To help set the stage for that second report, here’s a review of the basic framework for Federal Reserve governance, and a brief introduction to some of the topics relevant for that second report:

The Federal Reserve System, “the Fed,” has a lot of moving, interconnected parts.  The two basic components are the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and the collection of 12 Federal Reserve Banks.  In turn, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) melds those two parts to make the Fed’s main monetary policymaking body.

The Board of Governors is a government agency, an independent regulatory commission like the SEC.  The Board has 7 seats which are (normally) filled by Presidential appointment, subject to Senate confirmation.  (Two of those seats have been vacant for some time.)  The Board appointments are for 14 year terms, and they are ‘staggered’ (the individual terms do not coincide with one another).  The long, staggered terms are asserted to promote a valuable independence from nearsighted political influence.  By law, one of those seven members is appointed by the President to serve as Chairman.  Ben Bernanke was first appointed to that post in 2006 by George Bush, and he was reappointed to that role by President Obama in 2010. 

The Board of Governors is primarily a policymaking and oversight body, while the day-to-day operations, supervisory and examination roles, and economic reconnaissance are the main province of the 12 Reserve Banks around the country.  The banks are separately chartered government corporations.  The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that they are to be “conducted under the supervision and control of a board of directors.” But Reserve Bank operations are also subject to supervision and regulation from the Board of Governors and Congressional oversight lies behind the scenes as well, at least in theory.  In another melding of authority, Federal Reserve supervisory authority for private financial institutions is rooted in the Board of Governors, but much of that authority is delegated by the Board of Governors to the Reserve banks, with the Board retaining oversight authority after that delegation.

Each of the 12 Reserve Banks is led by a president, whose appointment by the Reserve Banks’ board of directors is subject to the approval of the Board of Governors in Washington.  Each of the 12 Reserve Banks is governed by their own board of directors, with the boards holding 9 members grouped in three classes.  The 3 Class A directors in each Reserve Bank board are elected by member banks in the district, and ‘represent’ those member banks.  The three Class B directors are also elected by member banks, but ‘represent’ the public, at least in theory.  The three Class C directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and they ‘represent’ the public as well. 

The Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, is the main monetary policymaking body in the Fed.  It melds the Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors.  The FOMC includes the seven (currently five) members of the Board of Governors, as well as the 12 Reserve Bank presidents.  But only five of the presidents hold a vote at one point in time.  The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds a permanent seat on the FOMC, and by law, also serves as the Vice Chair of that body.  The other four Reserve Bank seats on the FOMC are filled on a rotating basis.

That’s the basic structure.  What, then, did Dodd-Frank call for in the GAO audit of Fed governance?

Dodd-Frank’s Fed Governance Audit Provisions

The “Dodd-Frank” bill passed in 2010 had two main ‘audit the Fed’ elements.  (The scope of those provisions fell short of what advocates were calling for, but those drums are still beating.)  The first provision called for a one-time audit of Fed emergency lending in recent years, while the second audit called for would include a more comprehensive review of “Federal Reserve Bank Governance.”  This second provision directed the GAO to examine:

In the first audit report released last month, the GAO identified one topic it would be examining in its study of Reserve Bank governance.  After describing the structure of Reserve Bank boards, that first audit report took note of the creation of the emergency lending programs by the Federal Reserve Board and the FOMC, and stated that board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York “assisted the Reserve Bank in helping to ensure risks were managed through FRBNY’s Audit and Operational Risk Committee,” and, “… according to FRBNY officials, FRBNY’s Reserve Bank Directors’ limited role in assessing the effectiveness of the Bank’s management of operational risk for the emergency programs gave rise to limited waiver requests or recusals.”  The GAO will be looking at this and related aspects in its upcoming second report.  The question whether FRBNY officials’ assertion that the board’s oversight role was limited to operational risks could be part of that appraisal, along with an examination of conflict of interest issues more generally.

The FRBNY – Who Was Running the Show?

As the GAO’s recent report documents, the Fed’s emergency lending during the crisis was focused on the largest financial institutions in the United States and Europe.  The largest financial institutions in the US are based in New York City, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was responsible for supervising bank holding companies and state-chartered member banks that proved disastrously exposed to the crisis – directly, and indirectly through their exposure to large ‘nonbank’ financial institutions (like AIG). 

From 2003 to 2009 (leading up to and including the crisis), Timothy Geithner was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  Geithner’s departure was not the result of a weak performance review, but his appointment by President Barack Obama to the post of Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America.

Of course, one person is not ‘running the show’ at a large, complex institution like the FRBNY.  A legion of officers shared supervisory authority (and responsibility for the crisis), together with the underlying regulatory responsibility and oversight theoretically provided by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington.  And given that the Federal Reserve Act provides that the Reserve Bank operations are “conducted under the supervision and control of a board of directors,” those individuals are accountable as well.

Now that the GAO will be examining Reserve Bank governance in its upcoming audit report, here are a few of the people who were occupying positions in the systems it will be reviewing.

From 2004 to 2006, the Chair of the FRBNY Board (a Class C director, appointed by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors) was John Sexton, president of New York University.  The Vice Chair of the Board (also a Class C director, and appointed by the Board of Governors) over that time was Jerry Speyer, President and CEO of Tishman Speyer Properties, one of the largest real estate firms in the country.  Like many large real estate firms, Tishman Speyer proved a source of distress in the crisis.  Speyer first started serving on the board of the FRBNY in 2001, not as a Class C director, but as a Class B director, elected by the member banks (and again, like the Class C directors, theoretically to represent ‘the public.’) 

In 2007, the year of the onset of the crisis, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors reappointed Speyer as a Class C director for the FRBNY, and also designated him as Chair of the FRBNY board.  The Board’s choice for Vice Chair was Denis Hughes, president of the New York State AFL-CIO.

In 2008, the FRBNY had a new chairman, as the Board of Governors appointed Stephen Friedman as a Class C director (again, to represent the public), and designated him Chair of the board.  Friedman was the Chairman of Stone Point Capital, and had been leader at Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment firms in the world.  Goldman was a heavy borrower from the Fed in 2008 and 2009, after it proved nearly-disastrously exposed to the crisis.  Friedman resigned his post as Chair of the board of the New York Fed in 2009, following a bit of a firestorm. 

Some Preliminary Observations

I’ll be taking a closer look at the composition of Federal Reserve Bank boards before the GAO issues its October report on Reserve Bank governance.  But our experience in recent years suggests at least one valuable lesson in light of Congress’ directive that the GAO examine whether election of Reserve Bank directors by member banks sets up “actual or potential conflicts of interest” in the exercise of supervisory authority.  “Privately” elected or “publicly” appointed, well, it seems like conflict of interest problems can arise either way.  More generally, regulators charged with serving the public are always exposed to corruption from special interest group forces.  Character, not process or structure, matters most.

Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald join us to talk about their recently released book, Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire. They discuss the origins of the Taliban and the array of armed groups in AfPak that are lumped together as “Taliban” by US media and politicians. Gould-Fitzgerald talk about Pakistan’s double play, the struggle for oil and gas that is the basis for the conflict, pipeline politics, the confused or even lack of strategy in the senseless costly war, the current corruption ridden puppet regime in Afghanistan, Obama administration’s drone-mania, their 8-point plan for ending the US occupation, and more!

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, a husband and wife team, began their experience in Afghanistan when they were the first American journalists to acquire permission to enter behind Soviet lines in 1981 for CBS News and produced a documentary, Afghanistan Between Three Worlds, for PBS. In 1983 they returned to Kabul with Harvard Negotiation project director Roger Fisher for ABC Nightline and contributed to the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour. They continued to research, write and lecture about the long-term run-up that led to the US invasion of Afghanistan. They are featured in an award winning documentary by Samira Goetschel. Titled, Our own Private Bin Laden which traces the creation of the Osama bin Laden mythology in Afghanistan and how that mythology has been used to maintain the “war on terror” approach of the Bush administration. Their latest book Crossing Zero: The AFPAK War at the Turning Point of American Empire published by City Lights in March 2011 focuses on the nuances of the Obama administration’s evolving military and political strategy, those who have been chosen to implement it, and the long-term consequences for the U.S. and the region.

Here are our guests Elizabeth Gould & Paul Fitzgerald unplugged!

*For the history of democracy in Afghanistan, and a detailed recounting of the US support for the Mujahiddin during the 1980′s Soviet occupation, creating some of the “blowback” seen in the current US occupation, listen to Peter B Collins’ recent interview of the Gould-Fitzgerald duo here.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

According to our inside sources a new Bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Prozac will be launched before the end of the 112^th Congress. The primary purpose of the Prozac Caucus will be to raise awareness and advocate for this ‘miracle drug’ aka ‘happiness pill,’ on the grounds of combating homegrown terrorism and domestic violence, lowering the national divorce rate, and increasing the level of general job satisfaction among the restless American workforce. “Increasing the level of general satisfaction and happiness, while decreasing the effects of violence and despair inducing factors such as anxiety and depression, are the major keys to achieving long term national security, family unity, and work force stability. With Prozac we believe we can achieve all that and more,” said a congressional aide who wished to remain anonymous. The caucus will have an interactive website with easy-to-print promotional materials and a password protected section for physicians titled ‘Patriotic Physicians for a Secure America.’

Let’s start with what is a congressional caucus, or at least what it is supposed to be, in theory that is. A congressional caucus is a coalition of House and Senate members who meet to discuss specific legislative priorities and policy issues. Caucuses ‘supposedly’ allow members to discuss issues to determine their positions and make sure their votes are informed. They can also give ‘advocates’ a chance for a group of legislators to champion their cause on the Hill. You may go ahead and change ‘advocates’ to ‘lobby and you’ll be even more on target.

When we look at the long list of these caucuses, a list that initially had only a few but seems to lately  have taken off rapidly, we see some caucuses that seem rather ‘ordinary and expected;’ for example,  Children’s Environmental Health Caucus or Congressional Dairy Farmers Caucus. We also see some ‘amusing’ ones, such as Congressional Bike Caucus, Congressional Soccer Caucus, and Congressional Boating Caucus.

You follow me so far? Okay, then there are more than a few caucuses that are ‘confusing:’ Democratic Israel Working Group, Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, Congressional Friends of Jordan Caucus, and other ones for Turkey, Jordan, etc.  Why do I say ‘confusing’? Well, in the above paragraph we outlined the caucus definition, which includes ‘giving advocates, aka lobbies, a chance to influence, aka lobby, their cause through the members of their caucus. In this case, the advocates, aka lobbies, are foreign, and this means ‘direct foreign influence,’ and that in turn would make the representatives in these caucuses who then influence and lobby the rest of the Congress ‘foreign agents.’ Think of it as two-tiered foreign lobbies: First, the registered foreign lobby influencing the target caucus, then, the caucus acting as a lobby for that foreign lobby to influence and lobby the rest of the Congress.

Finally, there are some ‘just plain eyebrow-raising’ caucuses that have been popping up and gaining momentum recently. Probably you haven’t heard of them. Please don’t kick yourself for not knowing. Save that kick, or cancellation of subscription, for the news media you’ve been following. Okay, back to ‘eyebrow-raising’ caucuses. Here is one example:  The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Caucus, which has recently changed its name to the Unmanned Systems Caucus. Thanks to Corey Pein’s WarisBusiness site I was made aware of this scandalous caucus:

The motivation for members to join the UAV Caucus (not to be confused with the A/V Club) may be national security or job creation, but the caucus is also where members of Congress directly show their allegiance to an industry that donated generously to their war chests.

How much? In the 2010 election cycle alone, UAV-related political-action committees donate more than $1.7 million to the Caucus’ 42 members.

