"Ain't Gonna Study War No More"

My Photo
Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States

Right-To-Life Party, Christian, Anti-War, Pro-Life, Bible Fundamentalist, Egalitarian, Libertarian Left

Tuesday, February 15, 2005


Conservative Republican Insider Says
Afghanistan Oil Pipeline
Basis Of 9-11 Hidden Agenda
Calls 9-11 A Preemptive Strike Against United States


CRAWFORD — He calls himself a conservative Republican, a brand that has defined him for the past 24 years at both the Arkansas and the Republican National Committee levels. After extensive research into the events that led to 9/11, Karl W.B. Schwarz, 53, has penned a book, “One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas — A Conservative Republican Speaks Out,” that in 832 pages details a massive governmental cover-up and explains the backdrop of what led to the war in Iraq.

In his book, Schwarz explains that prior to June 26, 2001, “the Bush Administration put India and Iran on notice that he intended to use military force to attack and remove the Taliban from power.” The reasoning, according to Schwarz, was an attempt to “bully the Taliban into letting Unocal and those Saudi partners that have apparently been financing terrorism” to have the Trans-Caspian pipeline across Afghanistan.

Schwarz asks: “Did we just get preemptively attacked and they do not want us to know that? Or, did we attack ourselves so the attack on the Taliban was justified so Bush Buddies could get their oil deals and oil pipelines?”

The author says that Americans were kept in the dark.
“Can anyone recall any of them telling us about that $7.34 trillion oil deal or that pipeline that was so desperately needed? No?” said Schwarz.

In his book, Schwarz talks about the FBI’s lack of interest in capturing certain terrorists, the Administration’s propensity to act in secrecy and keep Americans in the dark, America’s poising itself for another attack, and contracts that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Schwarz provides substantial documentation about behind-the-scenes meetings and the “financial terrorists” who stand to gain as they worship the exploitation of oil.

“What I see is a nightmare that is slowly developing into a complete undermining of all I hold dear about this nation,” says Schwarz, speaking of those entrenched in the neo-conservative movement. “I am watching subrogation of power to the whims of wantonly greedy people and in that, a subjugation of the citizens of my nation.”

Schwarz, an architect by training, has extensive experience in investment banking, workouts, and advanced technology. He is the chairman CEO of COMMAXXESS, Inc. and I-nets Security Systems, Inc. He is also president CEO of a major nanotechnologies company currently planning the installation of major production facilities in Europe, Canada, and the United States.

A devout Christian, he is founder/CEO of multiple high technology companies involved in biomedicine, nanotechnology, photonics, hydrogen fuel cells, antiterrorism, UAV, carbon and boron nono-composites made possible by carbon nanotube breakthroughs, hyperspectral systems, and video search Knowledge Management software.

He writes in his book, “We have a President and Vice President with ‘oil on their brain’ to the extent they virtually let the oil industry (major campaign contributors) write the Bush Energy Policy. Never have I seen such a shameful display of pandering to the detriment of us all, and from that policy emerged a War Plan and a War Policy to pursue that greed and lust for power to absurd proportions.
“They do not want us to know what that Energy Task Force meeting was about, but within months we suffered 9/11, we attacked Afghanistan in an already ‘pre-packaged war plan’ and by February 2002 that big, essential unbilical cord pipeline they had to have to give birth to their Oil Kingdom in the Caspian is back in business.

“They do not want us to know about 9/11, and my instincts now say that is because they know we will see the truth and the public outrage will rise like never before in this land. This Bush Administration fears the American people and what their reactions will be when they come to know the truth. I now believe that is the underlying agenda of the Patriot Act, so that they may put down dissent from an outraged nation where we can all be defined as ‘Al Qaeda terrorist.’”

According to Schwarz, any benefits from the tax cuts provided by the Administration are wiped out with the cost that families and business must bear in fuel cost increases, whereby ultimately these tax cut revenues are going to oil interests as they plunder the nation.

After coming to the conclusion that soundbites that have been broadcast by the major news media simply have not added up, Schwarz began investigating in 2003 and was inundated with tips and information from investigators throughout the world who had the same concerns.

“It is all around me and here I am in the center with information,” he says in the book. “I am not afraid of Al Qaeda. I am afraid of who is behind all of this and why.
“I am becoming more convinced every day that God has me right here, right now for a reason. I can honestly say that I do not enjoy it nor do I like it. I not only know bits and pieces, I know many things that are missing pieces and facts from different directions that all lead and point to the center. A center that is a rotten core that no true American would take pride in or support.”

During an hour-long exclusive interview the day after President Bush’s The State of the Union Address with Iconoclast writer Nathan Diebenow, Schwarz encouraged Americans to snap out of the “Bush Mythology Bubble” and take a hard look at what is really going on in the nation.

“I did not like what I found,” he said. “You will not either, if you take the time to know the truth.”

Part 6 of Schwarz’s “Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble” series is currently available on Online Journal (www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/021205Schwarz/021205schwarz.html), as well as his demand letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.


ICONOCLAST: Let’s start with your background. Where did you go to school? College?

SCHWARZ: University of Arkansas Architecture Department. I didn’t graduate. I went there from 1969-1972, going to school there year-round. I got my license in the early 1980s. They had what they called the “equivalency” where you worked two years for every year your didn’t go to school, so it’s a little bit longer to get your license. I got my license in 1981.

ICONOCLAST: Can you tell me about your nanotechnology business? How did you get started with that?

SCHWARZ: I was an arm’s length affiliated with Smith & Barney for about four years. What I did was find (special) properties and renegotiate the lease to get a higher credit rating, to get a lower financing rate, and what I would do is take that in and Smith & Barney would underwrite it all so I had the right to bid on some of them myself, and I did. After I left there, I teamed up with UUnet as their only global VAR (value added reseller). We were already involved in the R&D work before what they call “long-haul transmission” services to where you could go 3,000 km without a repeater. You could send signals a long way and we were also engaged in photonics. It was out of the photonics that we involved in nanotechnologies.

ICONOCLAST: Moving into politics, how was your political opinion shaped over time?

