Thursday 7th of July 2022

the clintonytes from hell and beyond…….

Bill Clinton Makes a Pathetic Attempt to Retroactively Justify His Decision to Expand NATO


By Jeremy Kuzmarov



[Bill Clinton] Writes a Deceitful Article in The Atlantic Magazine That Distorts History to Defend His Fateful Presidential Blunder


With the Ukraine war expanding and the threat of nuclear catastrophe rising, Bill Clinton has written an article in The Atlantic magazine trying to defend what many see as indefensible: his administration’s support for the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in March 1999 into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic against a pledge by the Bush administration to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”

Clinton had been warned at the time by Russian President Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999) that NATO expansion would result in “nothing but humiliation for Russia” and could provoke a new Cold War.

Yeltsin told Clinton: “How do you think it looks to us if one bloc [from the Cold War] continued to exist when the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia.”[1]


A similar warning was issued by George F. Kennan, the father of the Cold War containment doctrine.

He wrote in an op-ed in February 1997 that NATO expansion would amount to a “strategic blunder of epic proportions” and the “most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era,” as it would “inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion,” and “restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations,”[2] which is exactly what happened.

Nearly 20 years after Kennan’s op-ed was published, Clinton’s former Defense Secretary, William J. Perry, gave an interview to the London Guardian in which he acknowledged that the U.S. bore a large degree of blame for the proxy war that had broken out between the U.S. and Russia in eastern Ukraine.


Perry stated: “Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] started to expand, bringing in Eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia. At that time, we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that NATO could be a friend rather than an enemy … but they were very uncomfortable about having NATO right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”[3]



Invoking the Trope of Russian Expansion to Justify U.S. Imperialism


In his Atlantic essay, Clinton claimed that his administration had first worked to foster cooperative relations with Boris Yeltsin and democratize Russia, and supported NATO expansion as a fallback to protect European security in case Russia returned to “ultranationalism” and its “aspirations to empire like [in the era of] Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.”[4]

Guy Mettan, in his book Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria(Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2017), points out that the threat of Russian expansion has been invoked by Western leaders since the era of Charlemagne to justify their own expansionist policies.

The United States during Clinton’s presidency wanted to capitalize on the collapse of the Soviet Union to expand its power and influence in the Eurasian heartland, which geopolitical strategists like Zbigniew Brzezinski viewed as key to global domination.[5]

NATO expansion under Clinton coincided with support for “color revolutions” targeting pro-Russian and socialist leaders such as Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus,[6] and aggressive penetration of Central Asia in an attempt to pry its oil wealth away from Russia.


In 1997, the U.S. Department of State told Congress that the Caspian Basin held as much as 200 billion barrels of oil—about ten times the amount found in the North Sea, and one-third of the Persian Gulf’s total reserves.[7]

In the next three years, the Clinton administration provided $175 million in arms and military training and more than $1 billion in aid to countries in the region. Strategic planners sought to incorporate it into a “vast U.S. dependency,” which NATO would help secure.[8]


Some $302 million was provided to the Georgian government of Eduard Shevardnadze, who had come to power in a coup d’état backed by the Western powers which toppled nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who died under suspicious circumstances a year later.[9]


Shevardnadze’s main value to the West was his commitment to protecting the primary oil export pipeline that crossed Georgia from Azerbaijan on the way to Turkey in an attempt to bypass Russia.


The Clinton administration forged another defense alliance with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev (1990-2019), who had sold a 20% stake in the Tengiz offshore oil fields to Chevron after being bribed by an oil industry consultant, and carried out military training exercises in Uzbekistan under the auspices of the NATO Partnership for Peace (PFP) Program, in which the U.S. military nurtured “the embryo of a NATO-led military force in Central Asia.”[10]


Clinton’s essay erroneously makes it seem that NATO expansion was purely defensive and in reaction to potential future Russian aggression—rather than rooted in any U.S. imperial designs. Clinton also omits the role of military lobbies: According to an analysis prepared for The New York Times by a research company in Springfield, Virginia, America’s six largest military contractors spent $51 million on lobbying for NATO expansion between 1996 and 1998.[11]

Democracy Promotion American-Style

Clinton’s claims about trying to democratize Russia under Yeltsin’s rule are absurd, considering that Clinton expressed full support for Yeltsin after he ordered a siege of the Russian parliament in September 1993.

This was after the parliament repudiated the rapid privatization or “shock therapy” policies supported by the Clinton administration that resulted in the selling off of Russian state assets for a fraction of their worth to Yeltsin’s cronies and a new class of oligarchs.[12]


The Clinton administration went on to sabotage Russian democracy further when it intervened to rig the 1996 Russian election on Yeltsin’s behalf.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—which gave nearly $1 million between 1990 and 1992 to the anti-communist Democratic Russia Movement that provided Yeltsin his political base[13]—received USAID grants for conferences, message development, focus groups, polling methods and television ads that were provided to members of Yeltsin’s political machine.


Three American political consultants also went to work on Yeltsin’s re-election bid promoting dirty tricks urging Yeltsin to “go negative” by rallying the oligarch-controlled Russian media to whip up “a wild anti-Communist psychosis among the people,” as one sympathetic news editor put it.[14]

Some great democracy promotion.

Madeleine’s Ghost

At the end of his Atlantic essay, Clinton provided a tribute to his former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a Czech émigré who had exclaimed “hallelujah” after Clinton had signed off on NATO expansion in March 1999.