In February 2009, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), at the time the ranking Republican on House Armed Services, co-founded the UAV Caucus. He began to hold meetings on the future of the military systems and by the end of the year he had launched a website–on House servers–for the caucus, which was ostensibly designed to provide news on UAVs and connect members of Congress with the industry.

…

…caucus has served as the Congressional booster for the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. The UAVSI “Advocacy” page gives am overview of all the ways its members can maximize that relationship;In addition to whatever legislation and appropriations, caucus support has manifested in the opportunity to give committee testimony, visits from Congressmen, keynote speeches, meetings with legislators on “AUVSI DAY,” roundtables, facility tours, but perhaps most notably, a tech fair sponsored by McKeon’s office at the Rayburn House…

…

We filtered the 200 AUVSI corporate members to only the “Diamond” and “Platinum” members, then further narrowed the list to only those with corporate PACs. A stark picture emerged: Altogether, these PACs accounted for $1,788,800 in contributions in the 2010 to the members of the caucus. This figure doesn’t include members who weren’t reelected, such as AUV Caucus co-founder Rep. Allan Mollahan (D-WV), who was defeated in last year’s Democratic primary. Two of the newest members of the caucus—Rick Berg (R-ND) and Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)—received nothing from these PACs, probably because their incumbent opponents were the defense industry’s favorites.

…

You can read the rest of Pein’s revelatory piece here, but I think you all get the point on ‘eyebrow-raising’ caucuses. I guess it wasn’t a really long leap from the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Caucus to the Bipartisan Caucus for Prozac!

The expected chairman of the upcoming caucus who would neither deny nor confirm the formation of the Caucus for Prozac had the following to say (of course on the condition of anonymity):

“Listen, I’ve always taken pride in being a constitutionalist, and the formation of this caucus is further proof…Somewhere in the Constitution it says people should pursue happiness and their government should help them go get it. See? This is exactly what this caucus is about: help and encourage people to get happiness!”

The congressman may have been a bit under the ‘happiness pill’ influence. He must have meant the Declaration of Independence; not the ‘Constitution,’ and, the passage he must have been thinking of was probably this:  ‘All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…’Oh well, at least they are taking the pill they are anxious to sell others.

The expected co-chairman from the opposite party also commented off the record:

“As a nation we are losing our edge, our competitiveness, in so many areas; manufacturing, R & D, services…even in the Global Happiness Index!! We are America. We must be number one. It is time to declare war on unhappiness! With this caucus we are doing just that: declaring war on unhappiness, and getting competitive on the happiness front. If unhappiness is the enemy, this pill is the weapon to kill it…to quash the damn thing. With this caucus we’ll get Americans to swallow this pill… swallow it big time, and in no time they will rank number one again…at least in the happiness department…”

The expected cochairman was talking about the annual World Happiness Index report on countries. Judging from his hawkish tone and aggressive language, he was either not taking the pill, or, exhibiting one of the known adverse reactions to it. The follow up call to check on this was not returned.

With the new trend taking hold in the formation of congressional caucuses, some refer to them as neo-caucuses, other members are frantically working to stake out new territories and mark their turf. There are many empty caucus spots to grab: The Caucus for McDonalds, The Caucus for the F-35, The Caucus for JP Morgan, The Caucus for Pepsi Cola …So many caucuses to form, so little time!

Click here for our previous satirical pieces under Boiling Frogs Beltway Buzz.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Political donation laundering-rechanneling (PDLR) is a business in its own right, whether it is for pre-election donations or post-election maintenance contributions.  In most cases, PDLR requires savvy strategists and planners, quick-witted implementers, friends and enablers in high-places, and a high degree of creativity, almost to the point of being artistic. However, once in a while, an extraordinary situation may present itself, where neither imaginative planning nor creative strategy is necessary, and where limitless dollars can be channeled to Candidate A or Public Servant B or Representative C in plain sight. Really! In the PDLR world they call this the Miraculous Human Funnel. For the last ten years Former President Bill Clinton has been PDLR’s continuous miraculous funnel, and what a funnel he’s been, indeed!

Since leaving the White House in 2000, the Hillary-Bill Clinton duo have expanded their wealth by more than 100 fold to over $110 million dollars. In 2000 the Clintons left the White House with an $11 million dollar debt and annual income of $358,000. But within eight years, through ‘speaking fees,’ books, and a maze of ‘mysteriously smart investments,’ the couple’s net-worth exceeded one hundred million dollars. When asked, when pressed a little (only ‘a little’ thanks to the extreme kindness of US mainstream media when it comes to the Clintons), they attribute their ‘great fortune’ to the demand for Bill Clinton as the ‘Orator Extraordinaire.’

You see, there’s always been a certain degree of demand for former US presidents’ speeches, at least for those in the last three decades, but never anything like the bewildering demand for Bill Clinton; not even close; both in terms of the dollars per speech and the quantity of invitations. But then again, there has never been a former president in a very special situation like this; one with a wife as a senator (serving on the Committee on Armed Services among others) and later as Secretary of State. With a wife in such positions, no wonder the great demand, whether it is China or Kuwait or Columbia; whether it is Goldman Sachs or Citigroup or Sakura! Who said ‘Talk is Cheap’! The top players in the PDLR business circuit call him the ‘miracle funnel boy. Here is one example:

Many of Bill Clinton’s six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton’s top backers in her Senate campaigns. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Its employees and PAC have given her $270,000 since 2000 — putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons.

The banking firm Citigroup, whose employees and PAC have been Hillary Clinton’s top source of campaign donations, with more than $320,000, paid her husband $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004. Last year, it committed $5.5 million for Clinton’s Global Initiative to help encourage entrepreneurship and financial education among the poor.

…

Now interestingly, two-thirds of Bill Clinton’s speaking money came from foreign sources. Somehow, outside the United States clients are willing to pay even more to hear him speak! As for the timing ofthis foreign demand intensification:

In the last nine months of 2008, Bill Clinton made at least $150,000-a-pop speaking to groups in some of the very places where his wife now will now represent American diplomacy, from India to Kuwait to China to Malaysia. In fact, the latter three speaking stops came in the last month-and-a-half of the year, as the Clinton and Obama camps were hammering out the agreement under which President Obama ultimately offered Hillary Clinton the job as top diplomat.

The National Bank of Kuwait paid Bill Clinton $350,000 for a Nov. 16 speech, while Hong Kong’s Hybrid Kenetic Automotive Holdings shelled out $300,000 for a talk Dec. 4 and a Malaysian foundation paid $200,000 for Clinton to speak the very next day in Kuala Lumpur.

…

The former president in 2005 helped the U.S. arm of Israel’s treasury authority sell $101 million in investment bonds by speaking at a luncheon at the Pierre Hotel in New York that was jammed with real estate executives who wanted to hear his keynote address.

…

Of course, the Clinton couple has been the darling of the Military Industrial Complex. Whether throughout her senate candidacy, senate residency, or presidential candidacy, the Clintons have counted on and greatly benefited from the mega corporations of the military industrial complex. You’d think with all his history (veteran, great supporter of MIC) and hawkish stand, John McCain should have gotten the largest chunk of MIC contributions during the race, right? Not so:

Employees of the top five arms makers – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics — gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.In an unexpected development, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, raised just $19,200…

So we have the financial mega corporations, MIC, and foreign lobby all covered in their funneling to Hillary Clinton the senator and later Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State, via their miraculous funnel boy. But wait, there is more. Thanks to the US media, so far, we have been able to identify only two criminal corporations who have ‘funneled’ to Hillary Clinton via the Orator the Extraordinaire:

Clinton receives thousands of speaking requests a year and accepts a few hundred. Despite the extensive vetting, at least two companies that booked him were under federal investigation.

In February 2005, Clinton traveled to the Paradise Island resort in the Bahamas and collected $150,000 from Swiss biotechnology giant Serono International for a speech that touched on global AIDS. Serono’s U.S. arm was then embroiled in a well-publicized federal investigation into giveaways to doctors who unnecessarily prescribed its AIDS drug. A few months after the speech, the company pleaded guilty to two federal conspiracy charges and agreed to pay $704 million in fines.

Clinton also accepted $125,000 in December 2001 to address workers at International Profit Associates, an Illinois company that advises small businesses. At the time, IPA was the focus of a federal investigation — started during the Clinton administration — and a government lawsuit alleging widespread sexual harassment.

Like many who have paid the former president to give a speech, IPA executives have been helpful to his wife’s campaigns in New York. Her campaign and political action committee have collected nearly $150,000 in donations from the company’s officials, making IPA one of her largest single sources of campaign contributions since she ran for the Senate in 2000. The company also flew her aboard its corporate jet, according to a 2004 reimbursement item on her campaign finance report.

…

The other day I received an interesting comment and a valid question from the ‘other side’ of the world: “We truly appreciate your insightful and on-the-mark analyses of our Pharaoh Mubarak. Thank you for bringing Americans’ attention to issues absent in US popular media. Will you be writing about your own pharaohs and their practices, and illustrate the parallels?”

At first, I thought about it in terms of our general and ever-increasing police state practices and universally acknowledged corporate-government. However, a few days later, after a respectable friend of mine was brutalized by Hillary Clinton’s security police during her speech (right in front of her), and after spending some time researching Ms. Clinton’s government-position-induced wealth, over 100 million dollars, and that in a very short period of time, and of course her dark track record so far, it all clicked – the light bulb suddenly went on. I was actually looking at a great example of our own little pharaoh; a mini pharaoh in our very own backyard. I know that in the past we have discussed the issues of revolving doors and corruption, and we have certainly covered neocon practices and their never-ending influence, but with this we may be looking at a new era, you may call it the extension and expansion of the neocon era; I am going to call it: The US Neo-Pharaoh Era.

The similarities and parallels between Hillary Clinton and Hosni Mubarak are uncanny. I can write pages and pages with great detail, but to make this piece readable in one session I’ll contain myself with general supported bullet points:

Wealth: Just like Mubarak the Clintons came from a humble background. Hillary Clinton’s senate career marks the beginning of the family’s astounding wealth accumulation. She went from basically $0 to over $110,000,000 in only 8 years. For those of you short on caffeine today let me make a few points- it wasn’t business-finance suaveness, it wasn’t hitting the lottery, it wasn’t a sudden unexpected inheritance from an illegitimate uncle that did it. Mega companies (foreign and domestic) and foreign countries (dictators, communists, Islamists…you name it have been channeling their dollars under the new funneling label: speaking fees, and of course, a few mystery investments here and there. I know Hillary Clinton would argue inconsequential details such as: “Mubarak ended up with $60 billion dollars; in comparison mine are peanuts.” And I’d counter: “Ms. Clinton, no worries, so far you’ve had ten years while Mubarak had 30; you’ll get there.”

Criminal & Shameless Mind Set: Hillary Clinton ordered American officials to spy on high ranking UN diplomats, including British representatives. This woman went as far as ordering people to steal these diplomats’ credit cards, DNA data, even frequent flier numbers. She is that kind of a woman, if you catch my drift. She exceeded Mubarak in that department.

Anti Transparency & Fearful of Information Freedom: Banning journalists, limiting internet access, and other means of tampering with information access are all trademarks of pharaoh-like dictators such as Mubarak. Ms. Clinton is not that far behind when it comes to her own turf. She’s been testing the water. How about limiting the website/internet access of people within her turf? No try, no gain; right?! If only Hilary Clinton was in charge of the entire nation versus only the meager State Department!