SCHWARZ: Well, let me see. By virtue of marriage, I had a stepfather who come into my life when I was 12. One of his uncles was Wilber D. Mills, a conservative Democrat from the state of Arkansas, who served 1939-1977 and wound up one of the most powerful people to ever Chairman the House Ways & Means Committee. Uncle Wilber is what we called him.
I am a conservative Democrat in my original votes. For example, I didn’t like Lyndon Johnson. He was too liberal for me. I definitely didn’t like Dick Nixon. I wasn’t really sure about Jimmy Carter, but about 1978-79, I started taking a real, hard look at what the Democrats stood for, where they were trying to take the party, and it was to me way too much of a affirmative action, you know, people having entitlements, and things I didn’t see in the Constitution.

I think people ought to work their way up as I say sometimes when I give speeches, “Equity is built through effort, and time is not built through the stroke of a pen.” You know, there’s a lot of people in our society that have gotten themselves ingrained in their minds, that everything has to be a matter of expediency, how fast they can make a million or a billion. That’s not what it’s all about. So I became a Republican in 1980 because of Bill Clinton.

ICONOCLAST: Because he was moving up in Arkansas at the time?

SCHWARZ: Yeah, and now, thanks to George Bush, I’m an independent. I mean, I have completely pulled out of the RNC. They are not representative of what I consider the majority of the values of the people of this nation. In fact I can talk to you for hours about why I view the “Contract with America” was a contract on America. I think they have done a masterful job of packaging it and selling it. They’ve got to keep it simple. They’ve got to keep it down to quote “moral issues” and “lower taxes.”

But at the same time, (the RNC) is fundamentally a sellout to big corporatization of our government. And I don’t agree with that because corporatization of our government is teetering right on the edges of fascism. And I think if you look at the Bush administration, you’ll see a lot of elements of fascism, intolerance, shouting people down, stomping people down, and justifications of any type of wacky policies.

What I wrote about in my book, I met Birdas Corporation, and that’s a corporation that most Americans are not aware of. They need to be aware of it. Birdas is based in Argentina because of the break up of the Soviet Union. They started back in 1990-91, long before we were able to tread on those countries over there and even visit them. They went over there and started cutting deals with the Turkmenistan government, with the Bhutto government in Pakistan, and ultimately with the Taliban (in Afghanistan).

Their goal was they signed two big leases in 1992-93 for oil and gas reserves in Turkmenistan. Then, just like we’re doing right now, they realized they had to have a pipeline to get it to the ocean. So they commenced negotiations and cut a deal with Turkmenistan, cut it with Pakistan, and then cut it with the Taliban in that order, and basically influenced people in big oil companies from our government through the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now the Bush administration, and have done everything humanly possible to take that pipeline away from them. And they have now done it. On 9/11, the only remaining obstacle was the Taliban-Birdas Corporation contracts.

Now I met these people in a telecom conference in 1999, and here’s what they told me. They told me about the big lawsuit, $15 billion for interference of contracts against Turkmenistan-Unocal.

ICONOCLAST: Who is the “they?”

SCHWARZ: Birdas. Birdas got jerked around in the southern district of Texas for years. Back in 1998, there was a judge that threw their case out. He said, “This is Turkmenistan law. This isn’t U.S. law.” That kind of stuff. And they took it to the ICC, and got the ruling in their favor, but they still had to fight their way through court.

On Sept. 9, 2003, well after 9/11, after we had attacked Afghanistan, Birdas won the lawsuit in the 5th Circuit. What they won was a half a billion dollar judgment. U.S. courts don’t just hand out judgments for fun and games. They hand out judgments to what you’d call “wronged parties,” but when you understand the dynamics of what they did to Birdas, they undercut them in Turkmenistan which is what you’d call the well head. That’s the commencing point of that pipeline, that we now control.

I’ve been convinced since 9/11 happened that 9/11 was a staged Pearl Harbor, that these people have gone out there and waged war. They have killed the truth to take over a business deal that they couldn’t otherwise get done through a commercialized transaction.

ICONOCLAST: So in your opinion, was Osama bin Ladin in on this at all?

SCHWARZ: I don’t think he was involved at all. And the reason I don’t think he was involved is Part 6 of my Bush Mythology Bubble series on Online Journal. The Part 6 article is about a post 9/11 payoff flight that left within six to eight hours after 9/11 happened with a very large amount of cash. There was a post-9/11 payoff made. We know somebody who was on that flight. We were able to track him down, and now he’s dead. He’s no longer with us.

ICONOCLAST: Who was that?

SCHWARZ: Well, you’ll see in the next article. When the next article breaks, you’ll know his name, and you can follow the trail from there. This next article, Part 6, is called “Pop Goes the Bush Mythology.” In fact. If you go to Online Journal right now, Part 5 is posted. Down at the bottom the page, we’ve got the links from Parts 1 through 4.

Part 6 is going to coincide with a letter that I’m going to be sending (soon) that is going to Kofi Annan of the United Nations. It will be CCed by FedEx to Rumsfeld, Bush, the FBI, Interpol, and others like The Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, LA Times. Then about 300,000 people are going to get this as an email link. The “demand letter” to Kofi Annan will be posted on my website. People are going to start shaking their heads. They’re going to go, “What is really going on here?”

ICONOCLAST: When did you find out about this stuff? When did you start putting the pieces together and start figuring this out?

SCHWARZ: Actually, March of 2001. There were two things. I had already met with Birdas. I knew what was going on with them. I had been tracking that lawsuit in Texas since 1999. It was in the southern district in Texas, down in Houston. In 2002, it went to the 5th circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. They won on Sept. 9, 2003. Turkmenistan appealed it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled against them on March 22, 2004. They refused to hear the appeal. You can look it up at the 5th Circuit as Bridas SAPIC v. Government of Turkmenistan, et al., No, 02-20929, 5th Cir. The case at the Supreme Court was called case No.031018 - Turkmenistan v. Birdas/Sapice.

And the payoff flight I’m referring to went to the northern part of Afghanistan.

ICONOCLAST: What started your fascination with this case?

