By Ben Barrack
If ever there was a political ‘odd couple’, George H.W. ‘Felix’ Bush and Bill ‘Oscar’ Clinton fit the bill. Sure, living U.S. presidents share things in common no one else on earth shares but the relationship between the 41st and 42nd Presidents respectively, always seemed to smack of being suspiciously close. In 2006, I saw Bush 41 speak at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and he referred to this relationship as such; he acknowledged it without explaining it.
The subsequent and logical unanswered question “why?” asked by several people, silently in their own minds, hung in the air and was never answered.
The catalyst for this relationship being so close may have nothing to do with America’s Islamic problem but the consequences of the desire to keep the details of it secret is another matter.
In the 1994 book COMPROMISED: Clinton, Bush and the CIA – which is still doing very well on Amazon – former Air Force Intelligence operative and CIA Agent Terry Reed chronicles nefarious dealings between then-Arkansas Governor Clinton and former CIA Director Bush, who was Vice President at the time. According to Reed, Clinton allowed the CIA to set up shop in his state, manufacturing untraceable weapons for the Contras in Nicaragua and much more. From the inside flap of the book, which is over 500 pages and packed with documents and photos:
The Arkansas-CIA connection became Clinton’s darkest secret – a secret shared by then Vice-President Bush, who himself was compromised by his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. Their shared guilt kept them silent and tied their hands as they faced off in the 1992 Presidential election with neither mentioning Iran-Contra… Reed puts Clinton directly in the “Iran-Contra Loop”. Both attended a secret meeting where CIA arms arrangements, illegal Contra training and money laundering were discussed… reveals the details and names of all who were involved, including those faceless power brokers now in positions of public prominence in Washington, D.C... More than $9 million a week in cash was secretly air dropped into Arkansas, which became the CIA’s domestic “banana republic”. These clandestine funds were laundered for the Agency and then used for the development of Arkansas industry… Bush’s sons were involved in a criminal conspiracy with the Medellin drug cartel in Colombia, a conspiracy that was being contained by the CIA…
That part about Clinton and Bush remaining silent with tied hands can logically be extended to their families (Hillary, George W. and Jeb), advisers (Karl Rove), leaders in the political establishment of both parties, and Party leadership groups like the DNC and the RNC. The administration of George W. Bush protected the Clintons as well. Perhaps no case better exemplifies this than the Oklahoma City bombing. When J.D. Cash uncovered the truth about Clinton administration involvement, the Bush Justice Department stonewalled like it was protecting Bush himself.
(to read more about the smoking guns Cash found, read Chapter 8 of Unsung Davids).
The Iran-Contra scandal broke open when an American cargo plane carrying weapons was shot down over Nicaragua in 1986. Pilots William Cooper and Wallace Sawyer, Jr. were killed. Damage control predictably ensued. The scandal, as it has become known, involved the CIA – which is not to be operating on U.S. soil – selling weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages. An added benefit was that the funds were diverted to aid the Contras in their war with the Communist Nicaraguan Sandinistas.
That official narrative is at near complete variance with Reed’s claims.
The Reagan administration circumvented Congress to support the Contras but if it were to be revealed that the CIA was operating on U.S. soil, involved in manufacturing untraceable weapons in Governor Bill Clinton’s state, and then shipping them outside the country, it would become a scandal that would disgrace, neuter, and criminalize some powerful families.
Fast forward to 2010. Operation Fast and Furious was exposed when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down near the Mexican-U.S. border. Guns found at the scene were traced back to an operation run out of the Department of Justice, in which ATF Agents instructed gun store owners to sell guns to straw purchasers who would be permitted to traffic those guns unimpeded into Mexico and delivered to drug cartels.
Frustrated Americans couldn’t understand why House Republican leadership (Speaker John Boehner) seemed disinterested in pursuing the scandal despite overwhelming evidence that implicated the Obama administration in a federal agent’s death. Based on the accepted version of events about Iran-Contra, awkward comparisons were being made between the two scandals by Democrats.
However, based on Reed’s claims, the comparisons were not awkward at all. They were spot-on. If Reed’s account is right, Boehner’s stonewalling would make sense if it meant keeping the truth about Iran-Contra in the closet. Ditto the Benghazi investigation. Boehner began his tenure in the U.S. Congress in 1991 and has long ago demonstrated his loyalty to the Republican Party establishment.
