I posted this only two years ago now:
We absolutely cannot allow Gates to become the next head of the Pentagon. He is another member of the Reagan-Bush neocon crime "end justifies the means" cult. We must say an absolute NO to the neocons and their officially failed agenda that includes, ad nauseaum, deceit and crimes against the American people. Their failed policies lost at the polls and it is long past time we leave them there. [Refering to the Senate & House victories]
Nobody cared then. It's about time we did. No more fucking Neocons! The blood on their hands is beyond measure.
Several years ago now, I wrote a long string of diaries about the War on Drugs that, sadly, got little response. This diary is one of them. No one gives a crap about it, and in this economic mess you may not be able to ignore it anymore. It is notable that the end of (Alcohol) Prohibition coincided with the end of the Great Depression. There is money there, there is, and huge savings by ending the "crime", both economically and as a people.
But this is about Gates. The extensive references to Negroponte were due to the issue at the time, and won me a story posting.
Oh, I almost forgot, Afghanistan is one big field of poppies, by huge measure the world's largest source of illicit opiates (i.e. Heroin.) And according to Obama, we're going in. Again.
[This is very, very long, but it ties everything together and back again.] By posting git 3:23am Sunday Morning, I am assured it'll go nowhere. Diary rescue anyone?...
Did you know that Robert Gates was offered Negroponte's job as Director of National Intelligence but after a crisis of conscience about his "duty to Washington" declined it because he was "having more fun at Texas A&M" (paraphrase). Are we honestly to believe that he all of a sudden a changed his mind with regards to this new nomination for personal reasons?
This is getting down and dirty. No short history lessons on the CIA during the Cold War - despite Gates' involvement with the CIA during the late 60's much like the rest of the Neocons. In this diary the CIA will be effectively selling crack. And not just that - in this diary the CIA will be propping up the very "terrorists" we are currently fighting.
This is definitely the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of, although I will largely refrain from any outright speculation, as it's just not necessary in this diary.
[A note on sourcing: I am not going to source most of what is said here, and this is an informational/opinion piece, not a historical document. However, all of this is well documented, and sourcing for what has been said can be found in The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade by Alfred McCoy (an EXCELLENT read that is extensively sourced and resourced - under threats from the CIA!) as well as Dark Alliance, which includes the Mercury News story that original broke some of this, as well as many other related pieces of information. That said, there is no way to guarantee I didn't make a mistake - I wish I could, but I can't.]
Robert Gates and the CIA
Unfortunately when it comes to Robert Gates, there is no smoking gun connecting him to the Contra's protected drug selling, like many others. But to say he knew nothing is to say he was completely and utterly incompetent. I doubt that very much. There is plenty of evidence linking him to support Al Qaeda however, and doing whatever is necessary to "preserve democracy" during the Cold War. He was a career CIA man from the late 60's when he fought in Vietnam until 1993.
The final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, issued on August 4, 2003, said that Gates "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment...."
Again, to say he knew nothing would be incredibly naive.
What am I talking about? Iran-Contra consisted of more than you think. The Contras supported their war by selling drugs - cocaine, that was made into crack by gangsters - into the US, and was protected by the CIA. I will tell you all about it. The SCLM would call these people in the CIA that protected such things "rogue elements", but I do not think that argument is a legitimate one. The CIA did nothing to stop it, and the CIA is responsible for the whole of its actions. And Gates almost proves CIA complicity - he went from entry-level to director, the only one to do so, on the back of Iran-Contra. Clearly his actions were rewarded.
The only thing between Gates and the CIA's illegal support of the Contras via Iran-Contra and the drug trade is plausible deniability. And even that is wearing very thin.
Here is his career history, from Wikipedia:
Gates was nominated to become the Director of Central Intelligence (head of the CIA) in early 1987. He withdrew his name after it became clear the Senate would reject the nomination due to controversy about his role in the Iran-Contra affair.
Gates was Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs from March until August of 1989, and was Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser from August 1989 until November 1991.
