly standard practice for it to take the highest price that the CIA front company ever charged it for that product and put that on its books for regulators as its cost.  Comparing the two sets of books then shows that there is a problem--in this case it looks like Halliburton is cheating.

      So, Halliburton sometimes changed strategies to a more sophisticated way of cheating. That way of cheating took the real price that the CIA front company charged them for a product and doubled the charge on its books. It then thought it could claimed that the CIA front company had 'accidentally' only recorded exactly half of the charge. It figured that it could say that the front company had promised it a 50% discount but that it had never delivered on its promise. The CIA front company would then look bad for 'billing' Halliburton at the regular cost but pocketing half of the billed price into someone's pocket. The CIA creative accounting people did not like that plan. It was something that Halliburton had already done on multiple occasions.  The CIA had lots of fronts with lots of customers and worse problems it wanted hide than merely jacking up prices. Some of its fronts were fictitious and made no products at all. Some of its fronts had some real customers and many fake customers in order to launder money. The CIA software people in the creative accounting dept. wanted to make the CIA's crimes 'undetectable'. The Halliburton people wanted just to 'sneak by' until caught.

      End of Case 3

      Case 4: Halliburton's Rigging a Back Door in the Pentagon Accounting Computer

      Let me make things clearer with a real world example from early 2002. It was brought to my attention that Halliburton had already awakened the ire of a govt. investigator. We have already seen that  Halliburton had already both over billed and short shipped. The buyer was the helpless taxpayer.

      The investigator worked at the GAO and had access to both Halliburton's bills and the Pentagon's payment of those bills. But there was a problem. Those bills and the payments did not match up.  In spite of the bills being grossly inflated in the first place, the payments exceeded the bills! That was not by a little, it was by about 35%!

      The GAO investigator was the same man who had come to talk to me in my office. He remembered me and that I had tried to contact him at the end of 2001. So, he had asked to speak to me by calling the CIA.  The CIA would not let my phone ring whenever he called. But by happenstance one of the many times he tried to call me I picked up the phone to try to call someone else. So, we connected. I agreed to meet with him outside of the CIA and later that same day we met at a restaurant in McLean not far from CIA Headquarters.

      He had with him copies of all of the materials that I had faxed over to him. He started by asking me questions on them and taking notes. He was particularly interested in documenting where I had picked up each document. Then he asked me what I knew of the Pentagon overpaying Halliburton. It had been 2 weeks since the CIA's creative accounting dept. alerted me to that problem. By then I knew a great deal about how that Pentagon over billing occurred.

      Rumsfeld had let Halliburton set up offices inside the Pentagon just like Tenet had let them at the CIA. That was the result of secret executive orders signed by Bush, Jr.. I had by that time a copy of that executive order and handed it to the GAO investigator along with many other documents that I brought to that meeting. National security was being trashed by the Bush Administration and what I did had the potential to help restore national security. None of the documents would have helped the Russians, the Chinese, etc. wage war against us. I had had that independently verified by CIA analysts before I handed over those documents. Correcting the theft of funds would help US national security.

      One of the documents that I handed over was the list of Halliburton personnel at the CIA and at the Pentagon. Their physical offices were together in each location with their own security personnel. I verified that with my own eyes the next time I had occasion to go to the Pentagon 20 minutes drive away. In addition, I handed over a document that listed their job title from their CIA or Pentagon badge application which is all that personnel in those locations had on them. Even a visitor to the CIA had to fill out such a form. The amount of checking on that person's background to get that badge is a call or fax to the FBI to make sure that they are not on a wanted list. The CIA also checks their name and Driver's license against its 'suspected foreign agents' and after 911 its 'suspected terrorists' list.

      But no one called to verify that they were not felons who had served their time already. Thus, when I checked I found that "Halliburton's Representative to the CIA" who was then already my boss for 10 hours a week was a felon who had served time on a felony conviction of fraud. Not unsurprisingly then, one of the top men at Halliburton's Pentagon Suite was his partner in that crime who had also been convicted of a felony.