Speaking of the Republican Party establishment, every Presidential candidate endorsed by said establishment since Reagan would have either a.) had a personal stake in keeping Reed’s account of Iran-Contra silent (George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush) or b.) been someone who could be controlled by the establishment’s political consultants (Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney). It’s obvious that Jeb Bush is the establishment’s choice for 2016 and he falls into the ‘personal stake’ camp.
Conversely, on the Democrat side, Bill Clinton didn’t need to be controlled relative to Iran-Contra and neither did Hillary, who is assuredly the Democrats’ choice in 2016. If Reed is correct, Clinton vs. Bush in 2016 would be a ‘mission accomplished’ moment for those who seek to keep the truth about Iran-Contra hidden.
The only president since Reagan who has not had a personal stake (or consultants who did) in keeping Reed’s account secret is Barack Obama. In fact, he has been able to control both parties quite well. The Democrats are all-in on his agenda and the Republicans have been inexplicably paralyzed in the face of his repeated abuses.
If Reed’s account is right, what would Karl Rove – George W. Bush’s closest adviser – be doing today? Would he not be doing exactly what he’s doing today? He refuses to go away and Bob Woodward called him out on it. In 2012, Rove’s PACs and the RNC chose Mitt Romney. Many believe Reince Priebus is merely a figurehead for the RNC and that Rove is calling the shots. In addition, Rove’s mug is everywhere on the Fox News Channel and his Op-eds in the Wall Street Journal are quite prolific.
Another key player in the Reagan administration was Grover Norquist, who founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) at Reagan’s request in 1985, a year before Iran-Contra was exposed. It’s not clear what Norquist may or may not know about the scandal but what is clear is that his connections to Muslim Brotherhood groups and individuals in the U.S. is irrefutable. One such individual is Abdurahman Alamoudi. Another is Suhail Khan, whose father helped found the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). His mother sat on the board of a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter.
In fact, Norquist helped Khan become the White House gatekeeper relative to selecting Muslim leaders who the Bush administration partnered with before and after 9/11. Those Muslim leaders belonged to Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
In 2004, Norquist married a Palestinian Muslim woman named Samah Alrayyes. If – again I say IF – Reed’s account of Iran-Contra is correct and Norquist knows the truth, what are the odds his wife does as well? What are the odds that Suhail Khan knows it? Alamoudi? Multiple Muslim Brotherhood leaders? If they do know, what are the odds that Rove knows they know?
Have you ever heard Rove speak out against the Muslim Brotherhood? Inexplicably, last August, Rove was a signatory on a letter that expressed support for Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood Jihadists. Individuals who joined Rove included Bill Kristol, who was the Chief of Staff to Vice President Quayle during the first Bush administration; Elliott Abrams, a high-ranking diplomat under Reagan and both Bush administrations; and other Republican establishment figures. Regardless of motives, these 75 signatories were inexplicably and unnecessarily aligned on an issue the American people were overwhelmingly against.
Last year it was reported that Norquist’s ATR is largely funded by Rove’s Crossroads SuperPAC and that Norquist was the recipient of $26 Million in 2012, courtesy of Rove.
Silent with hands tied indeed.
Consider the issue of immigration. Conservatives all across America have been completely vexed by the desire of Republican establishment figures to grant amnesty to so many illegal aliens. Even the normally astute and incisive Rush Limbaugh couldn’t explain it. He gave it a shot by saying that Chamber of Commerce donors have been demanding it but doing so in exchange for the party committing suicide just didn’t make sense, even to Limbaugh.
Take a look at who supports amnesty:
- Karl Rove
- Grover Norquist
- Jeb Bush
- Jeb Bush, Jr.
- John Boehner
- George W. Bush
- George H.W. Bush
- Bush Institute
- All Democrats
What could support for amnesty have to do with Reed’s allegations about Iran-Contra? If both the Democrats and the Republican establishment have an inherent interest in keeping such truths hidden, who doesn’t?
Answer: Tea Party conservatives.
By passing amnesty, the conservative vote is marginalized. If this is one of the reasons behind such a strategy, the Republican establishment views Party survival as being less important than the self-preservation of the individuals who would be exposed. Would the desires of wealthy donors trump party survival? Would such a nefarious truth about Iran-Contra?
