Baker’s ISG report is all about lining Baker’s Pockets. My Friend Chaim from Freedom’s Cost wrote the post below–I think it is worth sharing—as usual Chaim has unearthed some little known published reports on Baker and his ISG that I haven’t read anywhere else. It seems that Baker is not only a Jew hater, but he is a crook too. You see, while he is acting as a Presidential adviser with regards to the ISG, at the same time he is acting as an agent for Kuwait AGAINST Iraq.
MMMM Mr Baker What’s that sound I hear when you talk about your plan for the Middle East? Could it be the sound of you lining your pockets with Iraqi Oil money? Is that why you want to destroy Israel? So you can hear more of that sound….CLINK… CLINK….Look at their faces Mr Baker..Jewish Faces..Faces of children from Jerusalem blown up on buses on the way to school..Clink, Clink..faces of the victims of Hamas missiles…Clink, Clink…the faces of the survivors of an Iraqi Nuclear attack on Tel Aviv..Clink Clink..but you don’t see those faces…after all, they are only Jewish faces …they don’t count…but you hear…Clink.Clink…the sound of coins…Clink Clink…Kill Jews Get More Money in your Pockets..Iraqi Oil Money via Kuwait..Clink….Clink…but, G-d willing, one day that will be the sound of a Heavenly Jailer putting chains around you !…… ..Clink…Clink.
Please Read Chaim’s Brilliant Post below
I found an interesting and damning tidbit about James Baker (the murderer of 2918 heroic Americans in Iraq) in the November 1, 2004 issue of The Nation:
Until now, there has been no concrete evidence that Baker’s loyalties are split, or that his power as Special Presidential Envoy–an unpaid position–has been used to benefit any of his corporate clients or employers. But according to documents obtained by The Nation, that is precisely what has happened. Carlyle has sought to secure an extraordinary $1 billion investment from the Kuwaiti government, with Baker’s influence as debt envoy being used as a crucial lever. The secret deal involves a complex transaction to transfer ownership of as much as $57 billion in unpaid Iraqi debts. The debts, now owed to the government of Kuwait, would be assigned to a foundation created and controlled by a consortium in which the key players are the Carlyle Group, the Albright Group (headed by another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright) and several other well-connected firms. Under the deal, the government of Kuwait would also give the consortium $2 billion up front to invest in a private equity fund devised by the consortium, with half of it going to Carlyle.
At a time when James Baker was supposed to help reduce Iraq’s debt to various countries around the world, not only did he ignore his mandate in favor of a client (obviously, for Mr. Baker, a corporate client must rate far above the country’s interests!) but as the above article further says:
The Nation has obtained a copy of the confidential sixty-five-page “Proposal to Assist the Government of Kuwait in Protecting and Realizing Claims Against Iraq,” sent in January from the consortium to Kuwait’s foreign ministry, as well as letters back and forth between the two parties. In a letter dated August 6, 2004, the consortium informed Kuwait’s foreign ministry that the country’s unpaid debts from Iraq “are in imminent jeopardy.” World opinion is turning in favor of debt forgiveness, another letter warned, as evidenced by “President Bush’s appointment…of former Secretary of State James Baker as his envoy to negotiate Iraqi debt relief.” The consortium’s proposal spells out the threat: Not only is Kuwait unlikely to see any of its $30 billion from Iraq in sovereign debt, but the $27 billion in war reparations that Iraq owes to Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion “may well be a casualty of this U.S. [debt relief] effort.” In the face of this threat, the consortium offers its services. Its roster of former high-level US and European politicians have “personal rapport with the stakeholders in the anticipated negotiations” and are able to “reach key decision-makers in the United Nations and in key capitals,” the proposal states. If Kuwait agrees to transfer the debts to the consortium’s foundation, the consortium will use these personal connections to persuade world leaders that Iraq must “maximize” its debt payments to Kuwait, which would be able to collect the money after ten to fifteen years. And the more the consortium gets Iraq to pay during that period, the more Kuwait collects, with the consortium taking a 5 percent commission or more. The goal of maximizing Iraq’s debt payments directly contradicts the US foreign policy aim of drastically reducing Iraq’s debt burden. According to Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, this means that Baker is in a “classic conflict of interest. Baker is on two sides of this transaction: He is supposed to be representing the interests of the United States, but he is also a senior counselor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq.” After examining the documents, Clark called them “extraordinary.” She said, “Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker’s current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government.”