SCHWARZ: I thought it was odd that our government was over there trying to bust an Argentinian company out of the deal instead of trying to renegotiate with them. You see joint ventures all the time between big oil companies because of the cost of development, the pipelines, loading terminals, and stuff like that.

I just thought it was really strange how abusive the Bush family and our government under the Clinton administration was toward an Argentinian company. Argentina is supposedly an ally. So I watched it really close, but then after I left UUnet in 2000, I started focusing on a different business plan. It was real obvious to me that a lot of those telecoms were going to fail. The reason (the telecoms failed) was that between 1997 and 2000, Wall Street and our capital markets and also the European capital markets created 3,400 ISPs, IPS, telecoms, wireless, etc. Way too many competitors. There had to be a failure point in there. I’ve got a lot of friends on Wall Street, and when I found out that they had issued $672 billion worth of high yield debt, and they expected 65-80 percent failure rate, I started saying, “Hell, telecoms are going to be cheap.”

So I started putting together investors and we went to the bankruptcy courts. I was the high bidder on Viatel, E-Bone, Williams Communication, and Global Crossing and have nothing to show for it, except a million dollars in legal fees and travel expenses. Now when creditors in a bankruptcy turn down the high bid, but the high bid is subject to due diligency, and you cut through the fraud and get that out of the way of the business operations? You begin to suspect they’re hiding something.

Well, it was in March 2001 that we found out what they were hiding. And from that point forward, this whole story has taken on a whole new complexion. 9/11 was kind of a ping on the radar. Some of the people we found that were involved in the melting down of U.S. companies are the same people that Sibel Edmonds found as being directly involved in the financing the execution of 9/11. That’s when things started going ping, okay?

I’ll give you a perfect example. The president’s speech last night, what are they all talking about this morning?

ICONOCLAST: The two women embracing.

SCHWARZ: Well, that and our white knight is going to save Social Security. In chapter 16 of my book, there is a policy paper that I did in conjunction with a gentleman that lives in Houston who knows the Bushes. It was hand delivered to George Bush at the White House. It was send by FedEx and email to (Sen. Bill) Frist, (Rep. Dennis) Hastert, and (Rep. Tom) Delay, and they have never responded back to it. What they are trying to do is set the stage to where the capital markets can literally steal most of the additional $60-90 billion a year because they’re not willing to close certain loopholes that make the debt legal under code of law. The same thing we discovered in March 2001 is still there. It’s how they are executing transfer of wealth schemes. Now they want to plunder the SS.

ICONOCLAST: So what you’re saying is that now that they’ve plundered the capital markets, they’re going after Social Security?

SCHWARZ: Right, they’ve already done it to the steel industry, the telecoms, the ISPs, the wireless companies. Hell, even Samsonite. I mean, I could show you a nightmare regarding Samsonite, of all things. What is there in luggage that’s worth $500 million worth of theft?

But these people are plundering the investor markets, and what’s happened is that they’ve been so egregious in their conduct that, you know, they can’t even begin to get people to open up those checkbooks any more. Now they want people investing into SS because that is your nest egg. But they have changed certain things in our laws regarding stock fraud, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, truth in advertising, you know, when they file their FCC statements. I mean, you can basically say, “Hey, I’m an ISP, and I know how to deliver sex to you over the IP. Blah blah blah.” And you can sit there and make the most egregious comments in the world about what you can do over fiber optic and down at the bottom, if you put a disclaimer, you haven’t done anything wrong. You just tell your people, “Oh, due to this is a miraculous breakthrough, we’re going to quadruple our revenues next year. And our payout to you shareholders is going to quadruple.” People buy that.

But what they’ve also done is made bankruptcy laws to where shareholders have no rights. That changed in 1994. It started under George W.’s father, and they finally got it pushed through under Clinton. They are using our bankruptcy courts as a haven for fraud. That’s where I’ve been squared off with them since 2000.

When I hear George Bush utter the words “rule of law” and I know that his buddies are melting a lot of these companies down and taking them away from the shareholders, I just want to gag.

ICONOCLAST: This is interesting to me because this is the first time I’ve heard a CEO of any company coming out against Bush and his crew.

SCHWARZ: It is literally a form of organized crime that is being condoned, sponsored, and aided by our government. I mean, I’m the kind of guy, 53 years old, that thinks everybody has the right to the American Dream. These people don’t want it that way. They get the American Dream. You get the shaft. And what they’ve done is spend years and millions of dollars, power lunches, and policy changes to try to turn everything over to where antitrust doesn’t matter anymore, ultimate corporate power is where it’s headed, and the rest of us are just a cash crop. We’ve got a government that is aiding and abetting every step of the way, even to the point of changing the laws so you and I don’t have a defense against it.

ICONOCLAST: Right. Like with class action lawsuits against asbestos. Bush was talking about that in his State of the Union Address.

SCHWARZ: And did you see the smirk on Cheney’s face when he said that? Go back and look at that.

ICONOCLAST: Yeah, I think I saw that.

SCHWARZ: Cheney’s sitting back there getting every policy change he wants. And notice he didn’t bring up, “Oh, by the way, we were going to do reconstruction of Iraq to the tune of $18.6 billion and $9 billion of it is missing.” I mean, that’s almost 50 percent of the Treasury gone.

I think it’s time that people got aware of what the hell is really going on. They don’t have any “construction crews” in Iraq. That money was for privatizing the Iraqi assets in the hands of Bush’s backers and that money is going to do rehab work on those assets so that they can have pristine new assets. In other words, Bush’s “Pioneers” are going to own Iraq’s northern electric grid, for instance. That money is not going into reconstruction to benefit Iraqis. It’s going to benefit Bush’s buddies who are going to own all the resources: the oil and gas companies, the refineries, the oil fields, the electrical generation plants, the water supply, the cable systems, the wireless systems ... They are basically over there nationalizing Iraq as the 51st state.

Turn it around. Okay, you’re in Texas, right? What would you do if the Iraqis, the Venezuelans, or even the Mexicans came charging into Crawford, Texas, and took over your entire infrastructure, and they were your new overlords? Would you fight back? What if they came out to your house and threw you out of your house because one of their buddies liked your house? Would you fight back? There’s a difference between a terrorist insurgence and a patriot that says, “Get out of my home.”