Gates was nominated (for the second time) for the position of Director of Central Intelligence by President Bush on May 14, 1991, confirmed by the Senate on November 5, and sworn in on November 6, becoming the only career officer in the CIA's history (as of 2005) to rise from entry-level employee to Director. In addition to questions about Iran-Contra affair, Senate members questioned the nomination because Gates allegedly passed intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
Deputy Directors during his tenure were Richard J. Kerr (from November 6, 1991, until March 2, 1992) and Adm. William O. Studeman (from April 9, 1992, through the remainder of Dr. Gates' tenure). He served until 1993.
The final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, issued on August 4, 2003, said that Gates "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment...."
When I repost much of this diary, all you have to do was remember that Robert Gates was behind the scenes during all of it and was almost certainly behind Iran-Contra and the protected drug trade, as was described.
I will not talk about the Secret War in Laos and reiterate my previous diary, but if you want to know the roots of the neocon drug-smuggling complicity and/or acceptance read the original diaries.
And with that, my original diary, to realize just how chilling this is:
Iran-Contra "Who can compete with the government?" - John Gotti, Jr. on whether he has been dealing drugs.
I will not talk about the Secret War in Laos and reiterate my previous diary, but if you want to know the roots of the neocon drug-smuggling complicity and/or acceptance read the original diaries.
Many of the guys who were involved, behind the scenes, in the Secret War in Laos will go on into our next scandal, Iran-Contra. This likely includes John Negroponte, who was involved in the Vietnam/Laos Saga as a political officer in the Vietnam War. Exactly what he did is a total unknown. He did describe that time as a "career defining experience." His role, however, was likely limited to Vietnam - he was a "Vietnam Expert" - not interested in complications like Laos. People who were actually involved in Laos that would go on into the Iran-Contra Scandal include Ted Shackley (CIA Agent), Thomas Clines (CIA Agent), Oliver North (who called the Contras "freedom fighters" and was convicted on three counts only to be overturned on a technicality), and Richard Secord.
Another major figure involved in both scandals was Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State under Powell (is he taking up any other position now?) and a signer of PNAC, the neo-con manifesto (and a terrible piece of writing). In Laos, according to the Christic Institute's affadavit, he was involved in funnelling drug money from Laos and Thailand into assasination programs and other nefarious activities in Vietnam. During Iran-Contra, he was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, at which time he apparently opposed the arms sales (read on), on the grounds that the Iranians were "sleazebags." What a guy.
The beginnings of Iran-Contra would signal a marked shift in our foreign focus, from East Asia to Central/South America and the Middle East - where it largely remains today.
Let's start by talking about the Contras. They were the militants who opposed the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua (FSLN), who held power beginning in 1979. This government was accused by the Reagan Administration of supporting communism, and joining with Cuba in supporting communist revolutions in Latin America, in countries such as El Salvador. While many members were surely strong communists, I am not sure that has even been verified, but it's not important.
Anyway, the Contras were a group that we created, out of remnants of the opposition (Somoza's National Guard.) The CIA financed them, trained them, and armed them. They operated out of Honduras (where Negroponte was ambassador) and Costa Rica, which both border Niceragua. We also put a full embargo on Niceragua. Guerilla war soon ensued - a really nasty one, might I add - and a topic I am sure you will read plenty about in the coming days if you haven't already. One of the best examples of it's brutality were the death squads that were supported under Negroponte's watch. Needless to say, this was brutal and disgusting, and Reagan's Administration would stop at nothing in it's insane crusade against the Sandinistas.
Eventually Congress would make funding the Contras illegal. Well, since when did that stop the CIA and Pentagon? The Contras needed funding, and the taxpayer lifeline was cut off. So what did they do? They did two things. The first, very commonly known thing they did was illegally sell arms to Iran, and use the money to fund the Contras. This has been widely investigated, yet the results wound up secret and ineffective.
