Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I would highly recommend members read this article by Robert Parry. Here is the opening passage of the article:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/110906.html

Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, is a trusted figure within the Bush Family’s inner circle, but there are lingering questions about whether Gates is a trustworthy public official.

The 63-year-old Gates has long faced accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq, and politicizing U.S. intelligence to conform with the desires of policymakers – three key areas that relate to his future job.

Gates skated past some of these controversies during his 1991 confirmation hearings to be CIA director – and the current Bush administration is seeking to slip Gates through the congressional approval process again, this time by pressing for a quick confirmation by the end of the year, before the new Democratic-controlled Senate is seated.

If Bush’s timetable is met, there will be no time for a serious investigation into Gates’s past.

Fifteen years ago, Gates got a similar pass when leading Democrats agreed to put “bipartisanship” ahead of careful oversight when Gates was nominated for the CIA job by President George H.W. Bush.

In 1991, despite doubts about Gates’s honesty over Iran-Contra and other scandals, the career intelligence officer brushed aside accusations that he played secret roles in arming both sides of the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, however, documents have surfaced that raise new questions about Gates’s sweeping denials.

For instance, the Russian government sent an intelligence report to a House investigative task force in early 1993 stating that Gates participated in secret contacts with Iranian officials in 1980 to delay release of 52 U.S. hostages then held in Iran, a move to benefit the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

“R[obert] Gates, at that time a staffer of the National Security Council in the administration of Jimmy Carter, and former CIA Director George Bush also took part” in a meeting in Paris in October 1980, according to the Russian report, which meshed with information from witnesses who have alleged Gates’s involvement in the Iranian gambit.

Once in office, the Reagan administration did permit weapons to flow to Iran via Israel. One of the planes carrying an arms shipment was shot down over the Soviet Union on July 18, 1981, after straying off course, but the incident drew little attention at the time.

The arms flow continued, on and off, until 1986 when the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal broke.

Gates also was implicated in a secret operation to funnel military assistance to Iraq in the 1980s, as the Reagan administration played off the two countries battling each other in the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War.

Middle Eastern witnesses alleged that Gates worked on the secret Iraqi initiative, which included Saddam Hussein’s procurement of cluster bombs and chemicals used to produce chemical weapons for the war against Iran.

Gates denied those Iran-Iraq accusations in 1991 and the Senate Intelligence Committee – then headed by Gates’s personal friend, Sen. David Boren, D-Oklahoma – failed to fully check out the claims before recommending Gates for confirmation.

However, four years later – in early January 1995 – Howard Teicher, one of Reagan’s National Security Council officials, added more details about Gates’s alleged role in the Iraq shipments.

In a sworn affidavit submitted in a Florida criminal case, Teicher stated that the covert arming of Iraq dated back to spring 1982 when Iran had gained the upper hand in the war, leading President Reagan to authorize a U.S. tilt toward Saddam Hussein.

The effort to arm the Iraqis was “spearheaded” by CIA Director William Casey and involved his deputy, Robert Gates, according to Teicher’s affidavit. “The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq,” Teicher wrote.

Ironically, that same pro-Iraq initiative involved Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan’s special emissary to the Middle East. An infamous photograph from 1983 shows a smiling Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Teicher described Gates’s role as far more substantive than Rumsfeld’s. “Under CIA Director [William] Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved and assisted [Chilean arms dealer Carlos] Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq,” Teicher wrote.

Like the Russian report, the Teicher affidavit has never been never seriously examined. After Teicher submitted it to a federal court in Miami, the affidavit was classified and then attacked by Clinton administration prosecutors. They saw Teicher’s account as disruptive to their prosecution of a private company, Teledyne Industries, and one of its salesmen, Ed Johnson.

But the questions about Gates’s participation in dubious schemes involving hotspots such as Iran and Iraq are relevant again today because they reflect on Gates’s judgment, his honesty and his relationship with two countries at the top of U.S. military concerns.

About 140,000 U.S. troops are now bogged down in Iraq, 3 ½ years after President George W. Bush ordered an invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate his supposed WMD stockpiles. One reason the United States knew that Hussein once had those stockpiles was because the Reagan administration helped him procure the material needed for the WMD production in the 1980s.