According to Clinton, “few diplomats have ever been so perfectly suited for the times they served as Madeleine….she understood that the end of the Cold War provided the chance to build a Europe free, united, prosperous, and secure for the first time since nation-states arose on the continent.”

Unfortunately, we see today that the policy of NATO expansion has not secured a prosperous, united, and free Europe as Albright envisioned.

Rather it has resulted in a divided and unequal one embroiled in a devastating war that threatens to extend further.



  1. “Summary Report on One-on-One Meeting Between Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin, May 10, 1995, 10:10 a.m. – 1:19 p.m., St. Catherine’s Hall, The Kremlin,” National Security Archive,
  2. George F. Kennan, “A Fateful Error,” The New York Times, February 5, 1997.
  3. Quoted in Thomas L. Friedman, “This Is Putin’s War. But America and NATO Aren’t Innocent Bystanders,” The New York Times, February 21, 2022,
  4. Bill Clinton, “I Tried to Put Russia on Another Path,” The Atlantic, April 7, 2022,
  5. See Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperative (New York: Basic Books, 1998). Zbig’s son Mark, who served on Clinton’s National Security Council from 1999-2001 and is now U.S. ambassador to Poland, was a key figure carrying out Clinton’s policy of NATO enlargement.
  6. See Stewart Parker, The Last Soviet Republic: Alexander Lukashenko’s Belarus (London: Trafford, 2007), 136, 137.
  7. Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict (New York: Holt, 2002), 84, 85.
  8. Klare, Resource Wars, 85.
  9. Lutz Kleveman, The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003), 44; Michael Pullara, The Spy Who Was Left Behind: Russia, the United States, and the True Story of the Betrayal and Assassination of a CIA Agent (New York: Scribner, 2018), 17, 18, 19.
  10. Nasser Saghafi Ameri, “The Emerging NATO: Impact on Europe and Asia,” in Europe and Asia: Perspectives on the Emerging International Order, V.P. Malik and Erhard Crome, eds. (New Delhi: Lancer Publishers & Distributors, 2006), 153; Ken Silverstein, The Secret World of Oil (London: Verso, 2014), 21, 22. Uzbekistan at the time was ruled by Islam Karimov, who was accused of boiling political opponents alive.
  11. Katharine Q. Seelye, “Arms Contractors Spend to Promote an Expanded NATO,” The New York Times, March 30, 1998.
  12. Sean Guillory, “Dermokratiya, USA,” Jacobin, March 13, 2017; David Foglesong, The American Mission and the “Evil Empire”: The Crusade For a “Free Russia” since 1881 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007),208; Helen Thomas, “Clinton Supports Yeltsin in Crisis,” UPI Archives, September 21, 1993,
  13. Colin Cavell, Exporting ‘Made in America’ Democracy: The National Endowment for Democracy & U.S. Foreign Policy (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002), 110.
  14. Peter Beinart, “The U.S. Needs to Face Up to Its Long History of Election Meddling,” The Atlantic, July 22, 2018; Eleanor Randolph, “Americans Claim Role in Yeltsin Win,” Los Angeles Times, July 9, 1996; Fred Weir, “Betting on Boris,” CovertAction Quarterly(Summer 1996), 38, 41; Holly Sklar and Chip Berlet, “NED, CIA and the Orwellian Democracy Project,” CovertAction Quarterly 39 (Winter 1991-1992); Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Because He Could (New York: Regan Books, 2004), 171.




FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the western media lie…..

The lack of objective, principled coverage of the war in Ukraine is a degenerate state of affairs. The one thing worse is the extent to which it’s perfectly fine with most Americans.

It is perfectly obvious by now, to anyone who cares to look, that mainstream media in America and the other Western powers are not reporting the Ukraine crisis accurately.


by Patrick Lawrence*


  Let me try that another way: The government-supervised “New York Times” and the rest of the corporate-owned media on both sides of the Atlantic lie routinely to their readers and viewers as to why Russia intervened in Ukraine, the progress of its military operation, the conduct of Ukrainian forces, and America’s role in purposely provoking and prolonging this crisis.
  So far as I know, this is the first war in modern history with no objective, principled coverage in mainstream media of day-to-day events and their context. None. It is morn-to-night propaganda, disinformation and lies of omission – most of it fashioned by the Nazi-infested Zelensky regime in Kiev and repeated uncritically as fact.
  There is one thing worse than this degenerate state of affairs. It is the extent to which the media’s malpractice is perfectly fine to most Americans. Tell us what to think and believe no matter if it is true, they say, and we will think and believe it. Show us some pictures, for images are all. 
  There are larger implications to consider here. Critical as it is that we understand this conflict, Ukraine is a mirror in which we see ourselves as we have become. For more Americans than I wish were so, reality forms only in images. These Americans are no longer occupants of their own lives. Risking a paradox, what they take to be reality is detached from reality.
  This majority – and it is almost certainly a majority – has no thoughts or views except those first verified through the machinery of manufactured images and “facts.” Television screens, the pages of purportedly authoritative newspapers, the air waves of government-funded radio stations – NPR, the BBC – serve to certify realities that do not have to be real, truths that do not have to be true.
  This leaves us in a sad and very parlous place.
  Sad: Is there some state more pitiful than having no genuine connection to one’s own thoughts, perceptions, experience – altogether to one’s life? If Americans are not a profoundly sad people behind all the smiles we see in advertising, idiotic comedy shows, and on Facebook, then I must be missing something.
  Parlous: Over the course of some decades – from the mid-Cold War years, I would say – Americans have been rendered highly vulnerable to the manipulations of those who control the images through which most people have come to live. Anyone who has read a history of the 20th century knows where this can lead.
  The five weeks that have passed since the Russian intervention on 24 February have been shocking on both these counts. The derelictions of the press and broadcasters are without precedent in my lifetime, and with Vietnam, the Iraq War, and the covert operation in Syria among the wreckage in the rear-view mirror, this is saying something.
  I will let the American public’s enthusiasm for the sinkhole that is Ukraine, the Azov Battalion, and the ridiculous posturing of President Volodymyr Zelensky, the comedian who is no longer funny, speak for itself.