The arms sales were not all by a long shot. Why they call this "Iran-Contra," I know not. I can speculate several reasons, but I will keep them to myself. We will return to Iran when we get to the Middle East, namely Pakistan and Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter - why we sold arms to Iran when we were, I do believe, simultaneously supporting Saddam Hussein I do not know, but I intend to find out.) Anyway, the second source of funds. A - likely large - amount of Contra funding came from drug money. Yep, the Contras (and many Contra supporters - which we in turn supported) were drug manufacturers and traffickers - in cocaine, this time. Now, that's nothing new for US Policy, as I have made clear. It's almost like "oh, we supported drug dealers [it's almost a requirement], so what?" Well, we did alot more than support them. We directly assisted them selling their drugs on American soil. In fact, the CIA might have been responsible for the whole thing in the first place, if the CIA weren't the drug dealers themselves! Now, we did directly support the drug aspect in Laos before with Vang Pao. He had a heroin lab in a CIA Base, and we financed his smuggling. But in that case, it wasn't (at least in any significant number,) coming home. Sure, much of it was going to our troops in Vietnam, but who cares about them?
That's right, we are talking about finished cocaine - not raw product - providing aircraft, protection as they trafficked into the USA, and protection as they operated on US Soil. It's unfortunate, but we don't know exactly how much cocaine was involved, percentage wise at least. Unless there is a formal investigation, chances of which are moot, it's just not going to be known. And just wait - there's more!
The Kerry Commission (as in John Kerry) would conclude that "There was substantial evidence of drug smuggling through the war zones on the part of individual Contras, Contra suppliers, Contra pilots mercenaries who worked with the Contras, and Contra supporters throughout the region" and that "Senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems." Unfortunately, the Kerry Commission didn't even come close to getting to the bottom of the drug issue.
Now, I mentioned Manuel Noriega for a reason other than the fact that he was a drug kingpin. The other reason was that he was directly involved in Iran-Contra. He facilitated "guns-for-drugs" flights for the contras - supplying guns for drugs (which he proceeded to sell, of course.) He also provided protection and pilots, safe havens for drug cartel members, and money laundering. I even mentioned that, despite all this, that many US officials - including CIA Director William Webster and several DEA officials - sent him letters of praise in his fighting drug trafficking. It's too bad his fighting of drug trafficking was only against his competitors. Eventually the US would discover that he was assisting the Cubans and Sandinistas, and they would turn on him and take him down by force - all of a sudden he was the obstacle to a drug free America, according to the Administration. Ironically, drug trafficking through Panama increased afterwards, as he was no longer thwarting his competitors.
Meanwhile, in America...
On to America Soil and some developments. First, let's describe the type of protection, exactly, that these drug dealers would recieve in and on the way to America. When you are working with the CIA, you are untouchable. The CIA can show up and end any criminal action in it's tracks. And that they did. There are numerous instances of minor traffickers being arrested (in the USA) for smuggling drugs, and the CIA will go to the local police or courts and get them off because they would often threaten to talk. And that would be the end of that. The DEA has collaborated this, and been complicit in it, and in some instances has even admitted it.
As for the smuggling, at least four transport companies received US government contracts to carry supplies to the contras that were implicated in drug smuggling. Southern Air Transport, which was "formerly" CIA-owned, later under Pentagon contract, was involved in the drug running itself. Cocaine-laden planes flew all over the USA - to Florida, Texas, Louisiana and other locations, even including several military bases. Designated as 'Contra Craft,' these shipments were not to be inspected. As can be expected, when some zealous authority wasn't clued in and made a bust, the CIA or Pentagon would step in and that would be the end of that.
The Crack epidemic not-so-coincidentally occurred right in the middle of all this. While Crack (freebase cocaine, it's a smokable form of cocaine that provides a super-strong but super-short high, and is super-addicting) was discovered in the mid-70s, the epidemic didn't explode until the mid-80s. And it's quite clear that it was caused by the Contra scandal. You see, crack was cheap, potent, and addicting. It was the perfect drug to reap billions from the poor, especially blacks. Essentially you have a tax on poor blacks - who then proceed to suffer even more - to pay for an illegal, secret war. It is disgusting. And not a damn thing has been done about it. What can be done? We are dealing with the untouchable CIA and Pentagon here - as well as the Republican Party (including several idols and people currently in power.)