Dictatorial & Anti-Human Rights: Hillary Clinton’s dictatorial tendencies are not limited to supporting dictators like Mubarak. No. She has no tolerance for freedom of speech, and she believes in quashing dissent, no matter how silent or peaceful, by using excessive force and terror. Even in this regard she surpasses Mubarak. While Mubarak let his police force and military do the dirty work (torture, arrest, imprisonment…) out of his sight, Clinton actually likes to watch the action (inflicting terror and brutalization upon peaceful protestors) and shows her pleasure (check out that smile). Please watch this short clip:
 

Do I need to say more?

Didn’t think so. So back to our friends from the ‘other side’ of the world. I hope this article answers your question. When pointing at our leaders’ hypocrisy-ridden foreign practices thus what you’ve been enduring, while providing loads of analyses on what’s been going wrong outside in your part of the world, when we criticize your dictators as dirty pharaohs, we won’t forget to look inward and take a note of our own mini pharaohs here in our own backyard. Rest assured.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

It was a rainy April day in 2004, and I was in the office of one of my professors at the university’s Public Policy Graduate Department. I was having one of those defeated and disillusioned moments that kept recurring during that time period. I think you would have found it justifiable: I had been slapped with two separate gag orders via two separate invocations of state secrets privilege, I had just witnessed the Congress being hit with another gag order in my case via retroactive classification issued by the Justice Department, we were at war in Iraq based on lies, the PATRIOT ACT was in full swing, secret kidnapping and detention operations by our paramilitary were taking place all over the world, congressional corruption and revolving door scandals were popping up one after another…So, you see, all this and being almost at the end of my masters program specializing in US public policy, where what we were taught didn’t match reality on the ground (US politics and government) whatsoever, gave me a certain degree of justification for feeling  the way I felt that day.

Sitting across from my professor I threw out the questions: Why can’t I see a single instance of practices indicative of our so-called system of checks and balances? Isn’t it more like three illusionary branches but actually one system serving the interests of a very few? Isn’t our nation headed towards a police state; fast and furiously? How do all these in-theory-only fanciful policy concepts apply to real-politics on the ground? …

My professor smiled and nodded. After letting me vent, he calmly replied:

“You are young. You have to look at what’s been happening and place it in historical context. If you look at the US political climate over the last century you’ll see this Pendulum Trend. Things get really bad for civil liberties and good governance for a few years, sometimes even for a decade or more, then, things swing back the other way, and you see Renaissance-Like changes towards the other direction. We go through a hawkish period with wars, and then, we get into a more pacifist mode. We get a conservative administration and lose some of our welfare gains, but a few years later we get a liberal government and put in place new welfare programs…Things don’t stay the same. It’s been only three years or so since 9/11. Very soon people will get over the initial shock and fear, and they’ll push out the current national security state of government…This is the cyclical nature of US politics…”

I looked up at him, and asked:

“So you are saying this Pendulum will swing the other way? All by itself? So we just sit tight and wait for this pendulum to swing the other way?”

He shook his head, and replied:

“It’s a bit more complicated than that, but yes, time takes care of some of that. Other actors outside the state will play their role…you know, various NGOs, etc. Changes in the economy will be another ingredient…of course, the media…the Bush administration will be replaced, and most likely, it will be replaced by the other party, bringing in a liberal oriented administration… So, yes, give it some time and you’ll see the Pendulum swing the other way…”

Tell you what: I have heard this ‘Pendulum Swing’ story-theory many many times since; especially from academians, tunnel-vision analysts, crusty politicians, and to a certain extent, from the general public – those with a bit higher education who consider themselves politically involved and savvy. The more I study history, the further I delve into our real governance record, the more I look at the last half century’s graph on fluctuation of the real ingredients (here at BFP we call these the real diseases, the macro causes)…well, the more I get pi..ed with this utterly nonsensical and false yet widely-held notion of ‘just wait for the ‘Pendulum Swing.’

The only area where the ‘pendulum swing’ applies, and even that with a major caveat, is this yoyo illusionary cosmetic change of party every few years. That major caveat being: two parties as two sides of the same coin; the monopolistic power above made to look like a duopoly where naïve and ignorant citizens are led to believe they’ve been given two choices – Product A packaged in Red & Product B packaged in Blue. If you haven’t read my pieces on this, the ones that brought loads of attacks due to ‘me not giving enough time or chance to Obama,’ read the pieces here  and here. You don’t have to go far back in history to see this exact phenomenon. Just take a look at the ‘actual’ records for the Bush and Obama administrations, and you’ll see that on everything that actually counts (again we are talking macro level factors) the records match; Product A (Bush) in Red & Product A (Obama) in Blue, and of course, beneath the two, all the poor suckers who are still under the illusion of having a say, having a choice, when it comes to their votes.

Back to the damaging misguided illusionary ‘Pendulum Swing.’ If poor suckers count the same product in different packaging as governance choice, the two-party system as two opposite ends of governance, then they certainly can argue that this ‘pendulum swing’ notion applies. I’ll leave this group alone, and go to non-suckers, almost all my known readers who look for the master factors, the big bubbas of US politics-governance determinants: the ever expanding Military Industrial Complex, the  ever extending and expanding federal police and intelligence sector, the ever increasing campaign finance domination by the very few, the ever ongoing-increasing government-elected official corruption and revolving door practices, the ever expanding US wars (and their ever increasing costs), the ever failing-damaging hypocrisy-ridden foreign policy practices, the ever diminishing civil liberties and citizen privacy rights…We pretty much named all major trends-determinants-ingredients of US politics-governance, and one look at the record on these will tell you, with 100% certainty, that NO, there ain’t no swinging pendulum involved in those things that matter and really count. It is a myth. If there is a pendulum it is broken and totally malfunctioning; it is stuck, travelling only in one direction, and going fast, my friends.

I came across the following quotes in a well-written article published at New Internationalist Magazine:

Some people take comfort in the back-and-forth sway of the political pendulum. It is part of the greatness of our ‘two-party system’, they contend; it reflects the American aversion to extremism on ‘either side’. For the mainstream media, charting each degree of the pendulum’s swing is the essence of the 24-hour news cycle.

The problem is that focusing on the to-and-fro of electoral politics, like staring at the hypnotist’s medallion, can lull you into a trance. Once there, it is easy to miss those political trends that transcend episodic US elections. A graph of these trends would not show undulating curves that rise and fall based on shifts in Congress. It would be marked by arrows pointing steadily upwards.

…

In recent decades, raising the budget for US military spending has been a bipartisan passion. That budget now amounts to around $680 billion per year, more than seven times the military spending of the US’s nearest rival, China, and enough to sustain a network of more than 700 bases scattered globally across some 130 countries.

…

Economic inequality is another arrow, and perhaps the most distressing one. Since the 1970s, the once-garish sight of a CEO making more than 250 times the pay of an average worker has become the norm. This, combined with the steady growth of corporate power, has given the wealthy a firm hold on the levers of our democratic politics. A landmark Supreme Court decision in January, which eliminated restrictions on corporate spending in elections, only strengthened their grasp.

…

When I was living in other parts of the world I came across oppressed, repressed and abused people, the perpetrators being the government and or the monarchy’s extensions. Some of these people, not the majority but the irate minority, had the fire in their eyes and the will and the energy to fight for change. There were others, perhaps not far from being the majority, who took pride in their faith-religion, and refused to do anything about their conditions; they even smiled about it. They would be open and quickly tell you why they refused taking actions and just waited, and that with such conviction. You see, their religious leaders whose strings were in the hands of that same oppressive government told them, day in and day out, that their suffering was temporary since it was only worldly suffering, and that when they died, when they entered the land of eternity, they would be handsomely rewarded for all their suffering and live happily, and forever. They hung on to this notion administered to them like opiates by those in power; it was their version of ‘Pendulum Swing,’ it was what pacified and lulled them, and it was exactly what the powers above wanted.

Maybe my experiences rightfully or wrongfully helped shape my loath and disdain for this utter nonsense called ‘Pendulum Swing’ and the elite advocates I keep encountering here and there. It is here in my home country today that I often see those lulled and pacified, some even smiling, doing nothing and waiting for their pendulum to actually swing…magically. How about ‘You’? Are you waiting for the Pendulum to Swing?

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Corey Pein recounts the creation of the recently launched groundbreaking site warisbusiness.com, a nonpartisan site covering military contracting, the global arms trade and the lobby, and how he began the project with two assumptions: The first- a lot of people are making money from war, while enjoying the comforts of anonymity (such people were once plainly called profiteers), and the second: Privatizing war inevitably prolongs it, creating what economists call a “perverse incentive.” Mr. Pein discusses the bought out generals and the militarization of the economy, and the latest on the ‘Rent-A-Generals’ exposé. He talks about scandals such as Mina Corp and the subsequent cover up, US Embassies as marketing arms of military corporations, the win-win outcome of elections for the Pentagon contractors and arms makers, Wikileaks, and more!

Corey Pein is an award-winning investigative reporter and long-form narrative journalist who writes about the military industrial complex, money, politics and violence from London, UK. Previously, he has lived in New Mexico, Oregon, Georgia and in Southeast Asia. His latest project is warisbusiness.com, a startup news site covering military contracting and the global arms trade. Mr. Pein has worked on staff at Columbia Journalism Review, Willamette Week, the Santa Fe Reporter and IHT ThaiDay, and contributed to Salon, Slate, The American Prospect, and CounterPunch, among others.

Here is our guest Corey Pein unplugged!

Note- Boiling Frogs selects warisbusiness.com as the best website of 2010!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

In response to questions at the hearing that he was too close to Azerbaijani Government officials with highly questionable ties, Matt Bryza remained evasive and provided half-answer responses while denying any special ties or conflicts of interest due to his controversial and scandalous Neocon wife, Zeyno Baran. After the hearing Bryza submitted even more evasive and incomplete answers to a series of questions submitted separately by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Particularly on one significant issue related to his questionable ties and conflict of interest related to his wife’s intimate relationship and position, Bryza may have actually perjured himself.

During his confirmation hearings Bryza tried very hard to assure Congress that there were no reasons whatsoever to worry about conflict of interest(s) based on his marriage to Zeyno Baran, and that she had given up all positions and involvements related to Azerbaijan. At the hearing, he said that his marriage would present no conflict of interest, and that a thorough State Department vetting of his finances found nothing untoward. He said Baran would not influence his positions as ambassador, and that any common positions they held were the result of kindred spirits.

In all this, Bryza conveniently forgot to report or even mention his wife’s official position as a member of the editorial board of an Azerbaijani government institution, the journal Azerbaijan Focus: Journal of International Affairs. And guess what, according to its website, Azerbaijan Focus “is a publication of the Center for Strategic Studies under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.”

Now, how could Bryza forget this mammoth conflict of interest, and do so despite being put under the direct spotlight with even more direct questions on this specific topic regarding his controversial bride?! Guess who happen to be Zeyno Baran’s colleagues at this position?

Ms. Baran serves on the editorial board along with several Azerbaijani government officials including Elmar Mammadyarov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Chairman of the Editorial Board Ramiz Mehdiyev, Head of the Administration of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Hafiz Pashayev, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

In July I wrote a rather long article on Bryza’s background, the issues surrounding his Neocon wife, and their scandalous and lavish wedding in Turkey. Considering Zeyno Baran’s position at this journal owned and operated by the Azerbaijani government, no wonder the two investigative Azerbaijani journalists who uncovered and reported Bryza Wedding’s Azerbaijani guests and financiers were beaten up, arrested, and jailed for their exposé!!!! The reporters brought the needed attention to Bryza’s certain special guests, who happened to be political figureheads from Azerbaijan, and the special gifts and financial contributions by them to Bryza’s bride and her nearly quarter million dollar wedding expenses.