ICONOCLAST: How is anything going to change?

SCHWARZ: Well, what we’re trying to show is that there are alternatives. We’re putting a different plan on the table. In chapter 16, I say that none of the Republicans or the Democrats stood up for you or me over what that paper was about. You’ll understand that we’ve been sold out. Chapter 17 is titled “What we can do to clean up W’s mess.” It’s a very tongue and cheek political proposal about here’s what we need to do to fix some of these problems. It’s written with sense of humor.

ICONOCLAST: Give me an example of an alternative, a part of the plan.

SCHWARZ: Like Social Security. Social Security was never intended to be an entitlement for every American to receive a check every month. It was intended to be a safety net for those Americans who were less fortunate than others. We have billionaires who are getting checks from Social Security. That needs to stop. They don’t need it. All they are doing is putting a constant drain (on the system).

“Well,” a lot of people say, “they paid into it. It’s fair that they get it back.” It’s also fair that don’t take it and treat it as an act of benevolence. If they are going to sit there and donate a million dollars to their church as an act of kindness, they can make sure they don’t take that from the Treasury because all they’re doing is putting that debt on everybody else.

ICONOCLAST: But don’t you pay into the system if your income is over a certain amount?

SCHWARZ: There are caps. I mean, someone like Bill Gates only pays so much a year into it, and everything above that, there are caps. But there’s no reason in the world that somebody’s got to get millions and millions of dollars a year in their retirement years just by coupon clipping. Those folks are not the kinds of folks who want or need Social Security nor are they the types of people Social Security was designed to protect. What they’ve done over time is they’ve filtered into their mind, “Well, that’s my money. I paid into it.” That’s not how they are running the system. What they take in from you and me today, they are paying out to people who are retired today. There’s no money in the bank that these people have in savings accounts somewhere.

The other thing we’re going to start selling hard is the concept of what is a political issue and what isn’t. To me, abortion is a moral choice. It takes way too much of our political discussion in this country. That’s between the person and God. It’s not for you and me to tell that person what to do. Even as a Christian, I don’t see anything inconsistent in that.

As the Bible says, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” It’s none of my business what you do. Another thing I’m trying to get across to you progressive types is “your rights end where mine begin. Quit assuming where mine begin.” And they go, “What do you mean by that?” So I tell them. All the way across the board, like this whole thing with gay marriage. I’m not for gay marriage, but on the other token, if someone is dying in the hospital or has to have surgery, there are a lot of hospitals that won’t let the gay partner in to be with the person they care about because “he’s not family.” That to me is being a little too (harsh) about it. What they’ve done is try to cast this out that the Republican Party stands for goodness, family values, moral values, lower taxes, and tell you what, there’s a whole lot more than that. We have some serious financial problems out here. This country is being plundered by an elite few that really need to be reigned in.

ICONOCLAST: How do you do that? How do you reign them in?

SCHWARZ: One, rule of law means something for everybody, not just a few of us. There are people in this country who are above the law. That doesn’t need to be tolerated at all. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at Dennis Kozlowski or Bernie Ebbers, people who have plundered hundreds of millions — billions of dollars — from people, and got off scot free.

One of the things — I got a phone call from Austin, Texas, from someone reported to be a senior aid to Karen Hughes on the same day Birdas won down in New Orleans, Sept. 9, 2003. The phone call was about Global Crossing. When you read chapter 14 of my book, there’s a taped transcript of that conversation. You’ll see what I’m talking about, to what extent certain people are above the law and who we come across that were plundering a lot of these companies. It was Tom Hicks, John Mews, Richard Rainwater, Sid Bass. Those all tie right back to the Bush family. And she (the person on the phone) wanted to know, “And you’re telling me, you’re going to file a RICO against a couple of the president’s friends?” And I said, “That’s exactly what I’m telling you.” Grab this. It was Priscilla Owen.

ICONOCLAST: Who is that?

SCHWARZ: She’s what most people in Texas consider that wacko Supreme Court judge tried to nominate in the 5th Circuit. Two years later, she still hasn’t been confirmed.

ICONOCLAST: So let’s move on a little bit. How is the book effected your business?

SCHWARZ: Actually, business is way up.

ICONOCLAST: Because of the book?

SCHWARZ: Even at the federal level.

ICONOCLAST: Are they just not aware of the book?

SCHWARZ: Oh, they are very, very aware of the book. They are very aware of my stance. There’s a lot of them. You’d be amazed. Federal employees tune in every time I’m on the radio. (Laughs)

ICONOCLAST: Really? (Laughs) So the federal employees are handling your papers a little more swiftly. (Laughs)

SCHWARZ: Uh, yeah, well, what is happening here is that we have factions within our government like there are factions in our town. There are good people, people who are “red, white, blue American,” and then you got people who are just so greedy they need to be run out. I mean, they’re like a cancer. What’s going on even within our government is a lot of people who have figured this out, and they know that sooner or later that right will prevail.

I’ve been just handing (my five “Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble” articles) to them, and the funny thing is that they don’t call me. They don’t come after me. They run from me. They know to what extent we have been all over their butts. And when I say “we,” they know I have got investigators on three continents digging into this. We actually put people in March 2000-01 inside trading operations who sit there and watch these people do this to figure out which way they were going with their money.

When I was focused on trying to buy Global Crossing and Williams Communications, I had an investigator send me a FedEx package saying, “Carl, what the hell does this have to do with Turkmenistan?” And I’m like, “You know, I don’t know, and I don’t care. I’m trying to be the highest bidder on Global Crossing.” It was after all that stuff. They pushed us aside and went with the lowest bid instead of the highest bid, but they went with somebody with no due diligence, you know, which was to cover up this crime. That was when we started going back and started looking through all these other documents, and I’m going, “Holy cow! So that’s where that money went.” We were following those trails.