Baker’s Realpolitik policies as Secretary of State brought about a whole slew of disasters on America. The current war in Iraq is the direct result of his saving Sadddam Hussein’s neck, twice, but the man has the gall to use his position as an American envoy for personal profit and to the detriment of the mission he was entrusted. Folks, as Professor Kathleen Clark said in the partagraph above said, Baker is in a “classic conflict of interest. Baker is on two sides of this transaction: He is supposed to be representing the interests of the United States, but he is also a senior counselor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq.” After examining the documents, Clark called them “extraordinary.” She said, “Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker’s current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government. Were such actions taken by an officer of any other corporation, he or she would have been prosecuted, found guilty and locked up for a long term… and rightfully so! Mr. Baker, however, not only was not prosecuted he actually rose to higher positions of influence and now produced a report which not only reflects morally and politically bankrupt ideas which can benefit only his clientele. To have such an individual in a position to influence American policy (actually, if one reads the report, the ISG members arrogantly think they are dictating policy) around the world, is a dangerous farce! It speaks volumes of Baker’s corrupt reach tentacles and their into the deepest levels of government. Who actually is gaining from this report and who is rejoicing at its release? Dr. Walid Phares, writing in the Counterterrorism Blog makes some very interesting and sobering observations:
Without any doubt, the Iraq Study Group report will become the center of a major debate on US foreign policy and the War on Terror. It contains significant components of possible successes but also recipe for disasters. It is important that the counter Terrorism community begins its review of the report and share its views with the public. Following is a summary published by Mideast Newswire summarizing some of my comments on US and Arab radios and media today. IRAQIZATION IS RIGHT BUT SURRENDERING TO FASCIST REGIMES IS WRONG Washington DC, December 6, 2006. Mideast Newswire In his first analysis of the the Iraq Study Group recommendations, Mideast expert Walid Phares told three media outlets in the US, Europe, and the Middle East, that “the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations resemble a salad bowl. The document contains some rational suggestions that should have been adopted by the Bush Administration years ago, and also some suicidal ideas that were tested decades ago and failed miserably.” Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, DC and author of Foreign Affairs best seller Future Jihad, was interviewed by Al Muharer al Arabi, Radio Free Iraq, and the Jack Ricardi radio show in the US. “These are only the first reactions to a comprehensive document; there will be a thorough analysis of the report from both American and Middle Eastern perspectives.” Phares told Al Muharer al Arabi that the global recommendation “to engage Iran and Syria’s regimes positively and constructively means that they were mistreated before. My first question to the authors of the report is this: how was the United States mistreating these regimes in the past? Was asking Ahmedinejad to stop making a nuclear bomb and asking Assad of Syria to withdraw from Lebanon following a UN resolution signs of bad treatment? Were these demands wrong in their essence? Do they give Iran and Syria the right to feel victimized? If one perceives US action in this way, then all what Washington has to do is to release pressure on the Mullah to build their weapons and ask Assad to send his Army back to Lebanon.” Phares added, “the public in America and the people in the region are not as naive as they were before 9/11. They will ask the hard questions when the time comes. The so-called engagement recommendation is a relic from the past and sounds like a suicidal idea. For surrendering to fascist regimes – regimes that are rejected by their own people – is utterly wrong.” However on the Iraq restructuring suggestions, Phares told Radio Iraq and other radio shows that “the idea of the Iraqization process is a right one and has always received a consensus among Iraqis and Americans. General Abizaid and many others have voiced these suggestions in the past in the US and in Iraq.” But Phares concluded by asking “how can we press for empowering the Iraqis on the ground on the one hand while surrendering their fate to Iran and Syria through diplomatic means on the other? That sounds like a recipe for chaos to me.” In a previous interview with Radio Free Iraq few days before the release of the report, Dr Phares said: “many ideas and suggestions are on the table, but one matter should be clear: there shouldn’t be a return of dictatorship to Iraq and a return of Syrian occupation in Lebanon. On the other hand, inserting US forces within Iraqi forces should have been the initial plan.
Do you think we can get Baker, the murderer of American soldiers in Iraq, the de facto accomplice of terrorists and fascists regime, to explain to us how he dares engage Iran and Syria’s regimes positively and constructively. As Dr. Phares says, it means that they were mistreated before. My first question to the authors of the report is this: how was the United States mistreating these regimes in the past? Was asking Ahmedinejad to stop making a nuclear bomb and asking Assad of Syria to withdraw from Lebanon following a UN resolution signs of bad treatment? Were these demands wrong in their essence? Do they give Iran and Syria the right to feel victimized? If one perceives US action in this way, then all what Washington has to do is to release pressure on the Mullah to build their weapons and ask Assad to send his Army back to Lebanon.“ Phares added, “the public in America and the people in the region are not as naive as they were before 9/11. They will ask the hard questions when the time comes. The so-called engagement recommendation is a relic from the past and sounds like a suicidal idea. For surrendering to fascist regimes – regimes that are rejected by their own people – is utterly wrong. There is however a much bigger catalog of questions… The first set of questions has been asked repeatedly by various bloggers and columnists in the MSM and it is this: How does Israel, hundreds of miles away from Iraq, bear any responsibility for the conflict there and why? How will Baker’s proposed de facto dismantling of Israel and the raising of Hamas to a legitimate entity, bring peace to Iraq and what benefits will another terrorist led government in the Middle East produce for US interests? The next set of questions, one that nobody asked yet is more serious, its possible answers more dangerous to America. Here they come… The UN has approved and the legitimate democratically elected Lebanese government under PM Saniora has ratified an international Tribunal to try Syria’s Baby Assad and his accomplices. To make a deal with Syria, Assad must be spared the Tribunal, could it be that Baker is so intent on hiding his own guilt or a client’s that he must, at any cost, squelch Assad’s trial? Could Lebanon’s former PM Rafik Hariri have stood on the way of some of James Baker’s business deals? Could Mr. Baker be trying to spare himself a devastating revelation? You think that is far fetched, that I must be hallucinating? You think, gentle reader, that my questions are out of line? Then look at Mr. Baker’s career, the lawyer for Saudi Arabia, the US envoy more intent in lining his own pockets than in carrying out his duties, the Secretary of State that saved Saddam Hussein and as as result of his actions is directly responsible for the current Iraq war. He is the one who through his Realpolitik is directly to blame for the death of Cindy Sheehan’ son and thousands of others. Ms. Sheehan should ask Mr. Baker to explain why her son had to die in Iraq, but she won’t (of course!) since it won’t produce as many photo ops as going after the President. Awaken America! James Baker, the man with hands full of blood, the unscrupulous profiteer with pockets full of silver, must be exposed and prosecuted as a war criminal, as a murderer and as a traitor!!! Chaim