The United States also is facing down Iran’s Islamic government over its nuclear ambitions. Though Bush has so far emphasized diplomatic pressure on Iran, he has pointedly left open the possibility of a military option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Jan. 11, 1993, Russia's Supreme Soviet sent a secret cable to the U.S. Congress. The cable claimed that Russian national security files held evidence that two U.S. Presidents and two CIA directors had committed an act of treachery with Iran's radical Islamic government in 1980.

Despite its explosive potential, the document was kept from the American people. It was buried in a pile of cardboard boxes, left behind with a host of other unclassified and secret papers in an obscure storage room on Capitol Hill: a real-life "X-Files."

The document was sent to Lee G. Hamilton, Chairman of the Working Group of the House Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Congress who buried it.

Dear Mr. Lee G. Hamilton:

With excuses for the lengthy preparation of the response to your appeal, I am sending you the material in our possession which, as we hope, may help you in your work.

Secretary of the Committee, People's Deputy of the RF N. Kuznetsov

On the supply of American arms to Iran according to available information, the Chairman of the R. Reagan election campaign, William Casey, in 1980 met three times with representatives of the Iranian leadership, in particular with the arms dealers Djamshed and Kurosh Hashemi. The meetings took place in Madrid and Paris. At the meeting in Paris in October 1980, in addition to Casey, R. Gates, at that time a staffer of the National Security Council in the administration for Jimmy Carter and former CIA Director George Bush also took part.

In Madrid and Paris, the representatives of Ronald Reagan and the Iranian leadership discussed the question of possibly delaying the release of 52 hostages from the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, taken hostage by Iranian "students" and members of the "Corps of Defense of the Islamic Revolution" on 4 November 1979 until after the elections that took place in November 1980. In exchange for this, the American representatives promised to supply arms to Iran. This was asserted, in particular, by a former Israeli intelligence agent, Ari Ben-Menash, a Jew born in Iran and arrested in 1989 in the U.S. for supplying arms to Iran (arrested in California on charges of exporting contraband C-130 aircraft from the U.S. to Iran and who was in prison for 11 months and then freed). According to his calculation, the total value of the arms illegally delivered to Iran reached 82 billion dollars.

Data on attempts by the R. Reagan team to temporarily block the release of American hostages in Teheran are also contained in official statements of several Iranian figures, including Minister of Foreign Affairs Gotb-Zade in September 1980.

As terms for the release of the hostages Iran at that time proposed the unblocking of Iranian accounts in the USA, the return of the funds of the Shah and his family, the lifting of the economic blockade of Iran and the end of the embargo on supplies to Iran of spare parts for previously purchased American arms.

On the other hand, there has also appeared evidence that in 1980 there also took place negotiations between representatives of the Carter administration and the Iranian leadership, in the course of which the question of secret supplies to Iran of American arms and spare parts, the release of the American hostages and the unblocking of Iranian accounts was discussed. Thus, in July 1980 in the city of Athens, a delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) including Deputy Defense Minister Farivara, General Faroh-Zade, Colonel Veisi, Foreign Minister representative Etminana met with representatives of the Pentagon. An agreement in principle was reached on the supply of arms and spare parts for American weapons in Iran's possession.

In July 1980 in Athens, representatives of Washington and Teheran discussed a possible step-by-step normalization of Iranian-American relations, the provision of support for President Carter in the election campaign via the release of American hostages.

In accord with Athens agreement, in October 1980 a significant quantity of spare parts for F-4 and F-5 aircraft and also M-60 tanks were sent to Iran via Turkey. The Democrats, like the Republicans, started from the proposition that Imam Homeini, having announced a policy of "neither the West nor the East," and cursing the "American Devil," imperialism and Zionism, was forced to acquire American weapons, spares and military supplies by any and all possible means.

Military experts noted that, immediately after Islamic revolution in Iran, the government was faced with a sharp deficit of arms, spares, and military supplies with which to cut down the uprising of Iranian Kurds and carry out the war with Iraq that began in September 1980. The Iranian army in this period was based on Western, mostly American and British, arms, and the Air Force was totally equipped with U.S. planes.

The need for immediate supplies of arms and military equipment was also explained by the fact that after the revolution in Iran large orders for weapons deliveries to Iran of a total value of about 10.5 billion dollars were annulled.

In accord with the evaluation of sources in military circles, supplies of spare parts and military supplies from the U.S. through Israel which began in 1980 allowed the Iranian Air Force to carry out combat activities.