“Questionable veracity”

Ten days into the Russian intervention, the propaganda coming out of Kiev was already so preposterous “The New York Times” felt compelled to publish a piece headlined, “In Ukraine’s Information War, a Blend of Fact and Fiction.”1 This was a baldly rendered apologia for the many “stories of questionable veracity,” as “The Times” put it, then in circulation. I do love “The Times” for its delicate phrasing when describing indelicate matters.
  There was the “Ghost of Kiev” story, featuring an heroic fighter pilot who turned out to derive from a video game. There were the Snake Island heroes, 13 Ukrainian soldiers who held out to the death on some small speck in the Black Sea, except that it turned out they surrendered, though not before Zelensky awarded them posthumous medals of honour that were not posthumous.
  After railing against disinformation for years, “The Times” wants us to know, disinformation is O.K. in Ukraine because the Ukrainians are our side and they are simply “boosting morale.”
  We cannot say we weren’t warned. The Ghost of Kiev and Snake Island turn out now to be mere prelude, opening acts in the most extensive propaganda operation of the many I can recall.
  There was the maternity ward the Russians supposedly bombed in Mariupol. And then the theatre, and then the art school. All filled with huddling citizens the Russian air force cynically targeted because “this is genocide,” as the ever-intemperate Zelensky does not hesitate to assert.
  All of this has been reported as fact in “The Times” and other major dailies and, of course, by the major broadcasters. There have been pictures. There have been videos, all very persuasive to the eye.
  And then, as evidence mounts that these incidents were staged as propaganda to frame the Russians and draw NATO forces directly into the war, a silence worthy of a Catholic chapel descends. We read no more of the maternity ward that turned out to be an improvised Azov base, or the theatre, where citizens were herded, photographed in raggedy blankets, and sent away. Ditto the art school: Nothing more on this since the initial reports began to collapse. No body counts, no mention of the fact that Russian jets did not fly over Mariupol on the days in question.
  Before proceeding to Bucha, the outrage of the moment, I must reproduce a quotation from that propaganda-is-O.K. piece “The Times” published in its 3 March editions. It is from a Twitter user who was distressed that it became public that the Ghost of Kiev turned out to be a ghost and the Snake Island heroes didn’t do much by way of holding the fort.
  “Why can’t we just let people believe some things?” this thoughtful man or woman wanted to know. What is wrong, in other words, if thinking and believing nice things that aren’t true makes people feel better?
  America the beautiful, or something like that.
  Bucha is a suburb of 35,000 souls a few miles north of Kiev and one of the cities Russian forces began to evacuate on 29 March as peace talks in Istanbul progressed. Two days later the mayor, Anatoly Fedoruk, celebrated the city’s liberation in a selfie-speech to his citizenry. He made no mention of anything untoward in Bucha’s streets, backyards, or public spaces.
  Four days later, 2 April, a special unit of the Ukrainian national police deployed to Bucha. And suddenly the place turns out to be a hellhole: bodies in the streets – 410, according to the Prosecutor General’s office in Kiev – evidence of atrocities galore, people bound and shot point blank. The whole nine, in short.

