CONTENTS: 6/25/00


Click. The new cancer pill cure. No cure for cancer? Wanna bet?


Click. Clinton's long CIA connections.

Click. Clinton, Quigley and Conspiracy.  What's going on here?


Original Message-----
From: State and Local Freedom of Information Issues
On Behalf Of Michael Ravnitzky
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 7:19 PM
Subject: Secret Patents

Secret Patents by Michael Ravnitzky,

The Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army administers a little known program that seizes control of private inventions that fall into certain pre-determined categories.  This program is governed by the Invention Secrecy Act, passed by Congress decades ago and still going strong.  The Defense Department and the Justice Dept have selected a series of subject categories that comprise sensitive military functions.  This list is called the Patent Security Category Review List, or PSCRL.

About three percent of all patent applications fall into the selected categories and are reviewed by the military as well as the Justice Department.  About five to ten percent of those reviewed applications are placed under government control.  Although these inventions are supposed to be reviewed annually for re-release to the inventor, some of the thousands of inventions in the program have been in government hands for forty years. Some inventors are dissatisfied with the administration of this program.

The Patent Secrecy Category Review List List was released to me in November 1994 in response to a Freedom of information Act request.  A copy of this 1994 PSCRL list is available from the Federation of American Scientists for a small duplication fee.

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
307 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202)675-1012 voice
(202)675-1010 fax

You can also get an updated PSCRL by writing to the Judge Advocate General's Office, and requesting a copy under the Freedom of Information Act, and enclosing a copy of the 1994 list with your request.

The Judge Advocate General also maintains a file of documents concerning the Patent Security Category Review List that they will review and release in
response to a FOIA request.  They also have statistics on the inventions
that are being kept secret, and the duration of this control.  The contact
address is:

Judge Advocate General of the Army
Attn:  Alan P. Klein, Intellectual Property Counsel of the Army
901 North Stuart Street
Arlington, VA  22203-1837

 SPY NEWS is OSINT newsletter
 and discussion list associated to
 Mario's Cyberspace Station
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
 Section 107, this material is distributed
 without profit to SPYNEWS eGroup members
 who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
 the included information for non-profit research
 and educational purposes only.

 For more information go to:

 To subscribe SPYNEWS send a blank message:

 To unsubscribe SPYNEWS send a blank message:

 Mario Profaca, SPY NEWS eGroup
 list owner, editor & moderator

 SPY NEWS home page:



In the wake of Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy's high-profile sexual harassment case against another Army general (who himself had just been put in charge of investigating sexual harassment!), the mainstream media have given a substantial amount of coverage to the appalling rates of sexual harassment of women in the armed forces. But you would be hard pressed to find in these news reports any mention of one of the principal spurs to this harassment: the policy on gays in the military, popularly known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"You can't separate this policy from sexual harassment," says Michelle Benecke, a former captain of US Army defense artillery--and a Harvard-trained lawyer--who is the co-founder and co-director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "A lot of the perception that women in the services are gay stems from the fact that they're not sleeping with anyone in their unit," Benecke says. "The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy pressures young women into sexual activity with their superiors by making them subject to the threat of discharge as gay."

The Defense Department's own discharge figures support Benecke's contention that women are being disproportionately targeted by the policy: Women accounted for 31 percent of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell discharges in 1999, even though they are only 14 percent of the uniformed services. The numbers are most striking in the Army, where women are only 15 percent of the force but 35 percent of the gay discharges; in the Air Force, where they are 18 percent, compared with 37 percent of discharges; and in the Marines, where women are 6 percent of the Corps but account for 21 percent of those discharged. Since lesbian-baiting is the military man's best defense against charges of sexual harassment, these numbers help explain why many women in the military are afraid to report such conduct, let alone tell their superiors about antigay harassment.

Nicole B. was 21 when she joined the Navy in 1995 and became a second-class petty officer in the weather-forecasting service. At a Navy forecasting school in Biloxi, Mississippi, her Marine instructor in oceanography "was constantly making antigay jokes. Rumors had circulated that I was gay, and this instructor would make cracks about 'dikes in the water' and turn to me saying, 'Don't get too excited about the word.'" Things got worse when Nicole was sent to a small base in Texas after she told her chief about the antigay harassment of a male sailor friend in her unit, who was constantly being "baited as a 'fag,' 'a woman,' a 'guy who wears makeup.'" Then someone "wrote a message on my car that said, 'You suck dick and eat pussy,'" Nicole says. "I was terrified and fearful for my life. It just got worse, and I cried every day." After Nicole finally reported the harassment to her chief, she says, "He told me, 'I just want to reach over and slap your face.'" Since three superior officers had harassed Nicole, she "didn't feel there was anybody among my chiefs who'd back me up if I was assaulted. I loved the Navy, but it's so difficult when you have to hide, make up a boyfriend, censor your social conversation. Then I got into a relationship, and that's when it became clear to me that I wasn't going to be able to deal with this, that I had to give it up. That was very hard." Nicole got in touch with SLDN, which helped her write a coming-out letter to her commanding officer. She was discharged last year, but says, "I still miss the Navy--I'm encouraging my little nephew to become a Navy pilot."

Petty Officer Nicole B.'s experiences typify the ways in which even gays who try to be discreet have been increasingly subject to harassment and expulsion under the current policy. Not only has the policy--its correct name is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue"--failed to diminish discharges of gay servicemembers; it has actually increased them, from 617 in 1994 to 1,034 in 1999, at a cost of more than $161 million (based on General Accounting Office figures) in training replacements for those discharged. And the policy has spurred soaring rates of verbal abuse and physical violence, even murder.