After the victory of R. Reagan in the election, in early 1981 a secret agreement was reached in London in accord with which Iran released the American hostages, and the U.S. continued to supply arms, spares and military supplies for the Iranian army. The organization of the deliveries was undertaken by Colonel of the General Staff of the IRI Domkan, and "Mossad" Colonel Yakus Marvidi. The latter played his part as the owner of a private firm buying arms of American production on the black market.

In March-April 1981, planes carried from Israel to Iran spares for the F-14 fighter and other military equipment. Through the Israeli conduit, Iran in 1983 bought surface-to-surface missiles of the "Lance" class plus artillery of a total value of 135 million dollars.

In July 1983 a group of specialists from the firm "Lockheed" went to Iran on English passports to repair the navigation systems and other electronic components on American-produced planes.

In 1985, supplies of arms from the U.S. to Iran via Israel took on a large-scale character. The arms were sent by planes and ships. 200 "Hawk" anti-aircraft missile systems and 2,000 "Tow" anti-tank missiles were sold to Iran. According to subsequent information, the Tow and Hawk missiles allowed the Iranian army to oppose the numerically superior tank units and air force of Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. government has been run for decades by criminals. So if you bring in someone like Gates with high-level experience in a criminal enterprise like the CIA, you are naturally bringing in a crook. That's just the way it is. He might make a "great" secretary of defense, as far as such secretaries go, just as Richard says Hillary Clinton will make a "great president." But they're still crooks.

I thought I understood the CIA, but maybe I don't. I never thought that the CIA would allow a dolt like Bush to make CIA director Tenet the fall guy for 9/11, out a CIA agent as in the Plame case, and most significantly to officially take the CIA down a notch, creating a national intelligence chief over the CIA and other intelligence agencies. On the latter, I knew that the CIA would not let its power and prestige be curtailed in such a way, even if the curtailment is largely cosmetic, but I was wrong.

Why did the CIA sit back and allow the government stooges on the 9/11 Whitewash Commission to recommend a national intelligence chief, unseating the CIA director in that role, and then let the recommendation march right through Congress, to be signed into law by Bush? Surely it was within the CIA's manipulative power (consider how masterfully it manipulated the HSCA) to see that such a recommendation failed, or that such a recommendation would not be made to begin with. What happened?

Presidents who have crossed the CIA before, or tried to, have dearly paid for it. But Dubya has not, he has jerked his daddy's beloved CIA around at will. I can only assume that Dubya has something on the CIA that has prevented it from being its usual ruthless and vengeful self in protecting its turf. And I suspect that that something is related to 9/11. The CIA could take the Bush gang down, but the Bush gang could take the CIA down with it. I can think of nothing else to explain this historical demotion of the CIA without a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The U.S. government has been run for decades by criminals. So if you bring in someone like Gates with high-level experience in a criminal enterprise like the CIA, you are naturally bringing in a crook. That's just the way it is. He might make a "great" secretary of defense, as far as such secretaries go, just as Richard says Hillary Clinton will make a "great president." But they're still crooks.

I thought I understood the CIA, but maybe I don't. I never thought that the CIA would allow a dolt like Bush to make CIA director Tenet the fall guy for 9/11, out a CIA agent as in the Plame case, and most significantly to officially take the CIA down a notch, creating a national intelligence chief over the CIA and other intelligence agencies. On the latter, I knew that the CIA would not let its power and prestige be curtailed in such a way, even if the curtailment is largely cosmetic, but I was wrong.

Why did the CIA sit back and allow the government stooges on the 9/11 Whitewash Commission to recommend a national intelligence chief, unseating the CIA director in that role, and then let the recommendation march right through Congress, to be signed into law by Bush? Surely it was within the CIA's manipulative power (consider how masterfully it manipulated the HSCA) to see that such a recommendation failed, or that such a recommendation would not be made to begin with. What happened?

Presidents who have crossed the CIA before, or tried to, have dearly paid for it. But Dubya has not, he has jerked his daddy's beloved CIA around at will. I can only assume that Dubya has something on the CIA that has prevented it from being its usual ruthless and vengeful self in protecting its turf. And I suspect that that something is related to 9/11. The CIA could take the Bush gang down, but the Bush gang could take the CIA down with it. I can think of nothing else to explain this historical demotion of the CIA without a fight.