Instant outrage

The outrage from Washington, London and Paris – “worldwide outrage,” this would be – was instant. No demand for an impartial inquiry, forensic inspections, or any such thing. No one asked why corpses left in the street for five days appeared to be fresh, or why the relatives of the dead left them there until Kiev’s commando unit arrived.
  António Guterres, the UN secretary-general, was level-headed enough to state, “It is essential that an independent investigation leads to effective accountability.” This is the only sound position at this point. But we know from a long history how far SGs at the UN get with this sort of talk.
  In my read this is yet another of the false flags the Kiev regime flies almost by the day now. Paying-attention people will not miss the striking similarity between these incidents and the numerous put-up jobs that featured in Washington’s covert operation in Syria and the campaign of those famous “moderate rebels” who desperately wanted to draw the US into the conflict.
  As a matter of principle, we must await evidence of what happened in Bucha, even as we know we are likely to see as much about events there as we have in Mariupol. We also know that to most people neither evidence nor its absence matters.
  We have been told once again what to think and believe, and most of us will think and believe it.
  We are to add this to various other “truths” now almost universally accepted: The Russian intervention had nothing to do with NATO expansion and was “unprovoked” – that favoured term in the Biden regime. Ukrainian forces have pushed the Russians into retreat: not that the pressure on Kiev was a Russian diversionary tactic to keep Ukrainian forces away from Donbass where the fighting is.
  After the Pentagon Papers came out in 1971, Hannah Arendt published an essay in The New York Review of Books called “Lying in Politics.”2 In it she wrote of America’s slide into a sort of collective psychosis she termed “defactualisation.” Facts are fragile, Arendt wrote, in that they tell no story in themselves. They can be assembled to mean whatever one wants them to mean. This leaves them vulnerable to the manipulations of storytellers.
  “The deliberate falsehood deals with contingent facts,” Arendt explained in this remarkable piece of work, “that is, with matters which carry no inherent truth within themselves, no necessity to be as they are; factual truths are never compellingly true.”
  A dead body in a Ukrainian street, in other words, can be assigned a meaning that, once it is established, evidence to the contrary cannot be used to erase.
  It is a half-century since Arendt published “Lying in Politics.” And it is to that time, the 1960s and 1970s, that we must trace the formation of what now amounts to America’s great bubble of pretend. The world as it is has mattered less and less since Arendt’s time, the world as we have wished it to be has mattered more and more.
  Nine years before Arendt published her NYRB piece, Daniel Boorstin brought out “The Image: Or, What happened to the American Dream”, an unjustly neglected work. “I describe the world of our making,” he wrote, “how we have used our wealth, our literacy, our technology, and our progress to create the thicket of unreality which stands between us and the facts of life.”
  The press, as you can imagine, did not escape Boorstin’s scrutiny. “The reporter’s task,” he wrote memorably, “is to find a way to weave these threads of unreality into a fabric the reader will not recognise as entirely unreal.”
  This is our condition. The Ukraine crisis is the mirror that reflects us as we are.
  Now I will relate a peculiar coincidence, pertinent to our case.
  Last week I took it upon myself to watch Marcel Ophuls’ “The Sorrow and the Pity”, all four hours of it. This is the famously explosive documentary that forced the French to come to terms with the extent to which they had collaborated with the Nazis during the three years and some they occupied France.
  This film has a special meaning for me. It came out in 1969, just as I arrived in Paris for university studies. France was in an uproar over Ophuls’ film. It was banned from broadcast on French television until 1981. I did not understand much of this at the time.
  “The Sorrow and the Pity” shredded to pieces, relentlessly, unblinkingly, the national myth that the French had all been heroes of the resistance, or had aided it, or had in some way stood against the collaborationist Vichy regime of Marshal Pétain, hero of Verdun in World War I, capitulationist in World War II. This was nothing like the case.
  Now I understand what the young student long ago could not quite grasp. The French simply could not face Ophuls’ unyielding exposure of who they had been. Ophuls had punctured the enduring bubble of pretend within which they had lived for 25 years after the 1945 victory in Europe.
  People can live in these bubbles a very long time. The unreality within them can be very persuasive. The French finally emerged from their bubble. It was painful, a passage full of angst, but they were fortunate to have escaped.
  Will we have our interim of sorrow, of pity, and emerge from our bubble the better for it? May we someday be so blest.  • of 3 March 2022 of 18 November 1971

of 5 April 2022; with friendly permission of the author

Patrick Lawrence is a writer, commentator, a longtime newspaper and magazine correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the “International Herald Tribune”. He is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer and writes often on Europe and Asia. Patrick Lawrence has published five books; his most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site. 
















drug runners had police escorts..….

There is Absolutely No Reason in the World to Believe That Bill Clinton Is a CIA Asset—Except for All the Evidence



By Jeremy Kuzmarov


JANUARY 3 2022




Clinton was allegedly recruited by the Agency in the 1960s and helped cover up for drug-and gun-running operations to the Nicaraguan Contras out of Mena, Arkansas, in the 1980s when he was Governor of Arkansas. The CIA in turn appears to have helped Clinton in his rise to power.

[This article follows in our series on the history of the CIA and its criminal activities around the world. It is also kicks off our “Clinton crime” week as we will follow up with an article on the July 1993 murder of White House Special Counsel Vince Foster, whom Clinton had brought to Washington from Arkansas where he had served as legal counsel with Hillary in the Rose Law Firm. Bill was recently in the news because he was hospitalized and appears to be in poor health. The mainstream media continues to give him and Hillary the kid gloves treatment, failing to explore the dark side of an American power couple that embodies the old adage “best is worst.”—Editors]

The 2017 Hollywood blockbuster American Made, starring Tom Cruise, spotlighted the escapades of Barry Seal, a legendary drug pilot with a CIA background who smuggled guns and drugs into Nicaragua out of Mena, Arkansas, as part of the 1980s Contra War.

In one scene that the filmmakers decided to cut, a young Bill Clinton, the Governor of Arkansas, gets a lap dance at a strip club at the moment when Seal hatches a plan to enlist Clinton in the CIA-backed drug and gun running scheme. Left in, however, was a scene in which Clinton helps facilitate Seal’s release from jail so he could begin informing on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).


Hollywood may be known for embellishment, but newly declassified documents show that Arkansas state officials were briefed about a joint CIA-Defense Department operation in Mena to assist the Contras, which Governor Clinton had to have known about. Clinton also, according to numerous whistleblower accounts, helped block investigation into the arms- and drug-running schemes.

American Made director Doug Liman stated, “we knew that somehow Barry was operating with immunity. The CIA was operating with immunity in Arkansas. So there had to have been some involvement of the governor’s office. There is a prosecutor in Arkansas who was told to back off. And so we combined that with the fact that the CIA was for sure operating in Arkansas and Clinton was the governor, to condense it down into one specific moment.”

Clinton’s ties to the CIA appear to go back to the 1960s. He was reportedly recruited while studying at Oxford University in the late 1960s as a Rhodes Scholar, or while an undergraduate at Georgetown Universitya huge CIA recruiting center. He then reportedly served as an informant on the anti-war movement in England as part of the CIA’s Operation Chaos, giving the CIA the names of fellow protesters and the sources of the movement’s funding.

