OG008
=====

           Allegations Regarding Vince Foster, the NSA, and 
                Banking Transactions Spying, Part VIII

                      by J. Orlin Grabbe
        
        Did our former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger,
like Vince Foster, have a Swiss Bank account?  Does he still? 
Is his name on account number KPFBMMBODE at the Union Bank 
of Switzerland?  Was that why Caspar Weinberger, Publisher Emeritus 
at *Forbes*, became so gung-ho to get Jim Norman's article 
*Fostergate* killed?   
        
        What is the relationship between Caspar Weinberger and Vince 
Foster?  

        What does Ron Perelman, an equity owner of *Forbes* and Revlon, 
have to say about all this?  (Is there lipstick all over the Pentagon?)

        Don't get me wrong.  I think the Swiss banking system is the 
finest in the world, and we should ALL have Swiss banking accounts. We 
should ALL have the right to hide our assets from prying eyes.  Just as 
long, of course, as those assets were fairly earned--and they don't 
represent payola from public defense projects.  Or proceeds from the 
sale of *bona fide* national security secrets.  Or payola to keep the 
knowledge of such sales secret.  
       
        Were Caspar Weinberger's Swiss assets simply savings from his
paycheck and profits from his investments?

        Are U.S. nuclear secrets for open sale on the world market
from one of our alleged "allies"?        
        
        Bobby Ray Inman graduated from the Naval War College in 1972, 
became Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the Pacific Fleet 
in 1973, Director of Naval Intelligence in 1974, Vice Director of the 
Defense Intelligence Agency in 1976, Director of the National Security 
Agency in 1977, and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence under Ronald 
Reagan in 1981.  He left that post in March 1982.  In December 1993 he 
was nominated by Bill Clinton to be Secretary of Defense.
("Bibliography of Bobby Ray Inman," Office of the Press Secretary, 
The White House, December 16, 1993.)

        "After Admiral Inman's announcement that he would not serve 
as Clinton's Defense Secretary, the Hebrew press devoted a fair amount 
of space to the implications of that affair for Israel. . . . Most 
important among these writings were the articles by Amir Oren 
(*Davar*, January 28) and Yoav Karni, published the same day in the 
newly founded weekly *Shishi*. . . . Oren's article in particular
stressed the incompatibility between Inman's past policy
recommendations  and Israeli political aims, especially in regard
to nuclear developments. Both authors, who usually are mildly
critical of Israel's policies but never of its nuclear build-up,
were emphatic in their hostility toward Inman. Furthermore, Oren
discussed in depth Pollard and Israeli espionage in the U.S. as
having something to do with Israeli objections to Inman as a
person and to his policy recommendations." (Israel Shahak,
"Involvement of the pro-Israel lobby in the Inman affair,"
Report No. 133, February 11, 1994.) 

        Shahak goes on to note that:  "When Yoel Markus (*Haartez*,
December 31, 1993) spoke of the recent 'courtship' of Israel
by various states, he concluded that 'this courtship has nothing
to do with the peace process . . . When the U.S. is being ruled
by an administration as favorably disposed to Israel as the present
one, conviction spreads in every state that the only way to America's
purse leads via Israel.' "

        A chief objection to Inman was he might implement U.S.
inspections of the Israeli nuclear production process at Dimona:

        "Oren mentions a number of reasons why Israel loathed and
feared Inman.  But as the main of those reasons Oren projects the
Israeli expectation that, if appointed the U.S. Defense Secretary,
Inman would be able to put into effect independent American
inspections of Israeli nuclear armaments and their production 
process in Dimona.  It needs to be recalled that by virtue of a
secret agreement with the U.S. reached during the first year of
John F. Kennedy's term of office as president, the U.S. to this
day receives only such information about Israeli nuclear power
as Israel is pleased to convey.  After the Bay of Pigs fiasco
Kennedy needed the support of the 'Jewish lobby'.  In order to
get it, he okayed this curious agreement." (Israel Shahak)

        Shahak cites evidence that much of Israel nuclear capability 
had been acquired through espionage directed against the U.S. (The
following reference to "Critical Mass" is to a book called *Critical 
Mass* by William E. Burrows and Robert Windrem.)