But wait, there is more! In addition to serving on a board of an Azerbaijani government institution, there is this not so insignificant question on funding of Mrs. Bryza’s employer, the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute. Mr. Bryza has stated, many times, on the record, that his bride has been on leave without pay from the Hudson Institute since June 1, 2009. However, there are numerous instances where Ms.Baran has been listed as an active employee of the Hudson Institute since that date, including as recently as August 2010.

As for funding of Mrs. Bryza’s employer? Well, no one seems to know, and those who really want to know have been blocked from finding out. The infamous Hudson Institute is pretty well-known for its tight-lipped policies on the sources of its funding. To this date, despite inquiries, they have not responded to questions regarding funding from Azerbaijani businesses or foundations or corporations with an interest in Azerbaijan. However we know this much:

-In 2007, the Hudson Institution’s Center for Eurasian Policy, hosted a conference, titled “The Azerbaijan- Turkey- US Relationship and its Importance for Eurasia.”

-According to their own published “Event Summary and Conclusions,” this event was financed by a foreign entity, the “Azerbaijan-Turkey Business Association,” with direct financial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan.

-The majority of speakers at this conference, held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, were officials from the Azerbaijani and Turkish governments.

Now how is that our Mr. Bryza fails to report and account for these crucial facts? Further, shouldn’t his official responses to the specific questions asked on these issues be considered perjury? Because being evasive and wishy-washy go only so far in explaining the absence of these facts. At some point, someone in Congress will hopefully look into the real meaning and implications of Bryza’s foolish attempts to dodge questions meant to determine his suitability for this job. Evasive? Or just plain perjury?

Update: Here is a recent analysis of possible outcomes on the Bryza vs. Azerbaijan Ambassadorship by Harut Sassounian, who had earlier written this piece on major issues surrounding Bryza’s Senate confirmation.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

According to news reports, the Obama administration is once again reevaluating how to deal with Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai out of fear that it may now be holding him to unrealistic standards of U.S. law enforcement. This comes after a summer of news that Karzai continues to find new ways of resisting Washington’s efforts to rein in rampant corruption in his government.  Now we hear from legendary Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that the U.S. has intelligence showing Hamid Karzai is under medication for manic depression and that Obama’s national security team doubts that “his strategy in Afghanistan” (whatever that may be at the moment) can work. The tug of war between Kabul and Washington has become so desperate, former CIA Near East, South Asia Chief Dr. Charles Cogan recently opined that the situation was fast approaching a “Diem Moment.” Cogan even suggested that while Diem’s removal had been “horribly botched,” “a removal of Mr. Karzai might turn out to be more straightforward.” Given the similarities to America’s quagmire in Vietnam, invoking Diem raises more than a few dark memories. Yet despite vast differences in the two wars another even more deeply unsettling similarity is emerging. Hamid Karzai is in a political fight for his life like South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem. But (strange as it might seem) his contradictory behavior and the chaos and corruption surrounding it may be no accident. In fact it could be exactly the consequence that his main neoconservative backer, former RAND director, U.S. Ambassador and Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, had long intended.

According to Thomas Ruttig, a United Nations official present at the mid-2002 Kabul Loya Jirga that installed Karzai, “Khalilzad was the driving force behind THE mistake committed in the post-Taleban period that basically and fundamentally undermined the – possible! – emergence of a stable Afghanistan by bringing in the warlords again and allowing them unrestricted access to the new institutions…  Re-empowered militarily and politically, the warlords expanded the realms of their power into the economy. With their [U.S. Special Forces] Alpha Team seed capital they took over that part of the economy that matters in Afghanistan, the poppy and heroin business. With the profits from this they expanded into what remains of the licit economy: import of luxury goods, cars, spare parts, fuel and cooking gas [and] real estate often by occupying government-owned land…”

When asked in the spring of 2010 whether Khalilzad should be invited back to assist the Obama administration, former Special Assistant to President Reagan, Reagan-Doctrine Architect and honorary Afghan “Freedom Fighter,” California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher told Huffpost interviewer Michael Hughes, “He [Khalilzad] oversaw the establishment of a government that was unable to function in Afghan society. And on top of that he browbeat people into accepting Karzai. He even browbeat the ex-King of Afghanistan Zahir Shah into accepting him. Khalilzad was not in the anti-Taliban camp in the 1990’s, so why the hell would we bring him in now? By forcing Karzai into office, Khalilzad snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory because the Taliban were beaten at that point.”

To both Ruttig and Rohrabacher, Khalilzad’s ultimate crime – like the U.S. manipulation of the Ngo Dinh Diem regime in Vietnam – was that his corruption of the Karzai regime had created so much internal chaos that no amount of outside effort could undo it. Yet the idea that chaos, as a form of extreme social engineering, may have actually been the plan cannot be ignored.

If anyone embodies the Cold War neoconservative philosophy that came to dominate American foreign and military policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, it is Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad first came to the United States as a high school exchange student.

He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from American University in Beirut and his doctorate degree from the University of Chicago where he met and studied along with Paul Wolfowitz under the RAND nuclear warfare theorist, former Trotskyite and father of neoconservatism, Albert J. Wohlstetter.  It was Wohlstetter’s early 1970s series of articles in the Wall Street Journal and Strategic Review that prompted the politicized CIA analysis known as the Team B experiment. It was the Team B’s adherents both inside and outside the Carter administration who set the stage for undermining détente and luring the Soviets into the Afghan trap and holding them there while Afghanistan disintegrated. And it was the same Team B brain-trust of Wohlstetter acolytes including Khalilzad that went on to provide the philosophical template for the politicized intelligence process that led to the strategic military disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In her 1972 book about Vietnam, Fire in the Lake, author Frances FitzGerald wrote of the perverse illogic of another of Wohlstetter’s onetime RAND protégés, Herman Kahn.

“Just before his departure for a two-week tour of Vietnam in 1967, the defense analyst, Herman Kahn, listened to an American businessman give a detailed account of the economic situation in South Vietnam. At the end of the talk – an argument for reducing the war – Kahn said, ‘I see what you mean. We have corrupted the cities. Now, perhaps we can corrupt the countryside as well.’ It was not a joke. Kahn was thinking in terms of a counterinsurgency program: the United States would win the war by making all Vietnamese economically dependent upon it. In 1967 his program was already becoming a reality, for the corruption reached even to the lowest levels of Vietnamese society.”

In a country as poor as Afghanistan after three decades of war it took little time and less effort to corrupt every level of Afghan society, but in Afghanistan, official corruption, both American and Afghan was built in. Overseen by Khalilzad, a bizarre marriage of America’s pro-business, neoconservative Washington and Afghanistan’s pro-business and often pro-Taliban right wing took root to direct and guide Afghanistan’s reconstruction.

A 2007 report by Canadian journalist Arthur Kent described the DNA that coursed through the bloodstream of the Bush administration’s Afghan agenda. Kent writes, “Within Khalilzad’s makeshift provisional authority in Kabul, he championed a creation called the Afghanistan Reconstruction Group. ARG, achieved two cherished goals for the administration: putting a select group of loyal American and Afghan-American business hawks in charge of US-funded development projects; and doing so while completely bypassing the State Department.”

Outside the boundaries of normal oversight procedures while under the auspices of Donald Rumsfeld’s office at the Pentagon, ARG became a watering hole of high priced contracts for well-placed friends of the Bush administration. In 2005, when Khalilzad’s successor, career diplomat Ronald Neuman tried to break up ARG and return contracting to the State Department, Khalilzad arranged for a “political audit.” The result was Neuman’s replacement by the White House.

In a U.S. Congressional report published in June 2010 titled  Warlord, Inc.,  Representative John F. Tierney’s Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs painted a sordid picture of the chaos, deception and corruption in Afghanistan that now stands as the legacy of America’s neoconservative brain trust. But given the history of America’s covert and overt involvement in Afghanistan, none of this should have come as a surprise. The U.S. fostered destabilization of Afghanistan’s governments in the 1970s, backed Pakistan’s ISI and their Islamist protégés, lured the Soviets to defeat and watched as the country descended into anarchy. It then hatched a Frankenstein movement called the Taliban together with the ISI – all the while pretending it was indigenous to Afghanistan. After 2001 it then allowed the movement to regroup and grow stronger as they slaughtered moderate Pashtuns and claimed the mantle of Pashtun nationalism for themselves. Whatever the future holds for Hamid Karzai, President Obama’s AfPak war was built upon a chaos, designed and programmed from its inception by the highest intellectual circles in the United States. As his administration approaches another winter trying to resolve it, it might as well face up to the fact that whether it likes it or not, it is getting exactly the chaos that it asked for.

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, a husband and wife team, began their experience in Afghanistan when they were the first American journalists to acquire permission to enter behind Soviet lines in 1981 for CBS News and produced a documentary, Afghanistan Between Three Worlds, for PBS. In 1983 they returned to Kabul with Harvard Negotiation project director Roger Fisher for ABC Nightline and contributed to the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour. They continued to research, write and lecture about the long-term run-up that led to the US invasion of Afghanistan. They are featured in an award winning documentary by Samira Goetschel. Titled, Our own Private Bin Laden which traces the creation of the Osama bin Laden mythology in Afghanistan and how that mythology has been used to maintain the “war on terror” approach of the Bush administration. Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story published by City Lights, January 2009 chronicles their three-decade-focus on Afghanistan and the media. Their next book Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire will be published February, 2011.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Glenn Walp discusses his recently published book, Implosion at Los Alamos: How Crime, Corruption, and Cover-Ups Jeopardize America’s Nuclear Weapons Secrets , and describes major lapses in security at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, where scientists developed the world’s first atomic bomb back in 1945. Through well-documented facts and first hand experiences, Mr. Walp provides us with an alarming exposé on America’s vulnerability to those who may now be in possession of our most sensitive nuclear weapons secrets.  He talks about several high profile security lapses and the corruption, thievery and cover-ups he uncovered during his investigations at Los Alamos Lab, the bungled investigation of the Wen Ho Lee case, his experience as a whistleblower, his motivation to write this book, and more.

Glenn Walp worked as the Office Leader of the Office of Security Inquiries at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he denuded major crimes, mismanagement, corruption, and cover-up, as well as crucial security and safety breeches. His exposures helped result in 3 Congressional Hearings, the firings/reassignments of 19 lab officials, and that the contract to manage Los Alamos be put up for bid for the first time since the beginning of the Manhattan Project. Walp is a 35-year veteran law enforcement officer, working 29 years with the Pennsylvania State Police, retiring as Commissioner, and a member of the Governor’s Cabinet, and being the Chief of Police for 2 entities in Arizona. He has a BA in criminology, MA in criminal psychology and a PhD in criminal justice, and is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and Executive Institute. He is the author of recently published Implosion at Los Alamos.

Here is our guest Glenn Walp unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Kyrgyzstan’s Wanted Fugitive: Maksim Bakiyev. The story is more or less the same – the one that has been repeating itself for many decades.  The one based on a script written by the very same conductors who wrote the ones before, and who will probably be writing the ones to come (yes, they’re blessed with longevity; a curse for the rest of us). The location – always a resource rich country or one strategically crucial to resource rich countries. A viable candidate (sometimes candidates) chosen based on the exact same set of criteria – such as degree of corruptibility, and degree of atrocity or criminal tendencies. The grooming and training locations also are the same: the United States of America or the proxy brother, The United Kingdom. The supporting actors are a combination of old timers, think World Bank or IMF, and newer ones with even fancier names, such as XYZ Democratization and Development Fund, posing as well-intentioned NGOs. Okay, enough with the details, since we are very familiar with this repeating script and its consistent execution – collectively known and referred to as United States Foreign Policy.