Ron,

Here's your answer. This documentary is over an hour long, but well worth it. And it's not about missiles hitting the Pentagon or controlled explosions at the WTC. This is really good stuff.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=55...press+for+truth

RJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see this from Truthout re Levin and Gates?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111106A.shtml

Levin is an interesting character. He has occasionally said some suprisingly candid things. I recall hearing of a report he helped write recentlly that estimated that more than one half a trillion dollars of drug money was laundered in US banks. We could be in for either some limited hangouts or small plane crashes.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gates' belief in restraining curiosity remains with him in spite of his no longer having a Langley area code, (or as I've heard McClean Va in case it sticks out in the rolodexes of suicided researchers ;) )

While the President of Texas A&M, Gates recently attacked former Bush Admin. Chief economist at the Department of Labor Morgan Reynolds after Reynolds had publicly cast doubt in on the 9/11 commission, implying some degree of support for an inside job hypothesis. In an article in the new compilation by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Reynolds writes of

respond to Gate's attempt to publicly humiliate him, and intimidate others in positions of credentialed respect from speaking out against the Government's 9/11 CT. Summarizing Gates role in Iran-Contra, Reynolds throws down a Texas- size glove: "Gates, at the very least did not live up to the

Aggie Code." Then leaping forward, he discusses Gates knowledge of Afganistan ops:

Gates defends the absurd official tale about 9/11, according to which, in the words of the

9/11 Commission, "this immeasurable pain was inflicted by 19 young arabs acting at the

behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" But his status as an

"u;timate insider", especially within the workd of US intelligence, means that he surelyknows

better, much better. During Gates' CIA watch in the 1980s, the Agency created al-Qaeda,

the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden as anti-Soviet, pro-western assets. Although, Gates

would never admit it, he has to know that, in the words of Webster Tarpley, "High-Profile

International terrorism is not spontaneous: it is artificial and synthetic. (p. 110)

By the way, I very highly recommend this collection of essays, especially two extrordinary essays relating

to the Italian use of rightist state terror, known as the Strategy of Tension. These essays are:

"The Strategy of Tension" in the Cold War Period" by a Swiss historian named Daniele Ganser

and

"The War on Terror and the Pax Americana" by a Norwegian political scientist named Ola Tunander

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. government has been run for decades by criminals. So if you bring in someone like Gates with high-level experience in a criminal enterprise like the CIA, you are naturally bringing in a crook. That's just the way it is. He might make a "great" secretary of defense, as far as such secretaries go, just as Richard says Hillary Clinton will make a "great president." But they're still crooks.

I thought I understood the CIA, but maybe I don't. I never thought that the CIA would allow a dolt like Bush to make CIA director Tenet the fall guy for 9/11, out a CIA agent as in the Plame case, and most significantly to officially take the CIA down a notch, creating a national intelligence chief over the CIA and other intelligence agencies. On the latter, I knew that the CIA would not let its power and prestige be curtailed in such a way, even if the curtailment is largely cosmetic, but I was wrong.

Why did the CIA sit back and allow the government stooges on the 9/11 Whitewash Commission to recommend a national intelligence chief, unseating the CIA director in that role, and then let the recommendation march right through Congress, to be signed into law by Bush? Surely it was within the CIA's manipulative power (consider how masterfully it manipulated the HSCA) to see that such a recommendation failed, or that such a recommendation would not be made to begin with. What happened?

Presidents who have crossed the CIA before, or tried to, have dearly paid for it. But Dubya has not, he has jerked his daddy's beloved CIA around at will. I can only assume that Dubya has something on the CIA that has prevented it from being its usual ruthless and vengeful self in protecting its turf. And I suspect that that something is related to 9/11. The CIA could take the Bush gang down, but the Bush gang could take the CIA down with it. I can think of nothing else to explain this historical demotion of the CIA without a fight.

Ron,

Here's your answer. This documentary is over an hour long, but well worth it. And it's not about missiles hitting the Pentagon or controlled explosions at the WTC. This is really good stuff.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=55...press+for+truth

RJS

Excellent video. Anger inducing, as it should well be.

The "Jersey girls" are so courageous and inspiring. Horrible that it should

have taken such a tragedy to wake so many.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Gates is a dirty bird.

Ashton is correct, god knows what he was doing at Langley from 1966 to 1974.

He infiltrates the Carter administration and manipulates CIA director Stansfield Turner.