This whole thing is what started the whole Columbian Drug Lord mess we are now in. The connections set up during the Contra scandal still remain today. The CIA themselves set up the connections, and used the drug money to fund the contras. That's right - the CIA was directly facilitating the sale of cocaine. It's almost mind-boggling. Before the CIA brought wholesale South American Cocaine to LA in the form of crack at rock-bottom prices ($5 a hit - today, at least), both cocaine and crack were both unobtainable in black communities. Now it's a plague.
This story was broken by the Mercury News of San Jose, by Gary Webb, in a three part special that printed in 1996. I wish I could give you links, but you have to pay a (modest) fee for the articles. I strongly urge you to read them, if you are so inclinded, as well as the other sources I mentioned. You can find them by searching for "Dark Alliance," they were published in three articles, August 18th-20th 1996. You can also find much supporting and background information at Dark Alliance at Lycaeum.
War on [X] & The Military-Industrial Complex. (and some important background information.)
In September 1989, 3 months before he went after Noriega and 9 months after he was inaugurated, in his first televised speech to the nation, George H.W. Bush held up a baggie of cocaine, claiming that it was bought in front of the White House (later to be discovered this was only because the DEA lured someone there using their undercover ties.) This was his escalation of the "War on Drugs." It would seem to be a rather strong coincidence that the War on Drugs seemed to coincide with the end of the Cold War (and defense spending faced massive cuts) - and it represents a pattern. Notice, now, that we have our War on Terrorism, the War on Drugs is no longer even mentioned by politicians (yet it is continued at full force - at home, at least.)
The Cold War, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism all present the possibility for an endless threat, constant fear, and an ever-escalating military-industrial apparatus. The warning of Eisenhower about the Military-Industrial Complex has come to fruition, likely beyond his wildest dreams. EX-DEA agent (undercover specialist of 25 years) Michael Levine has commented, "with the fade of communism [the Pentagon and CIA] are building a pretext for maintaining their budgets" (March 1991.) Believe it or not, after Iraq invaded Kuwait (August 1990) the rhetoric of the war on drugs suddenly changed, with the Bush (41) Administration declaring victory in the War on Drugs a few months later. Could this possible be some sort of coincidence, a development we don't know about, or had the Bush Administration now found a more convenient vehicle for the military-industrial complex in the "Madman" Saddam Hussein? With current events adding more meaning to this, things look quite a bit suspicious.
The Cold War and the War on Drugs (while ongoing) have both been widely considered to have been a waste of time, money, and most importantly lives. The War on Terrorism seems to be even worse - it is clearly inflaming terrorism, yet we continue with blind ignorance. When will we stop this nonsense and go after root causes instead of symptoms?
It may come as a surprise to some, but perhaps not to most, that we spend more on our military than any other country by astounding numbers. I am not sure of the exact current numbers, but I do believe it's more than the next 10 top military spending countries combined, and is almost as much as the rest of the world's, once again, combined. It has, after a very small decline under Clinton, gone up 41% under George W. Bush, if you include the special Iraq packages. We have become a Military Nation. With Negroponte's nomination as Intelligence Czar (which, sad to say, he is sure to be confirmed to,) this is even more scary. Our military is out of control. Why should the CIA need to do things like sell drugs and arms to support a war? Shouldn't that be the Pentagon's Job (it should be NO ONE's job)? We don't need someone to coordinate intelligence between some 10 different agencies - we need to combine those agencies. But those agencies have become entities that are beyond American political control.
And then we have black America, the part that is chained to poverty in the slums. While cocaine would lose popularity by the end of the 80s, crack would explode. Many a conspiracy theorist has commented that the CIA specifically used crack as a method to keep down Black America. I am not making that charge (it were the gangs, specifically the infamous Bloods and Crips, that made and sold the crack - any CIA involvement was only in raw cocaine - at least as far as the evidence, that I am aware of at least, shows,) but I have made the charge that they were at least indirectly responsible, it would appear, for this development, and ambivalent about it.
And what would they do for the black community? Instead of helping them or ignoring them, as they have done for the white drug users (the majority of drug users,) they would throw them in prison by the boatload. Police would specifically target them. Crack is a drug that has the stiffest penalties for possessing, yet a drug that has not changed in popularity or availability in any significant degree over the years since it exploded during the Contra affair.