The part about ‘shared guilt (keeping people) silent’ is very real and an interesting dynamic. To illustrate the point, the same could be said about the Islamic connections of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (Malik Obama and Huma Abedin). Speaking of Obama and Clinton, the issue of the former’s relationship with Bill Ayers came up just once during the 2008 campaign debates when Hillary pointed out that her opponent served on boards with the unrepentant terrorist. Obama responded by bringing up the fact that Bill pardoned two Weather Underground members – Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg – while president; the issue was dropped and never brought up in another debate.
The issue widely attributed to sinking George H.W. Bush’s 1992 re-election campaign was his ‘Read my Lips. No new taxes’ moment.
However, an unexpectedly strong variable was thrown into the mix – Ross Perot. His decision to run siphoned more votes from incumbent Bush than Clinton.
If you lend credence to Terry Reed’s charges – and he makes a compelling case – Bush couldn’t sink Clinton with Iran-Contra because the fingerprints of both men were on it. Both men had been compromised.
The Clinton administration courted Muslim groups and individuals in the U.S. who had nefarious connections and deadly motives for the country. In 1996, a woman with extensive familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – Huma Abedin – began working for Hillary. The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal is to destroy the United States from within. Since that time, Abedin has risen to become Hillary’s closest and most trusted adviser, to include a stint as Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Clinton during Barack Obama’s first term.
Abedin has been with the Clintons for nearly 20 years. Again, if Reed is correct, what are the odds Hillary has filled Huma in on her husband’s exploits with the CIA in Arkansas?
Answer: Pretty darned good.
Just like the inexplicable Republican push for amnesty, so too was the establishment’s defense of Huma Abedin when Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen called attention to Abedin’s familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Republican defenders of Abedin included Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has shown loyalty to Jeb Bush and has supported amnesty; Boehner; Rep. Mike Rogers, who as House Intelligence Committee Chairman must know the truth; Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ); and others.
But perhaps the most vitriolic critic of Bachmann and defender of Abedin was Bachmann’s former Campaign Chief, Ed Rollins. He issued a stinging rebuke of Bachmann for going there. In part, Rollins – also a Fox News Contributor – wrote the following:
I can assure Mrs. Bachmann, that Ms. Abedin has been thru every top clearance available and would never have been given her position with any questions of her loyalty to this country.
Rollins began working in the Reagan administration in 1981 and was the National Campaign Director for Reagan’s 1984 re-election effort. Again, assuming Reed’s account is correct, Rollins could have a personal stake in keeping it suppressed as well. He was a Reagan loyalist and is likely very interested in keeping the 40th President’s legacy untarnished, even if Reagan knew much less about what was going on than did his Vice President. Can anyone come up with a better explanation for why Rollins would defend the increasingly indefensible Abedin?
In fact, Rollins addressed not one fact in his smearing of Bachmann.
Another example is that of Abdurahman Alamoudi. According to IPT News, Alamoudi became a representative for the Bill Clinton State Department in 1992 and spent Clinton’s two terms being the State Department’s representative for American Muslims. In 2003 – under the George W. Bush administration – Alamoudi was arrested on charges related to terrorism. In 2004, he was convicted. The Bush-appointed FBI Director at the time – Robert Mueller – resigned in 2013. Shockingly, when asked by Rep. Louie Gohmert at a House Judiciary Committee hearing if he knew the mosque attended by the Boston Marathon bombers was founded by Alamoudi, Mueller said “no”.
In fact, Mueller has seemingly done all he can to avoid mentioning or acknowledging Alamoudi. It’s such a radioactive subject that simply exploring it in any depth would implicate the two administrations he worked for – as well as the one that preceded it. Alamoudi may just be the key to unlocking the betrayal of this nation through Clintonian action and Bush inaction, both of which helped to usher in Obama administration destruction.
These realities have kept otherwise powerful people ‘silent and tied their hands’.
In any event, something has prevented the Republican Party from fighting the opposition while simultaneously motivating it to fight its conservative base.
So far, no one has come up with the answer and those who know aren’t telling us why they think selling out their nation is the best option.
Penn State University thought not telling us about Jerry Sandusky was the best option too.
How’d that work out?