I think everybody in America ought to know who Sibel Edmonds is. You know who she is? She’s the FBI whistleblower, and here’s what she found. Here’s why she has a gag order against her. She found drug trafficing, money laundering, foreign names, and American names involved in the planning, financing, and execution of 9/11. We haven’t been told that Americans were involved in 9/11. I think every American needs to know that. Once you understand that lie and a lot of other things, like maybe that’s why all the Democrats are just rolling over when it comes to the Patriot Act which is gutting the Constitution, you’ll ask, “Do they want it that way? Maybe somebody wants us to be living in a police state?”
I don’t know if you heard this, but I’ve heard from three women I know that got groped by a male TSA worker when they were flying over the holidays. And as God is my witness, if one of those guys gropes my woman, I’ll knock his ass out. So guess what. You’re not al-Queda, and neither am I! And to treat us all like we’re al-Queda suspects, shaking us down, and trying to push us to where these changes in our life-style are just how it’s going to be? To get used to it? I don’t think so.

ICONOCLAST: So why are the Democrats just lying around, not doing anything?

SCHWARZ: Because their wealthy elite masters are telling them not to. Once you get up at this level, REP and DEM get substituted by dollar signs every time. These people are total chameleons when it comes to truth, political ideology. All they care about is who gets to plunder, about how much they get to plunder. They’ve wired themselves to the U.S. Treasury. They want it that way. They want it so they can steal from you in the capital markets. They can overcharge you for gasoline or cable or whatever, and there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s when I started saying, “You know what? Either this is going to change, or I’m leaving.”

ICONOCLAST: So how has this book affected your ties to the Republican Party? Are they ignoring your phone calls of the GOP?

SCHWARZ: They’re even ignoring the emails these days. I still have plenty of people from within the party and many high level state people all over the country. They’re beginning to figure out that this not the RNC-GOP they once had believed in. I mean, there’s a lot of us talking about third party. We have enough disaffected Republicans and disaffected Democrats that are waking up and smelling the coffee. You might be able to generate what you’d say a 50-percent party out here from people who are just fed up.

ICONOCLAST: So people from the upper eschelons are thinking about pulling their money out?

SCHWARZ: I’m aware of one major investor group right now that is looking into putting a whole new network together. It is going to be a truth network until Americans choke on the truth.

ICONOCLAST: What does that include? What are they going to be doing?

SCHWARZ: DSS, cable, radio.

ICONOCLAST: They’re just going to start a media empire?

SCHWARZ: Yeah, just lay it on out there and we’re going to say, “This is what’s going on, folks. This is what they are really doing to you.” Just putting out the hard facts. I mean, ask yourself this, What’s been going on for the last two years? You think CNN could have found something more timely and more probative than Scott and Lacey Peterson? I mean, I’ve got one progressive that advises me on a lot of stuff. She calls it “the distraction de jour of the day.” She coined the phrase that we’re using today on the radio, ”The Truth Comes Alive in ’05.” She’s very humorous, but by the same token, she’s like me. She wants her country back.

These people designed this. They are people who want it their way, not what you and I would consider our way. That’s where I drew the line in the RNC. In fact, I’ve had a lot of people ask me to run for president. They say, “Why don’t you take over the RNC?” And I said, “Well, let me tell you the same thing I told Pat Buchanan’s people. Pat wants to fight for the heart and soul of the GOP. I’m not so sure there is a heart and soul left.”

People said, “Well, we can take over the DNC.” I said, “Well, taking over the DNC means I have to hook up with the far fringe wacky Left. I’m not going there either. It’s not me. I’d rather declare myself an independent or a libertarian and be done with it. Tell it like it is. Black is black, and white is white.”

But Americans have a lot to come to grips with when it comes to the truth. They’ve been sold a pig in the poke, and what concerns me is that there’s so many people who watch CNN? Can’t you tell that they’re just spooking you? They’re getting the news to you in small bites, so you think that’s what’s going on.

This whole debate on Social Security is going to expose a lot of what’s going on. What are their real goals? What are they after? Well, they’re after $60-90 billion a year in investments. There are sharks in those waters who will steal from you. They get by with it. And then what are you going to do?

ICONOCLAST: So what does this power group that George Bush is associated with want from us? Do they just want us to be their slaves?

SCHWARZ: I’ve heard it described as “cash crop.” I’ve used the analogy of the hampster on a wheel. You may think you have the American Dream, but you don’t. You may think you can attain it, but it ain’t going to happen if you’re not a part of that little group. That’s not the America people stand up for and that’s not the America people stand up and salute the American flag for. This is about all of us, not just a few of us. What’s scary is to what degree. The Project for a New America. Century People. The neo-cons. To what extent they have co-opted the media, co-opted the bureaucracy, the office of the president, Congress, the courts, even the military to which they buy off on this. They don’t understand what’s at stake. What’s at stake here, how about your future? How about your freedoms? How about if you ever have a chance at all in your life to be something? If you’re not a part of the little group, you’re not on the RSVP list.

ICONOCLAST: You’re associated with a lot of business folks. How big is this network?

SCHWARZ: It’s already running into the millions. It started off two years ago with 300,000 people. who were shareholders of companies that knew they were robbed and who robbed them. The Bush Administration, the FCC, and the courts just stood there and looked the other way.

So basically, I started off building this with a core group of 300,000 really angry people whose standard of living and financial security had been financially plundered with all this market fraud you saw. Once I showed them who did it and how they did it, I basically found myself being a leader whether I wanted to or not. And frankly, I didn’t want to. I found myself being in the middle of something I didn’t want to be in, but I couldn’t look the other way because this effected me, too. I used to be worth $90 million, but I’m not now. Trust me. I’m mad as a hatter of being diced up and having no legal rights whatsoever.

ICONOCLAST: Are there any other groups that you are working with? And who is a part of your group?

SCHWARZ: They are disaffected conservative Republicans, progressives ... We don’t have that I’m aware of what you would call “Far Left,” but we have plenty of conservative to moderate Democrats, people from the Green Party, Constitution Party, Reform Party, Libertarian Party. It’s kind of like pick a party. We’re finding that the numbers are very large. A lot of people are discussing the same things that you and I are discussing that something is wrong with this country and they want it fixed, and they want it fixed now.

ICONOCLAST: What about people of faith?