      Their felony crime was stealing new vehicles bought by the US Army in large numbers while they were en route to be delivered to the Army. They had then been sold overseas and the profits pocketed.

      His Pentagon badge listed him as an 'accountant'. I could find no evidence that he had been to business school unless one counted his jail time as that. His resume that I found elsewhere where he served as a board of Director on a company listed a business school during the time he spent in prison, about 4 years. I called up that business school and asked if they had a 'prison outreach program'. They said no. I asked them if they had a graduate by that name and they
      declined to comment. But when I faxed them a copy of the man's resume after a cover letter on CIA letterhead saying that he was posing as a graduate of their school they issued a denial that he had ever enrolled. I gave all those papers to the investigator.

      Then I gave him the proof that Halliburton's CEO Cheney had known that they were felons by the fact that he had blocked a background check on them when they went to a White House function that he hosted.

      In addition, I gave that investigator the proof in the form ofseveral documents together which showed that this Halliburton felon posing as an accountant had caused the Pentagon to overpay Halliburton. I want to go through that evidence in more detail because it is instructive.

      My memory might get some of the details wrong but the gist of what I say would be correct, according to the science of memory (See the book Memory, Trauma, and the Law by law professor Alan Scheflin).

      The evidence that that Halliburton felon was the man responsible for the overpayments by the Pentagon was 4-fold.

      First off, I had a memo from Cheney to him that was handwritten and addressed to him personally which directed him to "make sure that the Pentagon pays us all that it owes us and then some". The memo appeared to have been hand delivered. The CIA's forgery dept. verified the note as Cheney's handwriting and not a forgery. I try to do careful work.  So their statement to that fact was a document that I handed over with the original of that memo.

      The next piece of evidence was a letter sent by that felon to a friend and co-conspirator, in this case my Halliburton boss. In that letter he bragged "I am getting more than we bargained for out of the Pentagon". It went on to encourage him to meet with him to 'find out how'. I intercepted this letter before it got to my Halliburton boss, copied it and then put it onto his desk. I was thus witting to the fact that they were going to discuss that topic at their next meeting.

      The third piece of evidence was a tape of their conversation at that meeting. On that tape the Pentagon felon bragged with delight about how gullible people were at the Pentagon. He spoke about his going into the Accounting Dept. of the Pentagon and making friends with some of them. He managed to bring his own programmer in to "check the bills from Halliburton" on the excuse that they had not been paid on time. Then his programmer had managed to insert code by calling up
      the Halliburton computer from the Pentagon's Accounting computer to "check if all the outstanding bills had been paid". That code put in a back door into the Pentagon's Accounting computer so that  Halliburton could later change the amount that the Pentagon would pay whenever they wanted. The reason Halliburton had gotten caught was that someone forgot to change their billings up to what they had put in the Pentagon's computer.

      The fourth piece of evidence that I gave him was my boss having one of his programmers insert that same code into the CIA's Accounting computer. I waited until he did it and then I collected the evidence, the code. The code from the CIA's Accounting computer with a couple of lines before and after it to show where it had been inserted was the fourth piece of evidence. That evidence was on a computer disc. I had one of the accounting people sign it as coming from their computer.

      I had first taken all that evidence to my boss Tenet to give him a chance to correct the problem of Halliburton ripping off the American taxpayer via the CIA and Pentagon. He looked at the evidence and said,  "Well, you certainly have done a thorough job as usual." Then he offered to send the evidence over to the White House to 'correct the problem'. I immediately picked up the evidence off his desk and walking out of his office said that I could do that myself. I did send a copy of the evidence to the White House. I did that after I met with the GAO official. The White House managed to block the investigation. But the evidence was not destroyed. Why have I waited
      all this time to tell others about that evidence until now? Because before I feared that the White House was strong enough to ....
      The Chapman INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER
      http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.