The Bakiyev ‘Groom & Plant’ script, like almost all its predecessors, contains the same good ole classical elements: strategically important Central Asian nation, vital US fuel supply artery to keep the war machines humming and destroying in Afghanistan, major artery for transportation of heroin, puppet NATO partnership & the same-o-same-o big bad Russians to compete with, dozens of US NGO’s planted to serve you-know-who’s interests (here is a hint: not the people of Kyrgyzstan nor the American people), a staged and orchestrated revolution by our State Department – named after a innocently beautiful flower – to overthrow the guy who was closer to China & Russia, planting a new corrupt despot clan all carrying the same last name-Bakiyev. Then taking the son, the prince, Maksim Bakiyev, under ‘the mighty’ wings and starting his grooming and training here in the United States, helping the new groomed prince set up companies to corrupt & embezzle, and actually having our CIA operator(s) and politicians partner up with him in these enterprises – allocating  US financial experts, politicians,  and operators to execute a massive embezzlement scheme by the ‘groomed & planted’ prince, later to become a wanted fugitive ‘groomed but no longer planted’ prince with at least $70 million to be rescued and brought under protection…

Basically, with the Bakiyev story we have another all too familiar foreign policy and practices abroad scenario repeating itself. Before I get into that way too familiar story I want to revisit a couple of old ‘groom & plant’ examples I have covered here at Boiling Frogs post, starting with a ‘groomed & planted, and later protected’ Former Prime Minister of Turkey, Ms. Tansu Ciller as a perfect example of a Middle Eastern leader who was selected, declared ‘viable,’ supported, promoted, installed, and protected by our foreign policy script writers:

1. Ms. Ciller completed her advanced degrees in the United States – M.S. from the University of New Hampshire and PhD from the University of Connecticut. During this extended period while she resided in the US we had ample time and opportunity to train and mold her for the leadership position in Turkey.

2. Ms. Ciller was granted citizenship in the United States. In order to keep this fact from tarnishing her image during her candidacy campaign in Turkey and afterwards, we designated her US citizenship status ‘Classified and Top Secret’ on the grounds of Sensitive Diplomatic Relations. To this date, despite all attempts, Turkish authorities have been unable to have these files opened.

3. Ms. Ciller and her husband Ozer Ciller were closely involved with certain CIA operations prior to and after her return to Turkey, and their intimate relationship continued throughout her tenure as Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey. In fact, the CIA’s Roger Tamraz (see BCCI) was their partner in two front companies: ‘Emperyal’, which acquired and operated six (6) Casinos in Turkmenistan, and, ‘Lapis,’ involved with the oil pipeline project.

4. Ms. Ciller and her husband, before being considered ‘viable’ by us, already had an established shady financial past, including involvement in an embezzlement scandal connected to the collapse of ‘Istanbul Bankasi’, one of Turkey’s largest private banks. This along with involvements fortified Ms. Ciller’s qualification criteria when compared to competing applicants.

5. Ms. Ciller understood and participated in Turkey’s important strategic and operational role in the supply and transportation of heroin. She skillfully and very aggressively combined and furthered the marriage between the state military-police-intelligence and the underground heroin industry. Her notoriety even reached the German Courts, where she was accused of supporting and protecting the drug mafia – active not only in Turkey but elsewhere, including Europe and Central Asia.

6. Ms. Ciller played a direct role in scandals involving corruption, embezzlement, and state sponsored terrorism and narcotics operations. The best known scandal, one of her masterpieces, is known as ‘Susurluk’. Ciller and her husband – who is known for his mafia links and dealings, were directly implicated in Susurluk. The high profile kept by Ms. And Mr. Ciller during these scandals and their handling of them afterwards significantly bolstered their ‘value’ and ‘viability’ for us.

7. Ms. Ciller’s ‘known’ wealth is confirmed to be over $50 million, all of which was gained after she became a ‘’viable’ candidate supported directly by the US. A large portion of her investments and accounts are in the United States.

And here is our second example with the almost exact same script, a ‘groomed & planted, and many times rescued’ puppet(s) in Pakistan. I am making that ‘puppet’ plural since the same script happens to extend to the spouse who currently rules, kinda! And here is the list for the Former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Ms. Benazir Bhutto:

.

1. Ms. Bhutto obtained her bachelor degree in the United States – BA from Radcliffe College at Harvard University. Later she attended Oxford University in the UK where she pursued International Law and Diplomacy. She spent a total of eight years in the US and UK – 1969-1977. Again, this time spent ‘abroad’ was ideal for the satisfactory grooming of Ms. Bhutto for ‘installment.’

2. Ms. Bhutto was granted British Citizenship and maintained her dual citizenship throughout her career as a candidate and later as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Her husband, the current President of Pakistan, also received British citizenship and has maintained his dual citizenship to date. The perceived conflict of interest back in her home country did not prove to be an obstacle for ‘us’ or the Bhuttos, thanks to our PR and global image projection activities.

3. Ms. Bhutto and her husband maintained intimate relationships with the underground economy and high level players of the heroin pipeline. Ms. Bhutto was a close ally, protector, and intimate friend of convicted Pakistani Drug Baron and Former Parliamentarian, Ayub Afridi, who like Bhutto, was given protection and safe haven in Dubai, one of our closest allies. These relationships and direct connections, some of which were directly inherited from her father, significantly bolstered Ms. Bhutto’s value for us and our British counterparts.

4. Ms. Bhutto and her husband proved to be desirably ambitious and admirably skilled in using their power, position, and connections, together with our protection, to misuse their proceeds of corruption and embezzlements to accumulate great wealth. Today her husband, who inherited this wealth, is the fifth richest man in Pakistan with a net worth of nearly $2 billion. As confirmation of their successful accumulation of wealth, in the 90s Ms. Bhutto and her husband purchased a 20-bedroom mansion in Surrey, England. They were known for their proficiency in receiving ‘kickbacks.’ Just the kickbacks they received from Swiss Cargo Inspection Companies alone were worth $12 million, which they stashed wisely in offshore companies in Swiss bank accounts.

5. Ms. Bhutto’s Bill of Mental Health was not of much interest. However, she was permitted to transfer credits from her husband, Mr. Ali Asif Zardari. His is a far more interesting mental health record, made all the more interesting since she pledged to place him in an official position of power. He and his ‘mental health’ conditions proved to be extremely useful in ‘necessary’ operations involving murder, drug smuggling, corruption, and embezzlement, thus our making an exception for Ms. Bhutto was justified in this particular case.

6. Ms. Bhutto exhibited great skills in ‘Multiple Image Projection’. With our direct backing and promotion she quickly sold her image as a needed progressive, democratic, and pro humanitarian leader for Pakistan. Just as quickly, at home in Pakistan, she was able to establishherself as equal to if not better than her dictatorial predecessors by sanctioning and carrying out extrajudicial killings, torture, persecution of religious minorities, and arbitrary detention. She also determinedly took extraordinary measures to muzzle the independent media. These skills were also applied to her utilization and exploitation of feministic support. At the same time she was portraying herself as a progressive and feminist example for ‘that’ part of the world, she was making deals and establishing close ties with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, notorious for their abuse of women…

Maksim Bakiyev: A Brief & MSM-Preferred Case Background

Let’s start with the commonly known, easily retrievable Wikipedia and mainstream media based background on Maksim Bakiyev and related recent news.

Who is Maksim Bakiyev? He is the 33 year old, fugitive, Kyrgyz businessman, the younger son of Kyrgyzstan’s former president Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Maksim currently lives in the United Kingdom – where he’s been granted residency and provided with protection (including for his embezzled millions). He studied legal law in Kyrgyzstan. According to his Wikipedia bio:

He received additional education on legal issues in Britain and the US. As a student, Maksim worked in a consultation firm, specializing in investment into emerging markets in Central Asia and the Middle East. Maksim was widely believed to be the richest man in Kyrgyzstan.

Hmmmmmm. What are the major information points missing here? What the heck did he really study in the US and Britain? Which universities? Was it Langley Campus? Where did he reside? McLean, Virginia? What was the name of this mysterious consulting firm specializing in investment into emerging markets in Central Asia & the Middle East? Was it one of James Baker’s firms? Or was it Henry Kissinger’s? Or, was it Carlyle? And, how did he become the richest man in Kyrgyzstan, from having nothing, in less than 5 years?

After skipping over all these important ‘missing links,’ we are fast forwarded to the latest presented by the media and here at Wikipedia:

Maksim was in charge of delivering fuel to the Manas International Airport, which also hosts a US airbase,^[2] through Mina Corp. Maksim was appointed the head of Central Agency for Development in October of 2009. Since the 2010 overthrow he has been charged with embezzlement and abuse of power by the interim government. It is suspected that transferred about $35 million of a $300 million loan from Russia into his private bank accounts.^[3] Prosecutors also allege that companies he owned almost $80 million in taxes on aviation fuel.

And finally, his latest and current status has been summed up below:

When the 2010 uprising took place, Bakiyev was headed to the US for a series of meetings in Washington.^[5] However, he never showed up, and it is believed he spent his time in Latvia. In May Interpol posted Maxim Bakiyev as wanted on its website.

On June 13, 2010 Maksim was arrested in the UK when he landed at Farnborough Airport in Hampshire in a privately hired jet.^[6] He is seeking asylum there, but the interim Kyrgyz government is demanding his extradition. A senior Kyrgyz official warned that the interim government would consider shutting down the Manas US airbase if Britain refuses to hand him over. ^[7] However, this was later denounced by president of Kyrgyzstan, Otunbaeva.

On June 18, 2010, it was reported that Bakiyev was granted temporary asylum in the UK, but this was later refuted by the UK Border Agency. ^[8] He does however have permission to stay pending consideration of request for asylum.

As you can see above, I highlighted another important missing link – a major point that has been so far glossed-over: This fugitive was initially headed to the US for a series of meetings in Washington. And these meetings were set up during and after the scandals involving him coming into the surface. Okay, at The State Department, CIA, and of course the not-so-visible agenda-setters at their companies, think tanks, and front NGOs? Then what happened? I guess  it was decided that he was too hot of a potato in too hot of an environment, so our State Department put a request to their counterparts in Britain to kindly ‘receive and harbor’ their ‘groomed & planted’ Kyrgyz prince…and they did.

So the above information is the sketch, the general story line on the ‘Bakiyev Story.’ Then, there are some additional juicy details and tidbits provided by a few, although still highly sanitized and consciously refrained from posing ‘the real’ questions. Let’s take a look at these and pose logical questions as we go.

Maksim Bakiyev & ‘Foreign’ Facilitated Embezzlement Schemes

So how did Maksim Bakiyev’s meager personal business grow into a major empire encompassing banking, oil, and telecommunication industries? We don’t have the complete answer to this question; not yet. Not with so much information still buried and ‘protected,’ and with only little sketchy details here and there.

Interestingly the following selective pieces of information happen to come from the Wall Street Journal.

The career of Maksim Bakiyev was watched closely in Kyrgyzstan, because nepotism among leaders has been a problem in the past. During the five-year reign of his father, the younger Mr. Bakiyev’s financial interests grew from a modest import business of cash-and-carry goods into an empire spanning banking, oil and telecommunications, said Edil Baisalov, until recently the chief of staff for Ms. Otunbayeva. Mr. Baisalov said U.S. business ties with Maksim Bakiyev were part of a larger pattern of the U.S. turning its back on human rights in the region, dialing back its criticism of authoritarian regimes so it could win their support for the war in Afghanistan.