SCHWARZ: Oh, yes. In fact, I know more Christians than I do Republicans. I don’t know hardly any of them that voted for Bush in this last election for the simple reason that they are fed up with the lies, the killing, and the greed. They’re fed up with it. They watched Martha Stewart get five months in jail while the people who plundered 100 times more than her got a slap on the wrist.

ICONOCLAST: How is this group growing?

SCHWARZ: On the political side, there’s about 10,000 people. We’re working on an action plan. We’re working grassroots, trying to get to the door-to-door level, somebody within a block or a street. You know, go talk with your neighbors. Go talk to them about what’s really going on. I mean, here’s a good question: you know Bush’s tax-refund? My retort to that is in the form of a question, “Let’s have a show of hands. How many of you had your tax cut yanked out of your hands with the increased costs of gasoline because we had a terror alert “orange” right before check showed up?” I think you’d see 75-percent of the American people raise their hands in the air.

Look at how Bush has grown government. A true conservative would not even think about doing what he’s doing with concern to the way he’s growing government with these deficits.

ICONOCLAST: What’s he spending it on?

SCHWARZ: You can trace ever bit of this money from federal funding initiation to some omnibus group right back into the hands of his major backers. Go back to the State of the Union speech. Look at the smirk on Cheney’s face when he was talking about doing away with the frivolous asbestos suits. (Laughs). I mean, I just wanted to slap Cheney.

See, I’ve met Cheney. I talk about this in the book. Back when he was Secretary of Defense, I lived in Northern Virginia at that time. I had an office in D.C. We were both in a Nordstrom’s men’s store in Virginia, getting fitted out. He was buying three or four suits, and I was buying six. They had one guy on duty that day that was marking the suits. So he and I got to visit a lot because this took an hour and a half.

When we were talking, I got a pretty good feeling of this guy. And I’m telling you, who I see on TV today is not even the same guy. I don’t know what got to him or what he bought off on, but that was not the same man I talked to at Nordstrom’s. And my wife noticed the same thing before we got divorced. “What in the hell is wrong with him?” I said, “I don’t know.” (Laughs) “I don’t know, and I’m not so sure I want to know.”

There have been some people who have been paying attention to a different direction than me. I’m talking Christians. I’m not talking the wacky secular folks on Far Left. What they are seeing here are some really strong elements of Satanism, too, like human life just doesn’t matter, like human life has no value. I mean, I’ve seen certain pieces of it myself, but I just haven’t had time to delve into it.

ICONOCLAST: What do you mean? Do you mean that these people are acting like Satanists because they treat people badly?

SCHWARZ: I’m talking about some of the stuff that comes out of government. You know, 2,000 American soldiers and probably 20,000 massively injured, that their agendas are higher and loftier than that and 100,000 dead Iraqis.

ICONOCLASTS: So they are unfeeling.

SCHWARZ: Not exactly “compassionate conservative.” Very uncompassionate conservative. I get that sense when I see them callously push certain discussions and keep going for their target. I keep saying, “What is their target?” When I ask myself that question, and add up everything I know I don’t like what I see.

I think their aim is fundamentally evil, whether they see that or not. They may not see that. They may not be what you would call “practicing Satanists.” They may not have discernment. That old Christian word. Learn to use discernment. “Recognize them by their fruits.” When I look at them, I see some things, but until you sit down and talk to somebody you don’t know their heart, so I’m not really sure how much of that I’m seeing, but I have to agree to some of the people who have pointed it out to me some of the things that don’t smell right.

So basically how would you describe me: an ecumenical Christian who doesn’t buy off on their values the way they have practiced them. I don’t agree with the killing. I don’t agree with greed. I don’t agree with their lies. I don’t agree for the lack of compassion of human beings, whether they be Americans or foreigners. As a Republican, I’m very conservative. Primarily, I’m a social and fiscal conservative, and I see neither coming from them. It’s just lip service. So that’s pretty well how you can sum me up.

Schwarz’s book, “One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas: a Conservative Republican Speaks Out,” can be purchased on his website (www.karlschwarz.com/store.html) or by mail to Republic Broadcasting Network, 1015 South Mays Street, Suite 100, Round Rock, Texas, 78664. Checks should be payable to “CSIN.” See advertisement on the back page for more information.

Nathan Diebenow
and W. Leon Smith

Copyright ©2004 The Lone Star Iconoclast
Powered by PROMIT

Behind the UN Oil for Food Programme

Iraq: the real sanctions scandal

The recent interim report by the independent commission investigating the United Nations oil-for-food programme accuses UN officials of favouritism, violation of competitive bidding rules, and a dangerous lack of auditing. But the truth may be far more complicated.

By Joy Gordon

ANOTHER Iraq scandal emerged last spring, quite different from the Abu Ghraib prison torture allegations, complete with photographs, that were then embarrassing the Bush adminstration in the United States. The Iraqi newspaper Al Mada focused attention on charges that the United Nations-run oil-for-food programme had been corrupt. In April the US general accounting office published a report claiming that Saddam Hussein had accumulated over $10bn in funds from illicit oil sales and kickbacks on import contracts (1). Later a 900-page CIA report found there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but noted that the Iraqi government had none the less engaged in smuggling and fraud to raise money for weapons of mass destruction.

The rightwing press in the US has been eager to follow up on the accusations, and histrionically. William Safire proclaimed it “the worst financial scandal in human history” (2), although the recent Enron company scandal involving Kenneth Lay, a long-time friend of President George Bush, resulted in similar losses, including billions of dollars of employee pension funds. Claudia Rosett of the Wall Street Journal described the UN programme as marked by “privilege and secrecy”, suggesting this put the UN in the same category as dictatorships (3). Congressman Christopher Shays, who presided over two of the nine congressional hearings that investigated the accusations, claimed that the programme had “trust[ed] Saddam Hussein to exercise sovereign control over billions of dollars of oil sales and commodity purchases” (4).

Many of these claims could not be further from the truth. The programme provided enormous amounts of information, all of it easily accessible on its website (5). It has always been possible to discover on the website within a few seconds the distribution list for every six-month period of the programme’s operation - a list of every item that Iraq was permitted to buy using the funds. It has always has been possible to look at the UN secretary general’s quarterly reports that described in detail the condition of every sector of Iraq’s economy and society, the goods delivered, the programme’s priorities, the oil exports and condition of Iraq’s oil industry, and the elaborate monitoring process.

