Dec 03 2005

More CIA Wars

Published by at 2:30 pm under All General Discussions,Plame Game

A must read by Mona Charon on all the leaking going on in Langley Virginia. Money line:

The CIA is no longer in the business of political assassination.

It has, however, moved on to character assassination.

OK. Shut it down then. There is capacity in the DoD and NSA to cover for them if they aren’t too busy to spend all their time talking to the press.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “More CIA Wars”

  1. sbd says:

    The CIA is also involved with the bribe scandal of Randy Cunningham!!


    Randy Cunningham is a legitimate war hero – unlike John Kerry. He was America’s first ace pilot in Vietnam. After two previous kills, on May 10, 1972, flying his Phantom F-4J, he shot down three enemy MiG fighters in a single dogfight. Then his plane was hit by a SAM missile; he ejected and ditched into the South China Sea where he was helo-rescued. He was awarded the Navy Cross.

    I’ve known him ever since he became a Congressman in 1990, and always thought he was an admirable guy. And he was, a real hero. Yet his being a hero did not prevent him from becoming a crook.

    John Murtha is a legitimate war hero – unlike John Kerry. He won two real Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star in combat in Vietnam. He deserves our admiration and respect for his heroism just as much as does Randy Cunningham. Yet his being a hero did not prevent him from becoming a moral coward – and a crook — in Congress.

    The Los Angeles Times revealed on June 14, 2005 that Murtha, as the top Democrat on House Defense Appropriations, has been funneling tens of millions of taxpayer dollars into KSA Consulting, the lobbying company of his brother, Kit Murtha, and KSA clients.

    Last year, Murtha strongarmed the Navy into transferring the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, which had a contract with a company called Lennar, Inc. to “redevelop” the 500-acre site bringing millions in profits to Lennar. The Senior Vice-President of Lennar is Laurence Pelosi, Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi’s stepson.

    This year, Murtha inserted several “earmarks” (specifically designated appropriations) into various defence bills giving millions of federal research dollars to companies owned by the children of Democrat Congressman Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania’s 11th district adjoining Murtha’s 12th.

    Crooked enough for you? Welcome to Washington. This is the way “business” is conducted here. There are – trust me on this – a significant number of Congressmen and Senators of both parties who have integrity and don’t sell their votes for personal gain to themselves, family, or friends. But they are – trust me on this as well – not in the majority.

    The corruption on Capitol Hill is so rampant that exposure of it is odd – and indeed, there are some exceedingly odd aspects to the bribery of Randy Cunningham.

    Let’s start with this: the company that bribed Cunningham, MZM, Inc., is a CIA front company. Until the Pentagon canceled its contract with MZM as the bribery charges surfaced, MZM was doing hundreds of millions of dollars of private intelligence work for the Pentagon and the CIA. It even had a contract to buy $140,000 worth of office furniture for the Bush White House.

    Cunningham was on the defense intelligence committee, so could steer lucrative contracts to MZM. In return, MZM Chairman Mitchell Wade bribed Randy with over $2 million worth of real estate, cars, and luxury stuff. MZM execs made a big public deal of making large contributions to Randy’s election campaigns – and those of several other Repubicans such as Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Virgil Goode (R-VA) and Katherine Harris (R-FL).

    No Democrats. Only donations to Republicans. Hidden from public view was MZM’s donations to a liberal activist group called Summit PAC which raises money exclusively for Democrats and the Democrat National Committee.

    In other words, MZM was setting up Republicans with public donations and secretly laundering donations to Democrats.

    The question immediately arises: Was nailing Randy Cunningham a CIA sting operation?

    The answer is no – it was a CIA Rogue Weasel sting.

    Under George Tenet, the CIA waged a covert war against the Bush Presidency. Under Porter Goss, it is not. Porter has been weeding out the “Rogue Weasels” ever since he took over Langley in September of last year. MZM was set up by and is riddled with RWs.

    I first told you about the Rogue Weasels a year ago in The CIA in Deep Qaaqaa. Before then, I explained how the CIA is a left-wing agency in Porter At The Pass. Here’s an excerpt:

    “Most folks think the CIA is a right-wing outfit. It is not. The CIA has been dominated by incompetent left-wing hyper-liberals for years. The worst mistake of George Bush’s presidency was not replacing Clinton holdover George Tenet as CIA Director. This is a guy responsible for the single greatest intelligence failure in US history (being unaware of 9-11), who sweet talked his way into Bush’s confidence and was able to keep his job because he named the CIA Headquarters after his father.

    “The CIA doesn’t simply live in a pre-September 11 world where terrorism is only a “nuisance” – it is that the CIA lives in a left-wing world, the same left-wing world as the State Department. Both worship at the Shrine of Accommodation, Appeasement, and Compromise. Both Langley and Foggy Bottom bureaucrats hate George Bush for alienating the Euroweenies and taking the fight to the Moslem terrorists. Both are working overtime to do what they can to secure Bush’s defeat.”