The CIA is further suspected of funding a March 1969 trip Clinton took to Moscow where he was allegedly part of a mission to smuggle out the memoir of ex-Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, which was subsequently translated into sixteen languages.

This was a coup for the CIA since Khrushchev had denounced the crimes of Stalin and presented a negative view of the Soviet Union.

An Asset of the Three Bad Words

In June 1966, newly appointed CIA Director Richard Helms expanded operations to collect intelligence on college and university campus protests against the Vietnam War. Project Resistance placed CIA recruiters on college campuses who would recruit students to infiltrate protest groups.

At Oxford’s Balliol College, where Clinton studied, the CIA recruiter may have been Richard G. Stearns. A graduate of Stanford and Harvard law, he was a committed anti-communist who was Vice President for International Affairs of the National Student Association (NSA), which Ramparts magazine showed to have received CIA funds.[1]

Clinton and Stearns were very close. A series of letters between them shows that Clinton sought Stearns’s assistance in evading the Vietnam War draft. In exchange, Stearns allegedly helped provide funding for Clinton to travel to Moscow and Eastern Europe. Later, he helped set up Clinton as the head of George McGovern’s political campaign in Texas—where Clinton made key contacts that helped him rise to power.[2]



Clinton’s Oxford roommate, Nelson Strobridge “Strobe” Talbott III, was attacked by Moscow newspapers as a “young sapling of the CIA” after he published a translation of Nikita Khrushchev’s memoir while working for Time magazine.

Talbott had come from an upper-class family in Shaker Heights, Ohio, studied Russian and wrote a thesis at Yale—a haven for CIA recruitment where he was part of the Skull and Bones secret society—on Fyodor Tyutchev, a 19th century Russian poet and diplomat. Later, from his perch as head of the Brookings Institute, he played a key role in the Russia-Gate scandal by disseminating the Steele dossier, which spread misinformation helping to trigger nation-wide paranoid and hysterical Russophobia and neo-McCarthyism. [3]



Talbott’s great-uncle, Harold E. Talbott, Jr., as Secretary of the Air Force from 1953 to 1955, had given away the Air Force’s authority to the CIA for overhead reconnaissance and worked with the CIA to promote development of the famed U-2 spy plane.[4]


Talbott’s wife, Brooke Shearer, and brother-in-law, Cody Shearer, who was also involved in promoting Russia-Gate, meanwhile became part of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s “secret spy network.”[5]


As President Clinton’s top point man for Russia in the 1990s, Strobe oversaw “shock therapy,” or rapid privatization programs, that resulted in the sell-off of Russian state assets at pennies to the dollar to cronies of President Boris Yeltsin.[6]

The question lingers as to whether it was coincidence that Talbott became Clinton’s roommate or whether Talbott was a liaison to the Agency whose purpose was to recruit young Clinton, who was considered even at the time to have great future potential?


Whistleblower Stew Webb believes that Clinton was already recruited as an Agency asset under Project Resistance at Georgetown University where he studied as an undergraduate and that he never actually received the Rhodes scholarship—this was merely a cover.


Clinton’s favorite professor at Georgetown was Carroll Quigley, a Defense Department consultant and author of Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), which traced the power of a small Anglo-Saxon banking elite and how they effectively ruled the world.[7] Quigley wrote that “the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.”

Clinton received one of only two A’s given by Quigley in the course and later quoted Quigley in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1992.[8]



Washington insider Jack Wheeler related, in his 1988 essay “How the Clintons Will Undo McCain,” how his friend Cord Meyer, Jr., the CIA’s Assistant Deputy Director of Plans from 1967 to 1973 and later London station chief, told him about Clinton’s past. 

He wrote: “Back in the 1990s, years after he retired, if Cord drank a little too much scotch he would laugh derisively at those conspiracists who accused Bill Clinton of being connected with the KGB. They all darkly point to Bill’s participation in anti-war peace conferences in Stockholm and Oslo and his trip to Leningrad, Moscow, and Prague while he was at Oxford. ‘Who could have paid for this,’ they ask, ‘it had to be KGB?’” Cord would shake his head. “What rot—we paid for it. We recruited Bill the first week he was at Oxford. Bill’s been an asset of the Three Bad Words ever since.”[9]


Corroborated by at least two other CIA officers, Meyer’s admission helps put into context many of Clinton’s actions as Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States.

Mr. Casey’s Fair-Haired Boy: Covering Up the Crimes of Mena 

The 1992 presidential election was unique in that both major party candidates were caught up in the Iran-Contra scandal. George H.W. Bush as Vice President under Ronald Reagan had played a key role in the illicit shipment of arms to the Nicaraguan Contras—a counter-revolutionary army funded by the CIA that was seeking to overthrow the left-wing Sandinista government—as declassified government records have revealed.


Bill Clinton might have used this against Bush in the campaign, except that he was also caught up in the scandal. Many arms shipments to the Contras were carried out from Arkansas’s soil during his governorship; specifically, from the Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport in southwestern Arkansas’s Ouachita mountains, “an outlaw’s paradise, home to generations of moonshiners and red-dirt marijuana farmers,”[10] which happened to be in the congressional district of John Hammerschmidt (1967-1993), George H.W. Bush’s former campaign manager (1976 and 1980).