The website contained charts showing the status of every contract for oil sales and imports. It also gave weekly updates, with current information on policy decisions, problems and changes in the contracting process. And it contained every security council resolution, programme report, and every other related document, except for those specifically deemed confidential.

Nor was it ever the case that the UN gave Saddam sovereign control over anything: purchasing decisions, the transfer of funds or oil sales. Far from giving the Iraqi government free rein, the programme had an elaborate system of monitoring and accountability. Before Iraq could purchase anything, it had to submit a list of every item it wished to buy, stating how and where it would be used. The list was accompanied by a lengthy explanation of the priorities in each area of need - including agriculture, nutrition, healthcare and education.

Once the UN staff had approved the list, with the input of the UN’s specialist agencies, Iraq was permitted to negotiate with a seller. This was the only thing Iraq could choose freely. And this was not because the UN staff failed to notice, but because the security council had specifically decided to permit Iraq to do so, in resolution 986 and the memorandum of understanding that laid out the terms of the programme.

The attacks have accused the UN of failing to exercise any oversight or providing any accountability for the oil sales and humanitarian imports in the programme. The reality was quite different. Once Iraq had negotiated a contract, that contract was scrutinised at several levels before it could be approved. It was sent to the Unscom (later Unmovic) inspectors to ensure that Iraq was not importing any materials that could be used for illicit arms. It was sent to the programme staff (whose office was housed in the secretariat) to ensure that it conformed to the list of approved goods.

It was then sent to the 661 committee, the security council committee charged with implementing the sanctions regime on Iraq. The US was particularly active on this committee, drawing on a staff of 60 US technical experts to examine Iraq’s contracts. The US was unique in the degree to which it exercised its veto power: it was responsible for blocking billions of dollars of critical humanitarian goods, over the objections of nearly every other nation on the security council. But, according to congressional testimony, the US never once blocked a contract because of price irregularities, even when presented with documentation that these contracts were likely to result in kickbacks to Saddam’s regime (6).

Once a contract was approved, the goods were delivered to Iraq, where independent inspectors (first Lloyd’s Register, later Cotecna) were hired to confirm that the goods corresponded to the contracts. There was a staff of hundreds of UN employees who made thousands of site visits to ensure that the goods were distributed equitably and not diverted to military or other improper uses.

Oil sales were similarly subject to extensive scrutiny. The secretary general appointed a group of oil overseers, experts from the international oil industry, each approved by the 661 committee. Their job was to scrutinise all transactions, including the terms and price of all oil sales, and to make recommendations to the committee regarding transactions. Iraq could not make a single oil sale under the programme as designed: no funds from the programme were to go through the hands of the Iraqi government at any point.

All the funds from oil sales went into an escrow account held by the UN, which paid all vendors directly from the escrow funds. If the government of Iraq succeeded in skimming funds or arranging for kickbacks from oil sales or import contracts in the programme, it was not because the UN handed over billions of dollars to Saddam to do as he wished. Nor was it because there was no system of accountability. Any misappropriation that may have taken place happened despite the most elaborate monitoring and oversight.

According to the general accounting office report, Saddam smuggled $6bn of oil, much of it by tanker, through the Persian Gulf. But neither the secretariat nor the agencies, nor any other part of the UN, was responsible for interdicting smuggling. Instead, there was a security council resolution, 665, that invited member states with naval forces to intervene to prevent Iraqi smuggling, if they chose. The Multinational Interception Force (MIF), a loose coalition of ships, operated from 1990 until the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. But it was not under the command of the secretary general or any other UN personnel: it was at all times under the command of US officers from the Fifth Fleet. Almost all the MIF ships were from the US - in 2001, there were 90 US ships but only a few from all the other countries.

The CIA report, in October 2004 (7), maintained that most of Iraq’s illicit income came from unauthorised trade agreements between the government of Iraq and other nations. Iraq’s illicit trade with Jordan, some $4.4bn, was the largest share. According to the report, this arrangement was particularly valuable to Iraq in the first half of the 1990s and “ensured the regime’s financial survival” until the programme began in December 1996 (8). But the security council, and its most influential member, the US, was well aware of the trade with Jordan, and did nothing.

UN staff are accused of allowing Iraq to skim funds and receive kickbacks from contracts under the programme. Interviews with Iraqi government employees after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 revealed that they had been instructed to inflate the cost of import contracts by 5%-10%, and then recoup the difference from the vendor. Although the US had occasionally told other members of the security council that it believed there were kickbacks, it never provided evidence or enough information to allow UN staff to take action. Increases of 5%-10% were not obvious.

Where the pricing of a purchase was clearly outside normal commercial practices, the UN staff would ask the vendor to provide an explanation. If it was not satisfactory, the UN staff would present the problem to the 661 committee. Many times they notified the committee of contracts with pricing irregularities so extreme that it was likely there were kickbacks. The UN staff was not authorised to block a contract, only to present the information to the members of the security council.

Over the course of sanctions, the US was by far the most aggressive about blocking contracts for security concerns. As of July 2002 there were $5bn of critical humanitarian imports unilaterally placed on hold by the US, and the Iraqi people suffered because of it. But faced with clear documentation showing likely kickbacks, the US again chose to do nothing. In over 70 cases, the UN staff informed the committee of contracts where kickbacks were likely to occur, and in none of these cases did the US choose to block or delay the contract.

While the mainstream press in the US has highlighted these scandals, it has neglected to mention the catastrophic effect that more than 12 years of sanctions had on Iraq, accelerating the weakening of both state and people (9), or the thousands of dollars misspent by the interim Iraqi government (10). Nearly three-quarters of all current contracts of $5m or more, paid for out of Iraqi funds, were not competitively bid (11). It is ironic that so many in the US are focused on the UN’s dealings in Iraq when the US has its own enormous financial scandal in that country. But however shocking these financial scandals are, it would be even more tragic if the credibility of international governance was also compromised.