He leaks Carter's plans and strategies for dealing with Iran to the opposition party,

who treacherously engage in high stakes negotiations with the Radical Iranian Students

and apparently Gates was actually there in the Madrid/Paris meetings where the deal was

THE HOSTAGES STAY IN CAPTIVITY LONGER UNTIL REAGAN WINS

and this is the payoff, he can be Baker's man at the Pentagon now.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main question that needs answering is why did George W. Bush nominate Robert Gates as his Defense Secretary? He must have known that this decision would resurrect the two scandals in his father’s career: October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

George H. W. Bush came very close to being exposed as playing vital roles in both these highly secret operations (see Lawrence E. Walsh’s report on Iran-Contra). Fellow conspirators remained quiet because of promises made by Bush. These were kept when Bush became president. Bush appointed Robert Gates, as Director of the CIA (this enabled him to destroy any remaining documents held by the agency). Fellow conspirators, Richard L. Armitage and Donald P. Gregg, were given positions in his government. Those involved in the cover-up also received posts. Brent Scowcroft became his chief national security adviser and John Tower became Secretary of Defence. When the Senate refused to confirm Tower, Bush gave the job to another involved in the cover-up, Richard Cheney.

Bush therefore faced the possibility that Tower, who had headed the Tower Commission into Iran-Contra, would reveal what he knew. John Heinz, who chaired a three-man presidential review board that probed the Iran-Contra affair, was also a problem. However, on 4th April, 1991, Heinz died when his Piper Aerostar PA60 came down after colliding with a helicopter in Montgomery County. The following day, Tower was killed in a plane crash new New Brunswick, Georgia. According to the New York Times the “failure of a severely worn part in the plane’s propeller control unit caused the aircraft to spin out of control.”

By this time Bush had already pardoned fellow conspirators, Casper Weinberger, Robert McFarlane, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams and Alan D. Fiers, Jr., who had all been charged with offences related to the Iran-Contra scandal.

George W. Bush has therefore brought all these events out in the open by nominating Robert Gates. As Carl Levin, the Democratic senator for Michigan who voted against Gates when he was nominated to head the CIA in 1991, said yesterday “old issues concerning the politicisation of intelligence were relevant and deserved a new airing”.

Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, also promised yesterday to ask Robert Gates some difficult questions when Gates appeared before the Senate’s armed services committee. Let us hope that documents about October Surprise and Iran-Contra, that have been discovered by investigative journalists like Robert Parry, are passed to people like Levin and Feinstein.

Bush must have known this would happen. It has been suggested that GWB still has hang-ups about the success of his father. True, he only served one-term, but he managed to get out of office with his reputation still in tack. This is unlikely to be the case with GWB. I know it is all very Freudian, but is GWB trying to destroy the reputation of GHWB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
"If Carter got the hostages out before the election, the public perception of the man might change and he might be elected for a second-term...."

And, but for the old October surprise who knows. All hostages released within minutes of the Gippa signing on, Whoda thought it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George W. Bush is stupid, but Robert Gates isn't. I'm sure that Gates, by accepting the nomination, will be prepared to answer all questions, and I'm also sure that not all questions will be asked. Also, I'm sure that Karl Rove will come up with something to distract the sheeple's attention, some news event or events for predictable saturation coverage by the corporate media, during the Gates confirmation hearing.

The Bush regime is still to be feared, despite which party will now "control" Congress. Levin and Feinstein aren't stupid either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main question that needs answering is why did George W. Bush nominate Robert Gates as his Defense Secretary? He must have known that this decision would resurrect the two scandals in his father’s career: October Surprise and Iran-Contra.

It's part of why I said I think the Bush dynasty is circling the wagons. Their choices of loyalists who have protected their dirtiest secrets have eroded, not only through natural attrition, but through revelations in a variety of places—over the past five to ten years especially.

Personally, I don't believe that Bush the Younger is in the grip of any psychobabble repressed desire to do Daddy harm. On the contrary, my opinion, with what I consider to be some foundation, is that Bush the Younger was involved as early as May 1972 in some of Papa George's dirtiest deeds, which may even account for Little George's AWOL adventures and whereabouts.

I think they believe that they have October Surprise and Iran-Contra "contained and explained" enough that it's a lesser evil to have to defend than having the still-sealed crawl-space under the house opened up to public scrutiny and the bodies exhumed.

It's exactly why I wrote Actual Notice—TREASON and MISPRISION OF TREASON on 18 July 2006, and stand by every syllable and punctuation mark at this instant.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gates must be approved by the Senate before being confirmed as Sec Def. and will be questioned by Senate Committees. John Judge wonders if Gates will be questioned about the JFK Act.