        "*Yediot Ahronot*'s correspondents Tzadok Yehezkeli and Danny
Sadeh (January 30), write in their review of the book "Critical
Mass" . . . that 'Israel solicits money from wealthy Jews from all over 
the world for financing its nuclear weaponry programs. This fundraising 
drive is directed by a committee comprised of 30 Jewish millionaires'.
 . . . .
  
        "[Tzadok Yehezkeli and Danny Sadeh] write that 'Israel is ever ready 
to launch its nuclear missiles on some 60 to 80 targets. Those targets
include the sites in the Gulf, the capitals of all Arab states, some nuclear 
bases on the territory of the former USSR and some sites in Pakistan'. 
(I am convinced this is accurate.) It means that Israel must very much 
want to obtain the U.S. satellite information about the entire targeted 
area, a not so negligible part of the earth's surface. The existence of a 
so formidable nuclear power in Israel's hands can not be convincingly 
attributed to its own Research and Development efforts nor even to its 
role as a tool of American policies. On the contrary, a nuclear power of 
that magnitude must be presumed to run counter to U.S. imperial interests. 
The only plausible explanation is that Israel has acquired its nuclear 
power with at least some help of its 'Jewish friends' in the U.S.  
Yehezkeli's and Sadeh's information about 'the nuclear bases on the 
territory of the former USSR' fits well with what Geoffrey Aronson,
relying on State Department sources, reveals about the Pollard affair 
("The Christian Science Monitor", January 27). He writes that according 
to 'unanimous response' from these sources, what Pollard has been always 
said to have betrayed, were 'this country's most important secrets', 
namely the 'information relating to U.S. targeting of Soviet nuclear and 
military installations and the capabilities and defenses of these sites'. 
This seems to accord with Israel's global aspirations based on its nuclear 
power. Aronson also quotes his sources to the effect that much of
intelligence passed on by Pollard 'was unusable to the Israelis except as 
bargaining chips and leverage against the United States and other countries' 
interests'.  In view of this fact Aronson conjectures that Pollard's 
intelligence was used by Israel for deals with Moscow consisting of 
'trading nuclear secrets for Soviet Jews'."  (Israel Shahak)
                                                     
        Shahak goes on to quote Oren with respect to Jonathan
Pollard:  ". . . 'a Navy Intelligence employee, Jonathan Pollard,
was caught red-handed while passing on to Israel precisely this kind 
of information which Inman had decided to withhold from Israel. . . .  
And interpreted likewise as coincidental were the links connecting
Rafi Eitan, then the chief of the 'Office for Scientific Contacts'
(LEKEM), who employed Pollard, with the [Israeli] Defense minister,
Ariel Sharon, who had appointed Eitan and who rushed to Washington
in order to complain against Inman and his orders.'.... Eitan ran
Pollard with the explicit approval of four Defense ministers and 
Prime Ministers, concretely Arens, Rabin, Shamir and Peres.'"

        Rafi Eitan's reward for the Pollard affair?  "After helping
sell Iraqi oil all over the world, he now oversees the Israeli trade
with Cuba" (Shahak).

        Let me ask again: Are U.S. nuclear secrets for open sale on the 
world market from one of our alleged "allies"?  

        Are U.S. nuclear secrets for open sale by the Defense Department 
personnel who allegedly guard them?      

        Why did Mike McCurry, Press Secretary on the White House, spent time trying 
to convince Sarah McClendon, veteran White House journalist, that Jim Norman is a
fruitcake? 

        If Jim Norman is a liar or a fruit cake, why did an editor at *Insight* magazine 
receive a visit from the Pentagon? Why was Jim Norman's in-progress interview with Jack Christie on the USA Radio Network today (July 23, 1995) interrupted for reasons 
of "national security"?  If lying is a national security problem, what is Bill Clinton doing
in the White House?

        Why is it that the sale of *bona fide* national security secrets is tolerated, even rewarded with lucrative payments to Swiss accounts, while journalistic reports about THE LOOTING AND SALE OF U.S. NUCLEAR SECRETS are quashed as "national security


"?  Is
 the Pentagon run by lunatics and thieves?   

        "We have put our faith in the bomb, and it is the bomb which 
will answer our prayers."--Henry Miller, *The Time of the Assassins*

                    [To be continued]