    This is the key to understanding the “Plamegate” CIA leak scandal, the leak of the CIA “secret prisons,” the Randy Cunningham sting, and so much else. Left-wing CIA Rogue Weasels are continuing their covert war on George Bush – and now Porter Goss’s CIA.

    This in no way excuses Cunningham. To get stung you must be willing to be stung. Randy’s a crook and he’s going to do time. But will John Murtha? Will MZM Chairman Mitchell Wade?

    Yes, we have a grand monumental conspiracy conducted by CIA RWs, the Democrat leadership, and the BNM (Bad News Media) left-wing media cabal, all working in concert to create scandals demonizing Bush in particular and Republicans in general.

    The goal is clear: for the Democrats to seize control of the House and Senate in 2006, the White House in 2008, at which time the RWs will all be back running the CIA. The conspiracy is being pulled off right under the American public’s nose – and so far, it’s working.

    Ps: In case you’re wondering about the MZM White House furniture contract. The CIA makes very special furniture, like chairs that record the biometrics (heart rate, etc.) of the person sitting in it. Obviously now, one wonders if the info recorded wasn’t being channeled to RWs.

    Also, MZM had extensive contracts for translation services in Iraq. Just think of the mischief RWs could cause with that.


  2. […] The Strata-Sphere Rhymes With Right Slantright Never Yet Melted Filed in: The Plame Affair | No Comments » […]

  3. BurbankErnie says:


    Heck of an article. Thanks for posting.

  4. Snapple says:

    What do you mean CIA front?

    Do you mean the CIA set this company up or do you mean that they used it for a lot of their work?

    I am not saying you are wrong. I am just asking for more information.

    It’s terrible what you say about corruption being so pervasive.

  5. sbd says:

    Hello Snapple,
    I am sorry that my posting gave the impression that I wrote it, but I did not. I put the link to the author’a page, but for some reason the author’s name did not come over when I posted. The author is Dr. Jack Wheeler.

  6. sbd says:

    Regarding your question about MZM as a front company, I believe it falls into the category of private intelligence/war firm. After doing some research, I was supprised how many private military firms are in operation. Maybe Joe Wilson went to Niger in 1999 to make a deal for a private military firm to secure the country after a Niger general ambushed and killed the Niger President in April 1999.″>Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and Its Ramifications for International Security
    BYLINE: P.W. Singer; P.W. Singer is an Olin Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution.; This article was written while the author was a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He would like to thank the BCSIA International Security Program, the MacArthur Transnational Security Program, Graham Allison, Robert Bates, Doug Brooks, Laura Donohue, Samuel Huntington, Susan Morrison, Benjamin Runkle, and the many military industry interviewees for their help in the research and writing process.


    Not all PMFs look alike, nor do they serve the same market. The privatized military industry is organized according to the range of services and levels of force that its firms are able to offer. Figure 2 illustrates the organization of firm types, drawn in part from an analogy prevalent in military thought the “tip of the spear” metaphor. According to this typology, units in the armed forces are distinguished by their location in the battlespace in terms of level of impact, training, prestige, and so on. Importantly, this categorization is also correlated with how business chains in the outsourcing industry as a whole break down, thus allowing useful cross–field parallels and lessons to be drawn. The industry is divided into three types: (1) military provider firms, (2) military consulting firms, and (3) military support firms.

    TYPE 1. Military provider firms focus on the tactical environment. They offer services at the forefront of the battlespace, engaging in actual fighting or direct command and control of field units, or both. In many cases, they are utilized as “force multipliers,” with their employees distributed across a client’s force to provide leadership and experience. Clients of type 1 firms tend to be those with comparatively low military capabilities facing immediate, high-threat situations. PMFs such Executive Outcomes and Sandline that offer special forces–type services are classic examples of military provider firms. Other firms with battlefield capabilities include Airscan, which can perform aerial military reconnaissance. Nonmilitary corollaries to type 1 firms include sales brokers, who represent manufacturers that have outsourced their retail forces, and “quick fill” contractors in the computer programming industry.

    TYPE 2. Military consulting firms provide advisory and training services. They also offer strategic, operational, and organizational analysis that is often integral to the function or restructuring of armed forces. Their ability to bring to bear a greater amount of experience and expertise than almost any standing force can delegate on its own represents the primary advantage of military consulting firms over in–house operations. MPRI, for example, has on call the skill sets of more than 12,000 former military officers, including four–star generals.

    The critical difference between type 1 and type 2 firms is the “trigger finger” factor; the task of consultants is to supplement the management and training of their clients’ military forces, not to engage in combat. Although type 2 firms can reshape the strategic and tactical environments, the clients bear the final battlefield risks. Type 2 customers are usually in the midst of force restructuring or aiming for a transformative gain in capabilities. Their needs are not as immediate as those of type 1 clients, and their contract requirements are longer term and often more lucrative. Examples of type 2 firms include Levdan, Vinnell, and MPRI. The best nonmilitary corollaries are management consultants, with similar subsector divisions. Some firms, such as McKinsey, focus on strategic issues (as does MPRI) while others, such as Accenture, focus on more technical issues (as does SAIC).