Mark Swaney, head of the Arkansas Committee, which campaigned to have the Mena scandal investigated, concluded that Clinton at a minimum “knew all along about Mena,” and it is “possible and even highly probable, based on a mountain of circumstantial evidence, that he was directly involved.”[11]


This involvement would have been through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA), the state’s chief economic development agency, established under Clinton, which provided bonds to stimulate business in the state.

According to whistleblower Larry Nichols, the ADFA was used as a vehicle to launder CIA and drug money from flights departing from the Mena airport.[12] Though branded by Clinton’s defenders as a “Clinton crazy”[13]—obsessed with dethroning a liberal icon—Nichols was in a position to know this. Not only did the Vietnam vet serve as marketing director for the ADFA, but he had also worked as an intelligence analyst in Honduras for the Contras, which is what first put him in contact with Clinton and led to his hiring by the ADFA.


Back in the 1970s, the Mena airport had been used to train guerrillas who were being sent on clandestine missions backed by the CIA in Africa. By the early 1980s, Mena had become a hub for gun-running operations to the Contras, Operation Centaur Rose, carried out in violation of the 1982, 1983 and 1984 Boland amendment aiming to limit U.S. government assistance to the Contras.


The plane of Eugene Hasenfus–which exposed the Contra operation after being shot down over Honduras—had flown out of Mena and belonged to Seal.[14]


Seal retrofitted his planes at a hangar at the Mena airport, and paid cash to local merchants for guns that he flew to the Contras, including 250 automatic pistols with silencers, that was a special order of the CIA.

A corpulent man with ties to New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello, Seal brought in at least 36 metric tons of cocaine, 104 tons of marijuana and 3 tons of heroin to the U.S., dropping much of it off chutes in the forests surrounding Mena. Many of his flights were part of Operation Centaur Rose, though for every drug flight that Seal made for the government, according to an Arkansas police report, he made two for himself.[15]


Clinton, despite his alleged hippie background, was a backer of the Contras, deploying the Arkansas National Guard on a joint military training mission in Honduras on Nicaragua’s border.


New York Governor Mario Cuomo (D) had boycotted the exercise, calling it a “provocation.” Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin (D) called it a “’backdoor escalation’ of the American military presence in Central America.”[16]


Arkansas and the area around Mena at this time became a hub for firms producing weapons and weapons parts along with electronic components used in weapons systems.

ADFA loans went to Missouri Research Labs Inc. (MRL) in the northeast corner of the state, which produced untraceable circuit boards and critical electronic components used in Stinger-missile guidance systems.

Iver Johnson’s Arms Inc., which was producing sniper rifles, and Brodix Manufacturing (weapons producers) were further given tax breaks by the state and other incentives as part of their reward for supplying Seal’s network and providing a cover for clandestine work.[17]

Governor Clinton welcomed and even encouraged—notably at Pine Bluff and Pea Ridge—military arsenals and storage of dangerous materials that other governors of both parties spurned.

He also, according to Terry Reed, allowed the CIA to bring Contra guerrillas and pilots for training in Arkansas, in effect, turning his state into a CIA proprietary.


Wardens in the backwoods tellingly reported seeing contingents of foreigners in camouflage armed with automatic weapons, and caches of weapons secreted in highway culverts.[18]

A secret CIA report disclosed the CIA’s participation in a Pentagon training exercise at Mena’s Rich Mountain airport.[19]

Employees at the airport said they were forced to stay in their offices because airplanes would land and strange faces would be around and people of Spanish origin who had never been seen before.[20] They also said they saw an unusual number of cash transactions in which the cash was left in drawers and people working all hours of the night to get planes out.[21]


Arkansas was chosen for these clandestine operations because it was rural, under-populated and inland, and had a governor who supported the CIA. Mena was also located 70 miles south of a major military base at Fort Smith.[22]


Local farmers were bought off through government subsidies that did not originate in the Department of Agriculture.

According to Terry Reed, one of the agents who trained Contra paramilitary operatives in Nella, Arkansas, was Luis Posada Carriles, a right-wing Cuban terrorist nicknamed “Ramon Medina,” who had planned the bombing of a Cuban airliner in October 1976, that killed all 73 on-board, and was subsequently freed from prison, with CIA support.

Reed wrote that he got chills when he heard Posada Carriles give a briefing in which he said that key Sandinista leaders would “soon disappear.”[23]


Larry Douglas (L.D.) Brown, an Arkansas state trooper who worked as Clinton’s personal bodyguard, wrote in his memoir that Clinton helped him write a paper supporting the U.S. position in Central America to gain admittance into the agency (CIA records confirm Brown’s application).[24]


Brown then said that he flew missions with Seal, which he later realized were drug-running missions. When he reported this to Clinton, Bill asked him “are you having fun yet? Just do what you’re told and don’t ask questions.” He also stated: “That’s Lasater’s deal,” a reference to Dan Lasater a bond trader and owner of a chain of restaurants, thoroughbred horses and a ski lodge thought to be a drug-smuggling front whose ties with Clinton enabled him to become a multi-millionaire.


Seal himself, who had an intelligence background, referred to Clinton as “the Guv,” indicating a close relationship. A lot of his drug money was laundered through the ADFA via Lasater’s brokerage house in the First National Bank of Mena and Worthen Bank, which was owned by two major Clinton donors, Jackson Stephens and Mochtar Riady, and in which the Rose Law Firm—where Hillary was a partner—held stock.[25]

The Governor’s protection helped these banks evade the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 which required currency transaction reports to be filed in connection with cash deposits in amounts of $10,000 or more at banking institutions.