Robert Gates, who was CIA Director under President GWH Bush, should be asked if the elements of this signing statement were ever used to block release of CIA files on the JFK assassination records they had, especially on the Oswald files. - John Judge

The American Presidency Project americanpresidency.org € George Bush

Statement on Signing the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 October 26th, 1992.

Today I am signing into law S. 3006, the "President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992." This legislation provides for the review and, wherever possible, the release of records about the assassination of President Kennedy that have not yet been made public. I fully support the goals of this legislation.

In the minds of many Americans, questions about President Kennedy's assassination remain unresolved. Although the Government already has released many thousands of documents, the existence of additional,

undisclosed documents has led to speculation that these materials might shed important new light on the assassination. Because of legitimate historical interest in this tragic event, all documents about the assassination should now be disclosed, except where the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise.

While I am pleased that this legislation avoids the chief constitutional problems raised by earlier versions of the bill considered by the Congress, it still raises several constitutional questions. First, S. 3006 sets forth the grounds on which the release of documents may be postponed, but this list does not contemplate nondisclosure of executive branch deliberations or law enforcement information of the executive branch (including the entities listed in sections 3(2) (G) through (K)), and it provides only a narrow basis for nondisclosure of national security information. My authority to protect these categories of information comes from the Constitution and cannot be limited by statute. Although only the most extraordinary circumstances would require postponement of the disclosure of documents for reasons other than those recognized in the bill, I cannot abdicate my constitutional responsibility to take such action when necessary. The same applies to the provision purporting to give certain congressional committees "access to any records held or created by the Review Board." This provision will be interpreted consistently with my authority under the Constitution to protect confidential executive branch materials and to supervise and guide executive branch officials.

Second, S. 3006 requires the Board to report to the President and the Congress. If the bill were interpreted to require simultaneous reports,

S.3006 would intrude upon the President's authority to supervise

Subordinate officials in the executive branch. I will construe the provisions to require that the Board report to the President before it reports to the Congress.

Third, the bill purports to set the qualifications for Board members, to require the President to review lists supplied by specified organizations, and to direct the timing of nominations. These provisions conflict with the constitutional division of responsibility between the President and the Congress. The President has the sole power of nomination; the Senate has the sole power of consent.

I note also that S. 3006 provides that, upon request of the Board,

Courts may enforce subpoenas that the Attorney General has issued at the Board's urging. I sign this bill on the understanding that this provision does not encroach upon the Attorney General's usual, plenary authority to represent the agencies of the United States, including the Board, whenever they appear in court.

S. 3006 will help put to rest the doubts and suspicions about the assassination of President Kennedy. I sign the bill in the hope that it will assist in healing the wounds inflicted on our Nation almost 3 decades ago.

George Bush

The White House,

October 26, 1992.

Citation: John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide Web:

(http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21673).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gates must be approved by the Senate before being confirmed as Sec Def. and will be questioned by Senate Committees. John Judge wonders if Gates will be questioned about the JFK Act.

Robert Gates, who was CIA Director under President GWH Bush, should be asked if the elements of this signing statement were ever used to block release of CIA files on the JFK assassination records they had, especially on the Oswald files. - John Judge

I remember Gates making a big show of handing over the CIA's "Oswald file" to a Senate or House committee in a televised hearing. I don't know what Oswald file it was supposed to be, except of course there was nothing in it of any significance.

Gates also choked up a bit (or pretended to) as he recounted for the committee how he stood on the sidewalk in DC as JFK's funeral procession went by. I even remember thinking as I watched his performance, "What an actor."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...First, S. 3006 sets forth the grounds on which the release of documents may be postponed, but this list does not contemplate nondisclosure of executive branch deliberations or law enforcement information of the executive branch (including the entities listed in sections 3(2) (G) through (K)), and it provides only a narrow basis for nondisclosure of national security information. My authority to protect these categories of information comes from the Constitution and cannot be limited by statute. Although only the most extraordinary circumstances would require postponement of the disclosure of documents for reasons other than those recognized in the bill, I cannot abdicate my constitutional responsibility to take such action when necessary. The same applies to the provision purporting to give certain congressional committees "access to any records held or created by the Review Board." This provision will be interpreted consistently with my authority under the Constitution to protect confidential executive branch materials and to supervise and guide executive branch officials.

...George Bush

The White House

Does anyone have a compiled list of documents that have been withheld under the Carte Blanche that King George wrote out for himself on the back of the Constitution?

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...