    TYPE 3. Military support firms provide rear–echelon and supplementary services. Although they do not participate in the planning or execution of direct hostilities, they do fill functional needs that fall within the military sphere including logistics, technical support, and transportation that are critical to combat operations. The most common clients of type 3 firms are those engaged in immediate, but long–duration, interventions (i.e., standing forces and organizations requiring a surge capacity).

    Whereas type 1 and type 2 firms tend to resemble what economists refer to as “free–standing” companies (i.e., companies originally established for the purpose of utilizing domestic capital advantages to serve targeted external markets), type 3 firms bear a greater similarity to traditional MNCs. n41 Seeking to maximize their established commercial capabilities, these firms typically expand into the new military support market after having achieved dominance in their earlier ventures. For example, Ronco, which was once only a development assistance company, has moved into demining. Meanwhile, the Brown & Root Services division of Halliburton, which originally focused on domestic construction for large–scale civilian projects, has found the military engineering sector to be profitable as well. Brown & Root has augmented U.S. forces in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia, and most recently secured a $1 billion contract to support

    U.S. forces in Kosovo. Besides the dual–market firms listed above, civilian corollaries to type 3 firms include supply-chain management firms.

    n41. Mira Wilkins, The Free–Standing Company in the World Economy, 1830–1996 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 3.


  7. sbd says:

    Saddam’s Shadow-The Clinton Adminitration knew about Iraq Uranium
    From the Lexis database

    Saddam’s Shadow Africa Energy & Mining June 18, 1997

    Copyright 1997 Indigo Publications Africa Energy & Mining

    June 18, 1997


    HEADLINE: Saddam’s Shadow

    BODY: It’s not only diamonds and base metals that interest big mining companies and the latter are not alone in being interested in Katanga. In the delegation that the United States sent to Kinshasa on June 2 under its ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, the state department’s African affairs department was represented by Marc Baas, director for Central Africa. (Susan Rice, director for African Affairs at the National Security Council, has just been appointed under secretary of state for African affairs in succession to George Moose). Baas was accompanied by a representative of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and several Defense Department officials. The mission also visited Lubumbashi and met with officials from Gecamines and provincial authorities.

    AEM’s sources claim it wasn’t the small research reactor that General Electric installed in 1977 at the university of Kinshasa, and which ceased operating in 1990, that interested the NRC and the military men, but rather the Shinkolobwe uranium deposit. Its resources are negligible from a commercial viewpoint when weighed against those in Namibia and Niger and new discoveries like France’s Cogema has just made in western Canada. They weren’t negligible from the security standpoint, however. The Americans are concerned over a visit to Katanga by the head of the Iraqi Baath party’s international relations section, Shabi Al Maliki, around a year ago. He, too, showed an interest in Katanga’s uranium, and last February another high-ranking Iraqi official reportedly held talks in Kinshasa with the mines minister in the last government of the Mobutu era, Banza Mukalay. The uranium is thought to have also figured in Libya’s proposals in 1995 to supply oil to Zaire in exchange for ore.

    Richardson said on June 7 that president Laurent Kabila had given permission for a UN mission to come to the country to investigate the plight of Hutu refugees starting from July 7. Richardson qualified the green light as “a breakthrough on the human rights and humanitarian front.” For his part, Brian Atwood, director of U.S.AID, announced in Brussels on June 11 that potential donors would shortly meet for talks on aiding the Democratic Republic of Congo. But such assistance would be conditional on Congo respecting human rights, Atwood indicated. He added that Washington wanted the Kabila government to succeed because if it did not this could result in violence spreading to other countries. He issued an appeal to all governments to use their influence to halt atrocities which various reports indicate are occurring in the eastern part of the country. He said that “organized groups and independent groups” were attempting to strengthen their positions in the eastern regions.

    South Africa, for its part, is putting together a team to advise Kabila on reconstructing the country and reorganizing its finances (AEM 205). Deputy president Thabo Mbeki said last week the team would be ready to leave within days and that its members would be chosen in agreement with the Congo government “to discuss a variety of matters that impact on the socioeconomic situation.”

    He added that Congo’s leaders had asked that it consist of officials from South Africa’s “Reserve Bank, the economic ministries and people dealing with infrastructure, public administration and so on.” Officials said south Africa’s foreign minister, Alfred Nzo, discussed Kinshasa’s needs with Congo foreign minister Bizima Karaha at the recent Organization of African Unity summit in Harare. The South African mission will be headed by deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad.

    LOAD-DATE: June 20, 1997