Besides Seal, Clinton was on a first-name basis with a number of other high-profile CIA agents, including Donald Gregg (alias Dan Magruder), a top confidante of George H.W. Bush who worked with Brown, and Félix Rodríguez (alias Max Gomez), the murderer of Che Guevara, who allegedly knew his way around the Governor’s mansion and came in through the back door.


Terry Reed—an Air Force intelligence officer during the Vietnam War who insists that he trained Contra fliers at a makeshift airfield and helped Seal drop cash onto a farm near Little Rock—claims in his 1995 book, Compromised, that he met with Clinton in July 1984 outside the Cantina Mexican restaurant in Little Rock, where Clinton gave him his blessing to undertake clandestine operations in Mexico with Barry Seal and Oliver North (aka “Cathy”) in support of the Contras.


According to Reed, Clinton was glassy-eyed and smoked a joint while seated on a captain’s chair on the street side of a van whose interior revealed a mobile command post equipped with an array of electronics. He urged Reed to toke on the joint, telling him “go on, I’m the commander-in-chief here, you won’t get busted,” and said, related to his mission, that it was good he was going.[26]

Reed said that the first day he met Seal he was “in the company of Dan Lasater and Roger Clinton” (Bill’s brother was the driver for Dan Lasater at the time).[27]

Reed also wrote that Clinton attended a meeting in an army bunker outside Mena whose guests included North, Félix Rodríguez, and one of CIA Director William Casey’s top lieutenants, “Robert Johnson,” who is thought to be future Attorney General William Barr.


The latter threatened to shut down the Mena operation because too much money was being skimmed off the top (the reason Seal was probably killed), and Clinton was giving out too many contracts through the ADFA to Arkansas “good ole boys” who lacked security clearances. The arrest of Clinton’s brother Roger on cocaine charges had also brought unwanted scrutiny.[28]


Johnson significantly in the meeting, according to Reed’s account, referred to Clinton as “Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy” and said that “you and your state have been our greatest asset.” He added that “The beauty of this, as you know, is that you’re a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re no. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.”[29]



These comments—if true—would speak volumes about the forces that control American politics and were behind Clinton’s political ascendancy. 

Clinton claimed he was unaware of any problems at Mena until 1988, however, L.D. Brown’s daybook records Clinton visiting Mena on May 21, 1984, many people reported seeing him at Mena airport, and Clinton insider Betsey Wright admitted that the Governor’s office had in the early 1980s “received repeated calls about drug trafficking there [in Mena].”[30]

A CIA secret report, only partially declassified in 2020, specifies that “certain Arkansas state and local officials were informed” about CIA activities at Mena, and that unnamed officials “personally briefed the supervisor of the Arkansas State Police district” for Mena, “the Mayor of Mena,” “the Mena Chief of Police or the county sheriff, and the person responsible for operating Mena Intermountain Airport” about the joint-training exercise with the CIA. With Clinton famously wired into everything happening in the state, he would have had to have been briefed.[31]


Terry Reed quoted “Robert Johnson” as stating that, shortly after the ADFA got its initial funding, the CIA agreed to use the ADFA to launder the black money it received through arms sales to the “freedom fighters.”

The deal allegedly “cut” with the Clinton administration in 1985 was that the CIA would pay 10% of the funds it received from Operation Centaur Rose to ADFA in exchange for the state’s cooperation at all levels. For that percentage of the take, Clinton would ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies would not expose the CIA’s operations, prompting Seal to joke that Arkansas was “the only country north of Mexico where drug smugglers could get a police escort.”[32]


An informant told author George Carpozi, Jr., that “Clinton was so much on the take, demanding under the table payments for sanitizing the drug money at the ADFA before it went to pay for the Contra arms that his angels (the CIA) became disenchanted over the greed of his.”[33]

The first company to receive ADFA funding, Park-O-Meter, which had developed the first parking meters in the U.S., had secret military contracts with the Stormont Labs of Woodland, California, and Wackenhut Corporation to make weapons parts and guns that were sent to the Contras as well as chemical and biological weapons that could be deployed in guerrilla warfare and devices to transport them on C-130s, according to Michael Riconosciuto, a CIA computer expert.


Riconosciuto said that he supervised high-tech equipment transfers to POM and developed software to help launder the Mena drug money. An army reserve chemical warfare company was conveniently based next to POM’s facility, on land previously owned by it.

Company owner Seth Ward—a fighter pilot in the Pacific and Korean Wars and an associate of James McDougal, Bill Clinton’s partner in the infamous Whitewater land deal—had allegedly allowed his ranch to be used as a drop zone for Seal’s drug deliveries.[34


Ward was the father-in-law of Webster Hubbell, POM’s lawyer and a partner of Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm, who was later appointed by President Clinton as Associate Attorney General.[35


A U.S. Senate subcommittee in 1989 called the available evidence about Mena sufficient for indictments on money-laundering charges, however, Clinton ensured that this never happened. Nine state and federal probes–headed by IRS agent Bill Duncan and “Razorback Columbo” Russell Welch, an Arkansas police investigator who had served as an army medic in Vietnam– were halted under higher orders and Welch was diagnosed with anthrax poisoning after a plot on his life.[36]


Duncan had a 3,000-page file and prepared 35 indictments for the U.S. Attorney but they were never acted upon and in 1988 the Arkansas state police began shredding its Mena files. The DEA was conspicuously absent from the investigation and Clinton and his aide Betsey Wright told former Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant in 1990 to back away from the case.[37]


State police officers testified that, when they submitted a warrant to arrest Seal, they were told by Colonel Tommy Goodwin, head of the Arkansas state police, to leave Seal alone, and to cancel the warrant. Goodwin told them Clinton ordered them to stand down.[38]


And State Trooper Larry Patterson stated that he was in Clinton’s presence when Clinton was told about large quantities of cocaine coming into Mena airport and money and guns, and that Clinton did or said nothing.