Joy Gordon is professor of philosophy at Fairfield University, Connecticut

Original text in English

(1) “United Nations: Observations on the oil-for-food programme,” statement of Joseph A Christoff, director, international affairs and trade, US general accounting office, 7 April 2004.

(2) New York Times, 14 June 2004.

(3) Statement for the record of Claudia Rosett, hearings held by subcommittee on national security, emerging threats, and international relations, 21 April 2004.

(4) Hearings on national security, 21 April 2004.

(5) http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

(6) Testimony of John Ruggie, House of Representatives committee on international relations, 28 April 2004.

(7) Comprehensive report of the special adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, 30 September 2004.

(8) Ibid, Regime finance and procurement section.

(9) See Alain Gresh, “A debt of dishonour”, Le Monde diplomatique, English language edition, January 1999.

(10) Iraq Revenue Watch, Briefing n° 9, December 2004,

(11) Ibid; Iraq Revenue Watch Report no 7, September 2004.

English language editorial director: Wendy Kristianasen - all rights reserved © 1997-2005 Le Monde diplomatique.

Adult Stem Cell Discoveries Could Treat Alzheimer’s and Blindness

A research team led by University of Central Florida professor Kiminobu Sugaya has discovered a compound related to DNA that could improve the results of stem cell treatments for Alzheimer’s patients. The research team found that treating bone marrow cells with the compound made adult stem cells more likely to turn into brain cells in experiments with rats.

The findings are to be published in the March edition of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience journal. Professor Kiminobu Sugaya said, “By using a patient’s own stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells, we’re able to avoid the ethical concerns many people have about stem cell research.”

In research with embryonic stem cells, experiments with human patients have caused serious and permanent medical side effects. Dr. Sugaya said of his research, “We also don’t have to worry about the immune system rejecting the new cells.” In the same experiments, Dr. Sugaya’s team found that the compound, called bromodeoxyuridine, was useful in coaxing stem cells to turn into retinal cells, a discovery that could help to treat blindness.

In related news, researchers at South Korea’s Chosun university may have found a way to help the blind see with adult stem cell treatments. Professor Song Chang-hun told reporters Friday that he is asking the government for funds to further research into treating retinitis pigmentosa (RP), an irreversible degenerative disease that causes blindness in adults. Dr. Chang-hun said, “We plan to isolate stem cells from umbilical cord blood and inject them into retinal cells.”

RP is a disease of the eye that begins by blocking the eye’s ability to pick up light and is sometimes called, ‘tunnel vision’ because it starts by hampering peripheral vision. Approximately 1.5 million people suffer from RP around the world.

Check out LifeSiteNews’ very extensive stem cell page for more news:

Sen. Clinton Offers Abortion Solution

New York - It seemed a reasonable, almost obvious, point to make: The Democratic Party should represent Americans of all creeds and religious convictions, even those who have qualms about abortion.

"We shouldn't ... have a special-interest group define our stand on choice," said former Rep. Tim Roemer, a Democrat from Indiana, referring to abortion-rights groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The hissing began at the rear of the room full of Democratic activists and spread throughout the hall. Last week, having failed to gain much support, Roemer dropped out of the race for party chairman.

It was a creepy little scene in a contest marred by behind-the-scenes ugliness, and illustrative of the challenge facing the victor in that race, incoming Democratic chairman Howard Dean.

Assessing their party, many professional Democrats see a glass half full. Outgoing chairman Terry McAuliffe is leaving Dean a massive grassroots donor list, a bulging party war chest, a new headquarters building and a state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote operation.

If just 60,000 more people in Ohio had voted Democratic, McAuliffe ruefully notes, he'd be picking up orders from President Kerry and heading for a new job as ambassador to Great Britain. A tweak here, a TV ad there, and the Democrats are back in business.

But the passion in the party comes from its liberal activists - the MoveOn folks and Michael Moore fans and NARAL members - whom Dean famously called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." These are people who oppose the Iraq war, despise President Bush and his domestic initiatives, and think their party needs to purify itself and harden its opposition.

Resolving those views - sustaining the left's passion while reassuring centrists - may be Dean's toughest chore.

The last Democratic president was a master at this kind of balancing act, so perhaps it is no surprise that a way out of this dilemma was offered by someone named Clinton.

In a Jan. 24 speech in New York, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton used that most contentious of issues - abortion - to offer the Democrats a template.

"I respect" your values, Clinton told abortion foes. She asked them to move past the apocalyptic rhetoric employed by both sides in the debate, and to work with her and other congressional Democrats to actually reduce the number of abortions in America.

"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," she said. Such sentiments are rarely heard in Democratic venues.

Clinton declared her support for "teenage celibacy" programs but said they are not enough.

She asked conservatives to join her in supporting family planning.

"Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies," Clinton said, adding that "more than half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion."

Clinton's proposal faces many obstacles. Catholics, for example, are taught that both abortion and contraception are sinful. Other congregations, and many secular families, don't like schools teaching kids about sex or birth control. And if you believe that life begins at the instant of conception, then some forms of contraception, which keep newly fertilized embryos from becoming viable, are tantamount to abortion.

But both sides need to consider: Are they letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Religious conservatives would have to settle for progress short of victory, and send a signal to their elected officials that the benefits of saving countless unborn children from abortion are worth blinking on sex ed.

Liberals would have to acknowledge that, 30 years after Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal, many fellow Americans still view the practice as Clinton described it, as a "tragic choice" of last resort.

The best way to keep abortion legal and safe may be to make it rare.

In her travels as first lady, Clinton witnessed the evil of communist Romania, where a dictator ordered women to have more children, childless couples were punished, contraceptives and abortions were banned, and "once a month, Romanian women were rounded up at their workplaces."

"They were taken to a government-controlled health clinic, told to disrobe ... (and) examined by a government doctor with a ... secret police officer watching," she said.

Clinton also saw communist China, where "local government officials used to monitor women's menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives because they had the opposite view - no more than one child," she said.

Maybe there is no way out of our culture wars. Perhaps Clinton's offer was just posturing.

But liberals should listen, and conservatives should test her sincerity.

John Aloysius Farrell's column appears each Sunday. Contact him at jfarrell@denverpost.com