…

And this on one of Bakiyev’s embezzlement schemes:

While details of the charges are sketchy, one involves the younger Mr. Bakiyev’s relationship with Asia Universal Bank, a Kyrgyz bank that was advised by U.S. consultants APCO Worldwide and Kroll Associates and whose board members included three former U.S. senators. Prosecutors allege that the younger Mr. Bakiyev steered to AUB part of a $300 million Russian state loan to Kyrgyzstan, and personally benefitted from it, the spokesman said.

Critics of the Kyrgyz government were suspicious of Maksim Bakiyev’s relationship with AUB, which under his father’s rule grew from a little-known bank to the country’s most influential financial institution. AUB shuffled a large amount of money out of the country when the government collapsed. On the night of the coup, April 7, officials at AUB approved international wire transfers that they say were requested by AUB clients totaling about $170 million, or more than 10% of the country’s banking assets, according to central bank officials.

Okay, let’s stick with WSJ’s storytelling and their lame coverage of another Bakiyev scandal involving shady fuel supply deals with the US:

The new government has also accused the U.S. of enriching Maksim Bakiyev through fuel supply deals. It says a fuel-supply contractor, Mina Corp., a privately-owned company based in Gibraltar, had lucrative U.S. government contracts to supply fuel to the U.S. base. The government says Mina, which is operated by a former U.S. military attaché, used smaller delivery companies that were allegedly controlled by Maksim Bakiyev, and funneled as much as $70 million a year to them.

The Kyrgyz government has produced no evidence of the alleged payoffs, saying the case is under investigation. Mina denies the accusation, and its operations manager, Chuck Squires, says he never even met the president’s son.

…

Of course, since this story came out on June 15, some of us who’ve been paying attention have learned much more about the infamous Mina Corp. and this Chucky guy who was easily let off the hook by WSJ;-) Back to the WSJ narrative and another culprit who happens to be a US citizen:

U.S. financial advisors around AUB and Maksim have decamped from Kyrgyzstan. One of AUB’s former board members and minority shareholders, U.S. citizen Eugene Gourevitch, is a fugitive from Kyrgyz fraud charges filed by the interim government. Contacted by email, Mr. Gourevitch denied any wrongdoing, saying that his recent work in Kyrgyzstan was “based entirely on perhaps my overly idealistic beliefs and aspirations” for development of Kyrgyzstan.

And here is another culprit who happens to reside comfortably in UK:

AUB’s former chairman and chief shareholder, Mikhail Nadel, now in London, says he won’t be returning anytime soon to Kyrgyzstan, whose new leaders he accused of “banditry” and who he said were now plundering his bank. Mr. Nadel confirms there was a surge in transfers at the time of the government collapse, but they were only clients rescuing their funds from a coup.

Now comes the juicier part minus real details involving our famous APCO and three US senators:

In 2005 the Central Bank of Russia launched an investigation of AUB, and later issued a statement reviewed by the Wall Street Journal saying it suspected the bank of “suspicious operations” to help companies evade taxes. Mr. Sarbanov said that when he tried to help the Russian bank investigate, he was forced out of his job by President Bakiyev.

The following year, the bank hired APCO Worldwide and Kroll as advisors. Kroll published a report in early 2007 saying the bank had a “solid foundation” to enact controls against money laundering. Former U.S. Senators Bob Dole (R., Kan.) and J. Bennett Johnston (D., La.) joined its board. Earlier this year, Mr. Dole resigned and his seat was filled by former Democratic Sen. Donald W. Riegle, Jr. from Michigan.

In April 2007, Mr. Dole and Mr. Johnston visited Bishkek on AUB’s invitation. Mr. Dole also visited the U.S. air base, and had an audience with President Bakiyev.Mr. Dole declined to comment for this article. Mr. Johnston denied ever meeting with Mr. Bakiyev “or any of his family or anyone who spoke for him.”

…

APCO said its staff and independent board members worked with AUB to improve governance and compliance procedures at the bank. Kroll said it advised AUB on helping the bank install anti-money laundering mechanisms, and raise the bank’s overall standards. Mr. Riegle said he agreed with the APCO statement.

Western diplomats said they got visits from a Kroll representative, who gave them briefings on AUB’s anti-money-laundering efforts and due diligence on its shareholders.

…

I guess we now have a general idea as to how Maksim Bakiyev made it rich in the oil and banking industries in less than five years. After all, he had  backing and direct support from APCO- Kroll and three US senators to make his banking embezzlement scheme work, and he had a former attaché and ex-CIA’s ‘management skills’ to make his US airbase supply scheme execute smoothly!

Over at The Washington Post  another reporter has ‘tried’ to cover a bit more. This reporter happens to be a man I respect and like, but have become a bit more cynical and suspicious of lately… Jeff Stein used to be with CQ, and he has done great exposes including the ‘real story’ on the Harman scandal. Well, how in the world did he end up at The Washington Post, albeit it’s blog section??!!! I mean we’re talking about The Washington Post and its dirty parasitic shame-carrying agents such as Pincus and Eggen!! Okay, let me get back to Stein’s coverage instead of venting over the despicable WP:

Stein rightfully focuses on the key figure involved in Bakiyev’s fuel supply scandal; Mr. Chuck Squires, a former US Army Intelligence Colonel:

A former U.S. Army intelligence colonel has emerged as the focus of investigations into corruption in Kyrgyzstan, the Central Asian host to an American air base and hub of fuel supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Lt. Col. Charles “Chuck” Squires is a former defense attaché at the U.S. Embassy in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek. Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Squires formed a company that, despite having no track record in logistics, was awarded a sole-source contract to supply fuel to U.S. aircraft at the Manas base, according to congressional testimony and an investigation by The Nation magazine.

“A graduate of the Russian studies program at Harvard University, Squires appears to enjoy excellent rapport with American diplomats and military officers and good relations with senior figures in Kyrgyzstan, including President Bakiyev’s son Maksim, in whose company I have previously observed Squires at Bishkek’s Hyatt Regency Hotel,” Scott Horton, an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School told a House Oversight subcommittee hearing on Thursday.

…

Now, remember how the WSJ article easily and unquestioningly let Chucky off the hook by simply parroting his denial of having any relationship with Bakiyev.  Not only that, this colorful CIA figure appears to be linked to other related shady enterprises:

Squires’s Red Star Enterprises, and another firm by the name of Mina Corp., share an official London address “in a former public housing complex that now leases office space to a multitude of small-time companies, escort agencies and business advisory services,” according to report by Eurasianet.org.

Later in this piece I will go over Bakiyev clans’ heroin transport and transit enterprises, but business wise  it makes perfect sense to house your office of fraud and embezzlement enterprises with other related business categories such as escort and prostitution, and other smaller enterprises set up to launder the proceeds. No?

Although not named, only cryptically mentioned, other intelligence (aka CIA) figure or figures have also been involved in Bakiyev-related scandals:

“At least one other figure involved in the London management of Red Star,” Horton told the national security subcommittee, “has close ties to the U.S. intelligence community.” He did not elaborate.

Red Star, Horton told the panel, appeared “out of nowhere to administer hundreds of millions of dollars in supply contracts and which appears to have no significant customers besides the Defense Department.”

…

You bet! When you deal with hundreds of millions of unaccounted taxpayers dollars spent ‘over there’ and through the marriages with ‘groomed & installed’ corrupt puppets you bet you’ll have the hands of shady CIA operatives and filthy well-known former or current US elected officials like Senator Dole in that same pot all the way up to their elbows.

And where is this ‘typical’ CIA operative Chucky man now? Probably doing similar things in similar places while protected by his bosses in Washington. Do you remember BCCI & Roger Tamraz. And where is Chucky man now? Aha. Well, Jeff Stain puts it this way:

And where is the mysterious Col. Squires? Not easily found.“Chuck Squires, the director of operations of Red Star/Mina Corp., declined to answer any questions from EurasiaNet.org on April 19 and referred all inquires to a Mina Corp email address.,” the Web site said.

Maybe subcommittee chairman John F. Tierney, D-Mass., will have more luck.

On Apr. 12 he sent letters to Red Star, Mina Corp., the departments of State and Defense, and the FBI asking for details on the contracts.

…

I don’t think Jeff Stein is holding his breath on that front. He may have lost a few things when he joined The Washington Post, but he couldn’t have lost that much common sense, having the experience and the knowledge he has. This is the latest on the status of the so-called outraged congress and their investigations of Mina Corp. and Mr. Chucky Squires, again as reported by WSJ:

KABUL—U.S. congressional investigators have upped the ante in their confrontation with two top Pentagon contractors who have received billions of dollars supplying fuel to troops in Afghanistan but have refused to reveal their owners.A congressional oversight committee has accused the contractors of stonewalling its investigation into the company and issued subpoenas ordering top officials of the companies, Red Star Enterprises Ltd. and Mina Corp., to report for questioning later this month.

…

But the current standoff over fuel contracts to coalition forces involves U.S. officials, not Afghans. Some of the chief officers in the contracting companies, Red Star and Mina, have been retired U.S. military officers who for the past seven years worked closely with the Pentagon to become a near monopoly supplier of aviation fuel to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Since 2003 the Pentagon has disbursed more than $2.2 billion to the companies for fuel deliveries to Bagram air base in Afghanistan and Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan.

Company officials have so far said they need to keep ownership a secret as a matter of security. Chuck Squires, a retired U.S. army colonel who has worked as an operations manager for both companies, said in an interview in April that the owners “are private people who want to stay that way.”

…

Mr. Squires’s attorney, Edward L. Dowd Jr. of St. Louis, said he and his client will cooperate with the investigation “if the subcommittee is reasonable about giving me time to get up to speed on the facts.”Investigators say they need to determine ownership as part of their effort to clear up allegations that company policies helped sow instability in Central Asia, which has become an important conduit for troops and supplies into Afghanistan.

…

Suuurrrrre. This will end up in the same black hole as BCCI and the rest; after all, this is based on the script and implementation of what we call ‘US Foreign Policy,’ written and orchestrated by the real agenda-setters, implemented by the gofers and operators at the CIA and State Department, and suffered by the people of the target nations’ and of course we the people of the United States of America…

Bakiyev Clan: The Lords of Kyrgyzstan Heroin Enterprises

As always the information and the news coverage on all these recent developments involving Kyrgyzstan, the Bakiyev Clan, and the ethnic violence in the south with the Uzbeks, has been presented in bits and pieces, censored here and there, and has left us with incoherent and incomplete sets of information either not digestible or not significant enough to pay attention to. The role of the Bakiyev clan in the drug trade, and thus the implications to the ‘groomers & planters’ is a good example. Here is a bit of coverage on this aspect of the Bakiyev clan, of course, minus the obvious: the US agenda-setters and operators who have been directly involved and partnered up with Bakiyev enterprises, including the billion dollar heroin enterprises:

“The battle for power is also a battle for drug money,” Kyrgyz deputy security service chief Khubat Baibulov told The Associated Press. “The violence of this battle increases when you are talking about big money.”

…

Authorities and analysts have little doubt that Bakiyev and his relatives are at the heart of the drug trade.

“The whole Bakiyev family is involved in drug trafficking,” said Alexander Knyazev, a respected independent political analyst in Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital.

“After Kurmanbek Bakiyev came to power, all drug lords were killed, and (his elder brother) Zhanybek Bakiyev consolidated most of the drug trafficking in his hands.”

…

An estimated 20 metric tons of Afghan drugs transit through Kyrgyzstan every year, most destined for Russia, Western Europe and the United States, according to a U.S. State Department report released in March.