What exactly the government did, let happen, etc., in regards to crack and the black community is an unknown, and it will likely remain as such. What isn't an unknown, however, is that the politicians have been completely ambivalent to the plight of the blacks in poverty and prison - two things that are clearly not mutually exclusive. Is it possible, perhaps, that the Democrats are happy with the situation - as by having poor black people you are more assured their vote?...I truly hope no one is that heinous.
To wrap this up, I deeply fear that the "defense" department of our country has grown out of any sort of control, and will take over the country if it hasn't already. Keep in mind that the neo-cons, writers of PNAC, are now the ones in control of this country the ones who were in control of this country. And being "soft on defense" is political suicide.
Tying up Loose Ends (The Contras and Central/South America)
"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government."
- William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
I want to mention some other figures involved in Iran-Contra, including George H.W. Bush (41). He was certainly a key figure in all of this, and it was quite a mistake to leave him out. He was CIA director from Nov. 1975- Jan. 1977, and while that predates the Contra Scandal, it clearly shows where he was coming from. He then went on to be Vice President to Reagan from 1980-1988, when he then became President himself. He sat as Vice President through the entire debacle, and to claim he knew nothing of it would be to go out on quite a limb indeed. Congressional testimony by George H.W. Bush's NSC advisor Donald Gregg would state that Bush himself met with Noriega in 1976 - which was after he was outed by the DEA as a drug lord. (FYI, Carter (who's hands are far from clean - don't get the wrong idea) stopped the checks to Noriega, and Reagan (Bush VP) resumed them.) NSC memos that the shredder missed revealed that Donald Gregg was aware early on of Contra involvement in the drug trade. Even many conservatives would shockingly all of a sudden urge for drug decriminalization, including Reagan's then-Secretary of State George Schultz, then-UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, economist Milton Friedman, and editor of the National Review William F. Buckley, Jr. Now what would cause them to do such a radical thing?
The first two years of George H.W. Bush's Presidency would see William Bennett, his first Drug Czar, criticized by members of Congress for his indifference to loopholes permitting U.S. companies to export unusual volumes of cocaine processing chemicals to Latin American countries. As he left office, Bush 41 pardoned six members convinced in the Iran-Contra(-Crack) scandal, including Elliott Abrams, and we will now explore some other names involved in Iran-Contra(-Crack.)
Someone I should definitely not have left out was John Poindexter. John Poindexter was convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence - one of the few to see criminal charges from Iran-Contra - after serving as National Security Advisor under Reagan (and losing his job.) His charges were overturned on appeals, like Oliver North. He, unlike Negroponte, has been personally implicated in the cocaine scandal (a Costa Rican Government Commission accused him personally, for instance.) He was another character from Iran-Contra to be given a position in the Bush Administration - a very scary position. He ran the now defunct, on paper, "Total Information Awareness" program at DARPA (2), an Orwellian Big Brother-esque program. Apparently, he still slips and refers to "TIA" in the present tense.
In fact, Bush (43) seems quite fond of Iran-Contra conspirators, and has nominated John Negroponte (UN Ambassador, nominated Intel Czar), Elliott Abrams (director of the office for democracy, human rights, and international operations for the National Security Council - pleaded guilty two 2 counts of withholding evidence related to Iran-Contra, pardoned by Bush 41,) and Otto Riech (assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.) Richard Armitage is another obvious one, and was mentioned in Part 2. Finally, we come to Dick Cheney. Cheney was an ardent supporter of Oliver North, and even supported his run in 1994!
War crimes? What war crimes? The war criminals (and drug dealers) of Iran-Contra(-Crack) weren't put in jail - they were promoted! It should be stressed that the whole neocon movement is very closely tied to the Iran-Contra debacle. Why is George W. so complicit in all this? Is it a coincidence; he just likes these guys? Fatherly influences? What?..
History consistently proves these people can't see any farther than the hand in front of their face.
Perhaps to finally be concluded with Pakistan/Afghanistan and the "War on Terror"