When Charles Black, a prosecutor for Polk County (Mena is the county seat) asked for a state probe, Clinton said he would “get a man on it” and furnish him with the $25,000 requested, though he never followed up.


Authors Roger Stone and Robert Morrow write that “Clinton provided the official political protection for the cocaine and drug smuggling [at Mena] while Lasater took care of the nuts and bolts of laundering the hundreds of millions of dirty drug money. And in their spare time it was drugs, parties and corrupting teenage girls.”[39]

The Mena cover-up extended to the murder of Kevin Ives and Don Henry, two high school seniors who were killed and then run over by a train on August 23, 1987, after probably witnessing cocaine drops or cash, gold or platinum payments to persons working with U.S. intelligence or theft of it.


The police investigation was so bad that Ives’s foot was found on the train tracks days after the murder. State Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak–whom Clinton had long protected because he had helped his mother, Virginia, a nurse, avoid criminal liability for the death of a young woman after botching a reintubation procedure—advanced the theory that the boys fell asleep on the tracks after smoking 20 marijuana joints and were run over by a train accidentally.


However, smoking 20 marijuana joints would make one euphoric, not incapacitated, and the toxicology reports found the boys had smoked only two joints. Several witnesses placed two police officers –thought to be Pulaski County narcotics officers Kirk Lane and Jay Campbell, both good friends of Dan Lasater whose private jet they flew on—beating up two boys at a grocery store near where they found the boys’ bodies. The deaths were eventually determined by an out-of-state examiner to have taken place before the train ran them over: Don Henry was stabbed in the back and Kevin Ives was struck with a rifle butt in the face.[40]


When Deputy Prosecutor Jean Duffey found witnesses who observed low-flying aircraft and drug pick-ups at the train tracks where Ives and Henry were killed, she was told by her supervisor, Gary Arnold, not to investigate any public officials for drug trafficking and then was fired on a fraudulent pretext—as the Arkansas police determined—and forced to flee Arkansas out of fear for her safety.[41]


Many key witnesses in the case turned up dead, including bar owner Keith McKaskle who passed on information to Police Deputy Cathy Carty, the only Saline County deputy on the tracks the night the boys died who strongly disagreed that the deaths were an accident, and Greg Collins, 26, who had been with the boys on the night of their deaths and was subpoenaed in the case.


Sharline Wilson, who was supposed to make a drug pickup that night but was too high so she waited in the car, stated that Dan Harmon, the Saline County prosecutor and a Clinton ally later sentenced to 11 years in prison for drug racketeering, was present when the boys were killed and that they were killed by police, and that high ranking officials [associated with the Mena smuggling operation] were involved.”[42]


Consistent with his role as protector of the corrupt “Old Boys Network,” Clinton refused to meet with Kevin Ives’s mother Linda and retained Malak as state medical examiner despite his false conclusions in this case.


Clinton further ordered the resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he became president, which—though perhaps normal for any new president—conveniently helped hamstring this and other investigations.

Philip Weiss, a freelance magazine journalist, told Linda at Clinton’s victory speech when he won the gubernatorial election for the last time that, “For all Clinton’s bright promise and fine beliefs, he long ago made a deal with a benighted political organization that had thugs among its operatives. If you wonder why people hate him, it’s because they recognize that training, they sense those crude values, that ruthlessness and lack of moral center. And they want an old-fashioned accounting.”[43]

Bringing the Old Risk-Taking Spirit Back 

Study of Clinton’s background helps place into context many of his policies as president.

These included his expansion of America’s covert empire of overseas surveillance outposts and spying and increasing the budget for secret intelligence spending and private military contractors, which employed many ex-CIA agents.[44]

Journalist James Risen reported that, after CIA Director George Tenet (1996-2004) won major budget increases and reopened stations in Africa, “the CIA’s old risk-taking spirit began to return.”[45]


This risk-taking spirit was seen in the adoption of rendition or kidnapping programs and drone surveillance in the War on Terror beginning in the late 1990s, and in covert operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Cuba, Georgia, and the Balkans, where the National Security Council was accused of helping to run an illegal arms pipeline to Muslim-Croat forces fighting against the Serbs through Iran in violation of a UN arms embargo.[46]

To make the deliveries in the latter case, U.S. officials used cargo aircraft associated with a CIA front company, Southern Air Transport in an operation that Clinton formally approved.[47] Because the secret Iranian flights were landing with such frequency at Zagreb’s Pleso airport (three flights per week at its peak), aircraft were diverted to the island of Krk in the Adriatic, where the CIA reportedly operated a base, to deflect awkward questions. The Croats used helicopters to fly the weapons and munitions from Krk after dark to bases in Bosnia for distribution to Muslim forces.[48]


Clinton’s story is important to tell in full because it exposes the dark underbelly of American society and politics and hidden ruling powers. Clinton’s own folksy and liberal public personae masks a corrupt and ruthless man who embodies all the sinister features of the American empire.