Did our former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, like Vince Foster, have a Swiss Bank account? Does he still? Is his name on account number KPFBMMBODE at the Union Bank of Switzerland? Was that why Caspar Weinberger, Publisher Emeritus at Forbes, became so gung-ho to get Jim Norman's article Fostergate killed?
What is the relationship between Caspar Weinberger and Vince Foster?
What does Ron Perelman, an equity owner of Forbes and Revlon, have to say about all this? (Is there lipstick all over the Pentagon?)
Don't get me wrong. I think the Swiss banking system is the finest in the world, and we should ALL have Swiss banking accounts. We should ALL have the right to hide our assets from prying eyes. Just as long, of course, as those assets were fairly earned--and they don't represent payola from public defense projects. Or proceeds from the sale of bona fide national security secrets. Or payola to keep the knowledge of such sales secret.
Were Caspar Weinberger's Swiss assets simply savings from his paycheck and profits from his investments?
Are U.S. nuclear secrets for open sale on the world market from one of our alleged "allies"?
Bobby Ray Inman graduated from the Naval War College in 1972, became Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the Pacific Fleet in 1973, Director of Naval Intelligence in 1974, Vice Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1976, Director of the National Security Agency in 1977, and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence under Ronald Reagan in 1981. He left that post in March 1982. In December 1993 he was nominated by Bill Clinton to be Secretary of Defense. ("Bibliography of Bobby Ray Inman," Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, December 16, 1993.)
"After Admiral Inman's announcement that he would not serve as Clinton's Defense Secretary, the Hebrew press devoted a fair amount of space to the implications of that affair for Israel. . . . Most important among these writings were the articles by Amir Oren (Davar, January 28) and Yoav Karni, published the same day in the newly founded weekly Shishi. . . . Oren's article in particular stressed the incompatibility between Inman's past policy recommendations and Israeli political aims, especially in regard to nuclear developments. Both authors, who usually are mildly critical of Israel's policies but never of its nuclear build-up, were emphatic in their hostility toward Inman. Furthermore, Oren discussed in depth Pollard and Israeli espionage in the U.S. as having something to do with Israeli objections to Inman as a person and to his policy recommendations." (Israel Shahak, "Involvement of the pro-Israel lobby in the Inman affair," Report No. 133, February 11, 1994.)
Shahak goes on to note that: "When Yoel Markus (Haartez, December 31, 1993) spoke of the recent 'courtship' of Israel by various states, he concluded that 'this courtship has nothing to do with the peace process . . . When the U.S. is being ruled by an administration as favorably disposed to Israel as the present one, conviction spreads in every state that the only way to America's purse leads via Israel.' "
A chief objection to Inman was he might implement U.S. inspections of the Israeli nuclear production process at Dimona:
"Oren mentions a number of reasons why Israel loathed and feared Inman. But as the main of those reasons Oren projects the Israeli expectation that, if appointed the U.S. Defense Secretary, Inman would be able to put into effect independent American inspections of Israeli nuclear armaments and their production process in Dimona. It needs to be recalled that by virtue of a secret agreement with the U.S. reached during the first year of John F. Kennedy's term of office as president, the U.S. to this day receives only such information about Israeli nuclear power as Israel is pleased to convey. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco Kennedy needed the support of the 'Jewish lobby'. In order to get it, he okayed this curious agreement." (Israel Shahak)
Shahak cites evidence that much of Israel nuclear capability had been acquired through espionage directed against the U.S. (The following reference to "Critical Mass" is to a book called Critical Mass by William E. Burrows and Robert Windrem.)
"Yediot Ahronot's correspondents Tzadok Yehezkeli and Danny Sadeh (January 30), write in their review of the book "Critical Mass" . . . that 'Israel solicits money from wealthy Jews from all over the world for financing its nuclear weaponry programs. This fundraising drive is directed by a committee comprised of 30 Jewish millionaires'. . . . .
"[Tzadok Yehezkeli and Danny Sadeh] write that 'Israel is ever ready to launch its nuclear missiles on some 60 to 80 targets. Those targets include the sites in the Gulf, the capitals of all Arab states, some nuclear bases on the territory of the former USSR and some sites in Pakistan'. (I am convinced this is accurate.) It means that Israel must very much want to obtain the U.S. satellite information about the entire targeted area, a not so negligible part of the earth's surface. The existence of a so formidable nuclear power in Israel's hands can not be convincingly attributed to its own Research and Development efforts nor even to its role as a tool of American policies. On the contrary, a nuclear power of that magnitude must be presumed to run counter to U.S. imperial interests. The only plausible explanation is that Israel has acquired its nuclear power with at least some help of its 'Jewish friends' in the U.S. Yehezkeli's and Sadeh's information about 'the nuclear bases on the territory of the former USSR' fits well with what Geoffrey Aronson, relying on State Department sources, reveals about the Pollard affair ("The Christian Science Monitor", January 27). He writes that according to 'unanimous response' from these sources, what Pollard has been always said to have betrayed, were 'this country's most important secrets', namely the 'information relating to U.S. targeting of Soviet nuclear and military installations and the capabilities and defenses of these sites'. This seems to accord with Israel's global aspirations based on its nuclear power. Aronson also quotes his sources to the effect that much of intelligence passed on by Pollard 'was unusable to the Israelis except as bargaining chips and leverage against the United States and other countries' interests'. In view of this fact Aronson conjectures that Pollard's intelligence was used by Israel for deals with Moscow consisting of 'trading nuclear secrets for Soviet Jews'." (Israel Shahak)
Shahak goes on to quote Oren with respect to Jonathan Pollard: ". . . 'a Navy Intelligence employee, Jonathan Pollard, was caught red-handed while passing on to Israel precisely this kind of information which Inman had decided to withhold from Israel. . . . And interpreted likewise as coincidental were the links connecting Rafi Eitan, then the chief of the 'Office for Scientific Contacts' (LEKEM [also transliterated as LAKAM]), who employed Pollard, with the [Israeli] Defense minister, Ariel Sharon, who had appointed Eitan and who rushed to Washington in order to complain against Inman and his orders.'.... Eitan ran Pollard with the explicit approval of four Defense ministers and Prime Ministers, concretely Arens, Rabin, Shamir and Peres.'"
Rafi Eitan's reward for the Pollard affair? "After helping sell Iraqi oil all over the world, he now oversees the Israeli trade with Cuba" (Shahak).
Let me ask again: Are U.S. nuclear secrets for open sale on the world market from one of our alleged "allies"?
Are U.S. nuclear secrets for open sale by the Defense Department personnel who allegedly guard them?
Why did Mike McCurry, Press Secretary on the White House, spent time trying to convince Sarah McClendon, veteran White House journalist, that Jim Norman is a fruitcake?
If Jim Norman is a liar or a fruit cake, why did an editor at Insight magazine receive a visit from the Pentagon? Why was Jim Norman's in-progress interview with Jack Christie on the USA Radio Network today (July 23, 1995) interrupted for reasons of "national security"? If lying is a national security problem, what is Bill Clinton doing in the White House?
Why is it that the sale of bona fide national security secrets is tolerated, even rewarded with lucrative payments to Swiss accounts, while journalistic reports about THE LOOTING AND SALE OF U.S. NUCLEAR SECRETS are quashed as "national security"? Is the Pentagon run by lunatics and thieves?
"We have put our faith in the bomb, and it is the bomb which will answer our prayers."
--Henry Miller, The Time of the Assassins
[To be continued]
Posted to the Internet July 23, 1995