…

And here are little tidbits at the end of this particular coverage attempting to lighten up (almost wash out) the real implications and those players implicated in US:

The United States has been stung by the accusation that its military campaign in Afghanistan has inadvertently boosted the fortunes of heroin poppy cultivation there. The suggestion that it may have benefited strategically from cooperation with a Kyrgyz government involved in the drug trade is likely to come as a further embarrassment.

Two State Department officials with knowledge of the region, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they are aware of the allegations against the Bakiyevs, but had no independent corroboration. The Drug Enforcement Agency refused to comment.

…

The heroin industry happens to serve our groomed and planted puppets by some divine and mysterious coincidence. The Bakiyev Clan shares the same path to wealth as the Bhutto-Zardari duo and many others; down to where they found refuge for their millions of dollars accumulated through drug and embezzlement schemes once ousted from their own nations.

When we talk about the strategic importance of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and other ‘stans’ we are not talking only about strategic in the sense of traditional resources-oil, we also are talking about  ‘narcotics resources’:

At the moment the stock of pure heroin in Afghanistan is estimated at slightly below 3,000 tons, and the revenues of Afghan drug suppliers reach around $3 bn annually. The international drug mafia earns at least $100 bn annually on heroin from Afghanistan, the money nourishing organized crime not only in Afghanistan but also across Central Asia – in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

And no, the real lords of these resources are not the farmers in Afghanistan or the mules transporting them. The real lords of heroin enterprises happen to be those who’ve been ‘groomed and planted’ to rule the source and transit nations, and the ones who rule those rulers who reside in the United States and other Western countries:

The revenues generated by the drug business are distributed among the criminal groups controlling various segments of the supply chain linking poppy farms to narcotics consumers. While Afghan poppy growers are enduring extreme poverty, the owners of the fields mostly reside in the US, Great Britain, and other Western democracies.

…

Western watchers opine quite reasonably that it is not in the interests of the US to fight the enormously profitable illicit drug production in Afghanistan. It should be also taken into account that the drug business serves as a serious source of income to many companies working with the Western coalition in the country. Heroin production takes massive quantities of acetic anhydride, acetone, and hydrochloric acid which are neither available in Afghanistan domestically nor can be delivered in required quantities by individual go-betweens. Recently the command of the German forces in Afghanistan suspected Ecolog, a Düsseldorf-based company providing laundry and garbage removal services to NATO in Afghanistan, of drug smuggling. The scandal is currently at full swing in Germany.

…

I started this piece on Bakiyev with two cases that may have appeared not related: Turkey’s Ciller & Pakistan’s Bhutto. I could have easily picked half a dozen others, but I think these two sufficed to illustrate our almost-canned foreign policy script and its implementation in countries of interest; the selection criteria and the method to ‘groom & plant’ puppet regimes: The training period in the UK or US, a complete disregard for atrocities and human right abuses, the strong partnerships with  the underground industries fully assisted and supported by our operatives (think Tamraz, think Chucky), the joint efforts in fraud and embezzlement, the unconditional protection from accountability & providing safe haven later when needed (both personal and for embezzled funds)…

Listening to ‘our leaders’ we hear the same repeated words in relation to these target nations and our intentions over there. First, the big, make that capital, D words: Democracy, Democratization, Development…Then, security, countering global threats such as extremism, Islamism, and terrorism…Just take a look at all the scripts, aka foreign policies, we have implemented, and all those in the process of being implemented, and see whether in reality you can find anything but our direct or indirect role in creating and or supporting corruption, drug trafficking, despotism, extremist and criminal factions/groups to be manipulated against our competitors or whatever faction/group we deem the enemy (or enemies) at the time …our script writers and implementers in Washington had another dream candidate. They invested in Bakiyev, trained and groomed him, gave him all the backing and resources necessary to quash dissent, corrupt, embezzle, take over the vast heroin transit industry within the borders of his fiefdom, maintain and use various extremist militia groups when needed … They provided him with top-name US senators to front legitimacy and prestige, they handed him CIA men to guide and help with setting up and running shady operations, they gave him big-name US financial corporations to shield his embezzlement schemes…

They invested in Bakiyev and gave him all that, but he never became the king. Bakiyev will rest and play in one of those $$$$$ castles set up for the exiled ‘groomed & planted’ kings and those who came close but never became a king. As for ‘they,’ well, I’m sure ‘they’ have had enough time to narrow down the list of ‘their’ next potential viable candidates for Kyrgyzstan to two or three; the next round of ‘grooming & planting’ process has already begun and is well on its way.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

While dictionaries and encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, provide a thorough definition and description of insect termites, none offers any information on the semi-human termites imbedded within the political system of our nation, where they feed on the lobby and special interest Political Eco System while they cause serious foundational and structural damage to the welfare of the public majority, and to future generations’ prosperity and liberties. These Political System Termites (PST) and their colonies exist and thrive within various branches and layers of the political governing system, and they go by different names or titles, including Representative, Senator, Secretary, and Advisor. Regardless of title differences and purely cosmetic differentiations and technicalities, they belong to the same political eco system and all are considered members of the PST family. This article will focus mainly on Congressional Termites.

Let’s start by comparing some general overlapping characteristics between the widely acknowledged and recognized insect termites and the still-waiting-to-be recognized and defined Political System Termites (PST):

Insect termites divide labor among gender lines, produce overlapping generations and take care of their young collectively. Political System Termites divide their activities based on a corruption hierarchy, create networks of laws and legislations to protect themselves and the establishment, and protect one another collectively, including their retired then turned lobbyist seniors – regardless of cosmetic brand differentiations, such as ‘D’ or ‘R.’

Insect termites are economically significant as pests that can cause serious structural damage to buildings, crops or plantation forests. Political System Termites are also economically and politically significant as pests that can create a seriously damaging web of laws and regulations particularly harmful to society at large, while sucking up taxpayers’ resources and trust, and betraying the people’s interests in exchange for establishment and external interest connected personal gain.

Insect termites live in colonies that, at maturity, number from several hundred to several million individuals. The potency of Political System Termites has a bit less to do with their actual numbers, and much more with the power and freedom granted to them by the very same victims they feed and extract upon. After all, PSTs are in charge of making the laws and rules governing their own existence and survival.

A typical insect termite colony contains nymph workers, soldiers, and reproductive individuals of both genders, sometimes containing several egg-laying queens. A typical Political System Termite colony may include a Speaker of the PST Colony, Chairmen and Chairwomen of sub-colonies, congressional larva (aka aides), and extended networking PSTs in media and PR colonies.

The most significant difference between insect termites and Political System Termites has to do with their ecology. While the former are important in nutrient recycling, habitat creation, soil formation and quality, the later is not known for any positive contribution to the human eco system, at least not in the last few decades. The only known habitats for Political System Termites are those marked by social deceases such as bribery, greed, prostitution, treason …

This should be enough for a preliminary albeit simplified scientific definition and general description of Political System Termites. I will leave further and more expanded descriptions and literature to sociologists and political scientists in academia, where time always seem to be abundant to formulate definitions and answers into long winded gobbledygook no one ever seems to understand, let alone critique.

Instead, I will provide you with a short portrait of a known Political System Termite which acted as the Speaker of the PST Colony of Capitol Hill for nearly a decade. This example should sufficiently illustrate how these termites go about eroding and rotting the nation’s foundation, while putting in place laws meant to ensure further and easier erosion by their larva, the future PSTs.

PST Dennis Hastert: A Portrait

Dennis Hastert, a Republican member of the US House of Representatives from 1987 until 2007, represented Illinois’ 14th Congressional District, and served as the Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007.

Prior to his two-decade long career as a congressman, Hastert was a high school teacher in Chicago with a modest family income. Yet, somehow, he managed to become a multi-millionaire while in Congress: his financial net worth went from less than $270,000 in 1986 to an estimated $4 million to $17 million. No, this was not due to a rich wife or a sudden inheritance, nor was it due to winning a lottery. This fortune came about solely as a result of his activities as a Political System Termite. We will have more on this further down the article.

This PST, while hard at work with his comrade termites eroding and rotting the legislative foundation, while filling up his personal pockets with hard-earned taxpayers money and building a fortune, was involved in almost every major scandal involving the Capitol Hill PST Colony during the last decade: From the Jack Abramoff Scandal to the Mark Foley Disaster, from being pocketed by foreign government(s) to making millions in congressionally earmarked land deals.

Well, this PST may have had retired in 2007, but he is still sucking up taxpayers money, and not a meager amount. Let’s look at the latest on this PST and on our rotten system with real rotten laws drafted by even more rotten lawmakers to benefit the most rotten ones.

Last Monday Politico ran an exposé on Hastert, who’s been collecting and spending more than $40,000 of U.S. Taxpayers’ money per month, around half a million dollars of public money per year, while working for lobbyists and doing the usual dirty lobby work for foreign governments as a registered FOREIGN AGENT. That’s right. If you are not nauseated, disgusted, and outraged, then you haven’t really registered the significance of this ludicrous and appalling exposé. Let me quote directly from the article:

U.S. taxpayers are spending more than $40,000 per month on office space, staff, cell phones and a leased SUV for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, even as he works as a lobbyist for private corporations and foreign governments.

Now, this is pretty rotten on its own, but here is why I characterized our lobby-serving anti-public political system rotten, and those crafting and drafting the laws serving this system and themselves, as PSTs:

The payments are perfectly legal under a federal law that provides five years of benefits for former speakers — but only if Hastert never makes use of his government-funded perks in the course of his lobbying work. Ethics experts say that sort of separation is hard to maintain.

Hastert “has to be meticulous in his schedule to make sure there is no bleed from his publicly subsidized office into his private practice,” said Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission general counsel and congressional ethics authority. Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, called the arrangement “really concerning.”

“It is specifically prohibited — federal dollars can’t be spent on lobbying operations,” Ellis said. “We are paying for his staff [and] for a car, and we need to be very sure that he isn’t spending a dime of that money on lobbying operations. “That all needs to be above board, in the clear and transparent. And it’s not.”

So, what does Denny Boy have to say about all this:

Hastert declined to discuss the situation with POLITICO.

You must give the man credit; at least he’s been very consistent in never providing any answer, any comments, even any denial in every case – on every scandal, on every corruption case, and in regards to all never-investigated criminal deeds. This man’s record in this regard is so very long and his file of black deeds so very thick, so where do I begin and how much should I include?

Head Deep in Foreign Lobby Operations While in Office

I guess it is appropriate to start with a part of Hastert’s shady past (and obviously present) exposed by myself and by several other colleagues’ disclosures in the Vanity Fair article in September 2005:

It may be more than another embarrassing security scandal. One counter-intelligence official familiar with Edmonds’s case has told Vanity Fair that the F.B.I. opened an investigation into covert activities by Turkish nationals in the late 1990’s. That inquiry found evidence, mainly via wiretaps, of attempts to corrupt senior American politicians in at least two major cities—Washington and Chicago. Toward the end of 2001, Edmonds was asked to translate some of the thousands of calls that had been recorded by this operation, some dating back to 1997.

…

Sources familiar with this testimony say that, in addition to her allegations about the Dickersons, she reported hearing Turkish wiretap targets boast that they had a covert relationship with a very senior politician indeed—Dennis Hastert, Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House since 1999. The targets reportedly discussed giving Hastert tens of thousands of dollars in surreptitious payments in exchange for political favors and information.

Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes. To a person who knew nothing about their context, the details were confusing and it wasn’t always clear what might be significant. One name, however, apparently stood out – a man the Turkish callers often referred to by the nickname “Denny boy.” It was the Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. According to some of the wiretaps, the F.B.I.’s targets had arranged for tens of thousands of dollars to be paid to Hastert’s campaign funds in small checks. Under Federal Election Commission rules, donations of less than $200 are not required to be itemized in public filings.

…

So, what did Dennis Hastert have to say about all this? Just his usual:

Hastert’s spokesman says the congressman withdrew the genocide resolution only because of the approach from Clinton, “and to insinuate anything else just doesn’t make any sense.” He adds that Hastert has no affiliation with the A.T.C. or other groups reportedly mentioned in the wiretaps: “He does not know these organizations.” Hastert is “unaware of Turkish interests making donations,” the spokesman says, and his staff has “not seen any pattern of donors with foreign names.”

Approximately two years after Hastert’s denying all this – his association and business deals with shady Turkish operatives and lobbyists – he resigned and immediately went on the payroll of these same shady Turkish operatives and lobbyists:

Washington – The firm of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) will receive $35,000 a month to lobby for the Turkish government, the Hill newspaper reported on April 10 citing public filings made to the Department of Justice as part of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

…

In August 2005, Vanity Fair magazine published a story referring to a federal investigation that looked into payments that Turkish diplomats allegedly discussed making to then-Speaker Hastert and others in U.S. government in an effort to prevent the Genocide resolution from passing in 2000.While the speaker’s staff denied any knowledge of the matter, in December 2005 Mr. Hastert shed himself of $70,000 in “tainted” campaign contributions, directing them to an unspecified charity, the Village Voice reported at the time.

…

Okay, that’s enough background and highlights on Denny Boy betraying his country for cash and perks from other countries, the highly shady campaign contributions, and his nonverbal confession through actions – by becoming a foreign agent and lobbyist to those whose hands fed him throughout his years in public office. Let’s look at another scandalous incident involving this same Denny Hastert:

Neck Deep in Land-Deal Corruption

When Hastert, a former high school teacher, was first elected to Congress in 1986, he showed assets worth less than $270,000. By mid 2006, after his own real estate investments, Hastert’s net worth had increased to somewhere between $4 million to $17 million. Now, how did this happen? What kind of real estate investments are we talking about here? A very special kind, indeed!

Let’s take a look at an example of Señor Hastert’s not so savvy but so very corrupt and unethical land deal:

An investigation in June by the (Aurora) Beacon News, a sister paper to The Courier News, uncovered the land deals that netted the Yorkville Republican a $1.99 million profit.

In December 2005, Hastert sold for $2.48 million a 69-acre parcel of land he purchased in 2002, taking in a $1.7 million profit. Also that month, he sold for $627,000 a one-quarter interest in an adjacent 70-acre parcel he purchased in 2004, bringing him an additional $287,000 profit.

These deals came four months after Hastert helped earmark $207 million for the Prairie Parkway in the Federal Transportation Bill, which President George W. Bush signed while visiting the Fox Valley in the summer of 2005.

Here is another detailed account of this highly shady yet legal deal:

According to Hastert’s disclosure form and county property records, a 69-acre parcel was put into a trust, Little Rock Trust #225, on May 2, 2005.

Two months later, in July 2005, Hastert pushed the highway appropriation bill through a conference committee. On Aug. 6, 2005 President Bush appeared with Hastert at a ceremony in Illinois to celebrate the new highway’s funding. On Dec. 7, 2005 the trust sold the parcel of land to the developers.

That’s right; just like that!

Waist Deep in Jack Abramoff Scandal

Hastert and his PAC took more than $100,000 in contributions from Abramoff and his clients. In June 2003 Hastert, together with three other members of the GOP leadership, Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, and Eric Cantor, signed and sent a letter to oppose Indian Casino expansion that would have cut into the profits of one of Abramoff’s clients. Interestingly, neither Hastert nor any of the signatories represented any tribal interests! Here are some more interesting facts on this particular case:

Seven days before writing the letter, on June 3, 2003, Hastert attended a fundraiser for his leadership PAC, Keep Our Majority, at Signatures, a restaurant owned by Jack Abramoff. Keep Our Majority collected “at least $21,500 for his Keep Our Majority political action committee from the lobbyist’s firm and tribal clients.” Hastert then failed for two years to report using the restaurant for fundraising, and did not reimburse for the cost as he is supposed to. In total Dennis Hastert and his PAC, Keep Our Majority, took in well over $100,000 in contributions from Abramoff and his clients.

…

You may also remember this from a May 2006 report by ABC News:

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

…

The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.The day Abramoff was indicted, Hastert denied any unlawful connection and said he would donate to charity any campaign contribution he had received from Abramoff and his clients.

…

Consistent Denny! Always deny, and then, turn around and continue your shady and illegal operations bolder and even more daring than the previous ones!

Knee Deep in Mark Foley Disaster

During the early part of the Foley Scandal Hastert denied knowing about Foley’s Page problems, but later he was contradicted by several Republican members who said they’d briefed him on this matter directly. Hastert later changed his story and claimed he may have been told but did not remember the conversations. Good ole consistent Denny! In fact, the media and members of Congress called for his resignation as Speaker of the House. The actions of Hastert’s office were also the target of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.

Not only was he involved in the scandal itself, but during his involvement Hastert used his campaign funds to pay for legal fees associated with the Foley Scandal. Here are a few excerpts from a MSM exposé:

According to FEC documents, Hastert last January initially failed to disclose that legal fees had wiped out the final bit of cash he had in his campaign account. The Illinois Republican and former high school wrestling coach filed an amended finance report in February showing that his ’06 campaign had racked up $147,000 in legal expenses in connection with the Foley investigation. In order to avoid substantial fines (and further debt), Hastert quietly agreed last summer to shut down his campaign and pay a $1,000 penalty, the FEC documents show. When he publicly announced on August 17 that he wouldn’t be seeking re-election, Hastert didn’t mention his campaign’s legal debt from the Foley scandal, or the settlement his lawyers were brokering with the FEC.

…

It wouldn’t be difficult to fill several volumes on PST Hastert’s shady business deals, his involvements in high-profile criminal and corruption scandals, and his not very legal connections to and serving of foreign governments and entities. Most likely someone will write it; some day.

Meanwhile, as characteristic of all Political System Termites, Hastert continues to suck the public’s resources, and although technically outside the colony, through ever-expanding and far-reaching PST webs and networks, he is still at work: rotting and eroding the system.

Also very characteristically, this PST’s larva, despite their widely known and acknowledged intellectual and reputational challenges, have been supported and courted into becoming PSTs within the same colony and its network. The oldest one, Joshua, became a lobbyist for Podesta-Mattoon with hot-shot clients such as Lockheed Martin, and all this while his dad served as the Speaker of the PST Colony. Another one, Ethan, who was arrested and cited in 2001 on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and other traffic violations, who also happened to work for Dick Cheney while his dad headed the PST colony on Capitol Hill, is now running for his father’s old seat, set to prove himself a PST worthy and qualified for the Capitol Hill Colony.

As you can see Political System Termites are far more potent and destructive than insect ones. Looking at them, examining the species, as we briefly did with the one sample-Dennis Hastert, makes us ponder the validity and the real intent of the laws we are accustomed to abiding by. These legislations/laws are being formulated and drafted by our system’s termites. So who are these laws meant to serve? Who are they to benefit? One might think of the Patriot Act, funding for war(s), earmarks for ‘national security’…

And finally, all of you, at least those of you who live here in the States, are familiar with spotting and getting rid of insect termites: have your house inspected, use exterminators and treat your home if any are present. In a way, it is easier with some of these Political System Termites. All one has to do: vote them out; especially when you’ve determined their status as a PST. Then, why is it PSTs like Hastert kept getting reelected, every two years, even after all the exposures and scandals? That my friends, is the real question.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

It would appear that the True Believers of the Democratic Party are a entering the State of Denial over the “relationship” of Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky with a female Turkish spy.

In spite of the congresswoman’s claims that she has not been involved with the Turks, we know that in 2001, which is included in the time frame of wiretaps that Sibel Edmonds translated, Mehmet Celebi, of Hillary Clinton fame, donated $350 to Jan Schakowsky. Celebi was a fundraiser for another Chicago politician, Rahm Emanuel. Later, Celebi became a bundler for Hillary Clinton, raising $100,000 for her presidential campaign. She finally had to dump Celebi because of his role as producer of the Turkish film “Kurtlar Vadisi Irak“.

Celebi held high-level positions within the Chicago-based Turkish American Cultural Association (TACA) and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA). Both organizations had been “targets of an FBI counter-intelligence operation investigating the corruption and bribery of high-level US officials from 1997 onward.” Furthermore, the Celebi family in Turkey has been involved in arms- and narcotics-dealing and Mehmet Celebi admits to having:

” . . . worked in management capacity at some of the world’s largest financial institutions and has provided financial guidance to many high-net worth individuals and celebrities as well as corporations. He has been consulting some of the largest corporations in Turkey on mergers and acquisitions in addition to international funds wishing to invest in Turkey and the region.”

While Celebi was moving and shaking for the Democratic Party in Chicago, Schakowsky’s husband, Robert Creamer, a political consultant, was under investigation for bank fraud. The investigation was ongoing in 1998, which was well within the timeframe of the FBI wiretaps from Chicago that Sibel Edmonds translated. It may very well be that Turkish agents targeted Schakowsky in order to obtain favors from her husband. As Sibel stated in The American Conservative interview:

They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois.

Chicago has its connection to Susurluk, too. Abdullah Catli, a state assassin and narcotics trafficker, had long been a member of the Gray Wolves and was wanted by Interpol in the 1990s. Catli helped fellow Gray Wolf Mehmet Ali Agca escape from a Turkish military prison in 1979, just after Agca assassinated a newspaper editor but a few short years before he carried out the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II.

In 1989, Abdullah Catli, under the name Mehmet Ozbay, showed up at the Turkish consulate in Chicago to request a new passport. He showed up at the Chicago consulate for a second time in 1994 to pick up a new passport and request a new Turkish identity card. In 1995 he showed up a third time to request an extension of his required military service. It would also appear that Catli, as Ozbay, married an American, obtained a green card, and went on Interpol’s wanted list during the time that he was in the US.

More interesting is that he was also reported to have been issued an American passport under the name Michael Nicholsan.

Therefore, it’s pretty well established that one of Turkey’s most notorious state assassins and narcotics traffickers lived close enough to Chicago to be compelled to use Chicago’s Turkish consulate to obtain official documents.

In Vanity Fair’s 2005 piece on the Sibel Edmonds case, the magazine clearly established the fact that the FBI named Chicago as the epicenter of Turkish corruption operations targeting US officials.

It’s very difficult to believe that any politician from the Chicago area would have nothing to do with the Turkish community there. For Jan Schakowsky to deny any relationship would be utter foolishness, of course, because she’s been very much involved lately with the Fethullah Gulen movement through the Chicago-based Niagara Foundation, whose honorary president is none other than Hocaefendi himself. This year Schakowsky wrote a Letter of Recognition for the Niagara Foundations 2009 “Peace and Dialogue Awards”. And Schakowsky did the same in 2008 and in 2007.

Naturally, these facts raise questions. How intimately does Representative Schakowsky know the Niagara Foundation in order for her to show such consistent and strong support? What benefits does the Niagara Foundation provide Schakowsky and the City of Chicago? Since the Chicago City Council backs and promotes the Niagara Foundation, what is the foundation’s real connection to Mayor Daly and former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, both of whom are involved in major, ongoing corruption cases?

Inquiring minds want to know.

But could there really be any problem here with Fethullah Gulen? He represents the Islamist trend in Turkey which has generally been at odds with the Nationalists, especially with the ultra-nationalists known as Gray Wolves, right? That’s the simplistic explanation; the reality is far more complicated and would take us from Susurluk and Chicago to Ergenekon.