* * *

This disastrous policy was born out of Bill Clinton's refusal to honor his 1992 campaign pledge to let gays serve openly in uniform. In large part because of his own reputation as a draft dodger, Clinton knuckled under to pressure from the generals and admirals and their allies in Congress, thus betraying the principle of civilian control of the military and sending a signal to the Pentagon crowd that he could be rolled (as ever-increasing military-procurement budgets in his two terms have shown).

Moreover, Clinton's capitulation forced the gay movement to fight on a battleground not of its own choosing. The 1993 gay-run Campaign for Military Service not only strained the movement's limited resources; the losing effort was also a PR disaster for gay politics that undercut the chance to pass the critically important Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) while Democrats still controlled the Congress.

Many left-wing gays were uncomfortable at seeing precious energies squandered in combat for the right to serve in a military they disdained and distrusted. But once the issue was joined, the movement had no choice but to confront the tidal wave of slurs against same-sexers deployed by four-star homophobes like Colin Powell and bigoted politicians like Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn. And all the more so because military homophobia is also a class issue: The overwhelming majority of its victims are young recruits who joined up to get an education or career, lured by the bright promises of flashy ad campaigns and aggressive high school recruiting, often before they admit to themselves they're gay.

Even the Department of Defense itself has now been forced to admit that harassment of uniformed gays remains widespread. In March the DoD Inspector General released a survey of 71,570 active-duty servicemembers revealing that 80 percent of those who filled out questionnaires reported hearing "offensive" antigay remarks. Nearly 10 percent said they had witnessed physical assault. Significant numbers also reported "offensive or hostile gestures," "threats or intimidation," graffiti, vandalism, "limiting or denying training and/or career opportunities," and "disciplinary actions or punishment" not of the bigots but of their victims ("for example, being punished for something when others were not"). Most telling, of those who said their "cited situation" was witnessed by someone senior to either the person being harassed or the harasser, 73 percent said "the senior person did nothing to immediately stop the harassment."

If the Clinton Administration had really been serious about protecting gays in the military, the Pentagon would have conducted such a survey long ago. That it happened at all was due to two things: increased pressure from SLDN, which has documented rising harassment and discrimination in a series of meticulous annual reports for the past six years; and the particularly grisly antigay murder of a soldier at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on July 5, 1999.

Pvt. Barry Winchell was only 21 when, after enduring four months of verbal and physical assault, he was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier. Winchell, who had been asleep in his cot, was left with his skull shattered "like an eggshell," according to an Army investigator, his eyes black and swollen shut, his brains oozing from his head. Winchell had confided to two friends that he was afraid to report the escalating daily harassment that led to his murder, because he would risk being kicked out of the Army.

It was five months after Private Winchell's murder when Defense Secretary William Cohen finally ordered the IG survey of antigay harassment throughout the armed services. But even now, the Army is refusing to release its IG's report on the antigay climate of terror that reigned at Fort Campbell under its commander, Maj. Gen. Robert Clark. "We provided a lot of evidence of antigay harassment there and how it was tolerated by superior officers," says SLDN's Benecke.

* * *

To take just two examples: Fort Campbell Pvt. Javier Torres gave a sworn statement to SLDN that, just months after Private Winchell was murdered, his unit's staff sergeant led them on a run singing in cadence, "Faggot, faggot, down the street/Shot him, shot him, till he retreats." Another Fort Campbell sergeant, assigned to brief a unit on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, repeatedly called the training session the "fag briefing" and referred to gay soldiers as "fags."

"We asked the IG conducting the Fort Campbell investigation, 'How can servicemembers contact you?' and he told us to our faces that he believed that he was obliged to turn in as gay any servicemember who said he was a victim of antigay harassment," says Benecke. Although the IG report on Fort Campbell was due to be released on May 1, the Army has postponed giving the report to the Secretary of the Army until July 1--conveniently after General Clark's June 9 advancement to a prestigious Pentagon post as Vice Director (J3) of Plans and Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Benecke points out, "This is the man who allowed the harassment at Fort Campbell to exist, and to continue even after Private Winchell's murder. As of February 20, twenty soldiers at Fort Campbell have come out because of their fear. Clark deserves to be dismissed." Retaining Clark in uniform--and even rewarding him--sends a clear signal that servicemembers can continue to harass with impunity.

That's certainly the impression that Clinton Administration policy has left with many military commanders and their subordinates. Not until March 1997 did the DoD get around to issuing "Guidelines for Investigating Threats Against Service Members Based on Alleged Homosexuality," by Under Secretary of Defense Edwin Dorn, designed to implement the 1993 Don't Harass, Don't Pursue policy. But SLDN forced the Pentagon to admit in April 1998 that it had never distributed the guidelines to the field. And it was not until after Private Winchell's murder fifteen months later that the Dorn report was finally distributed. In the IG harassment survey this past March, 57 percent of respondents said they had received no training on the policy; of the 54 percent who claimed they understood it, only 26 percent were able to answer the three most basic questions about it.

* * *

"The new policy is worse than the old, much worse," says Professor Janet Halley of Harvard Law School, who last year published Don't: A Reader's Guide to the Military's Anti-Gay Policy (Duke). "Under the old policy, you could be discharged if it was found out you had a 'homosexual orientation.' The new policy says you can be discharged if you have manifested a 'propensity' to engage in homosexual acts. 'Propensity' is judged by 'conduct,' but that can mean anything from having a Melissa Etheridge poster on your wall to wearing short hair and a thick, black watchband to refusing to have sex with a man," she says, citing real examples from discharge cases. Moreover, Halley says, to escape expulsion "you have to prove that you have no propensity, so the only defense is an identity defense, a status defense--you have to prove you're straight." And the judgment about "propensity" is an entirely subjective one, which means treatment of gay military personnel varies greatly from command to command.

That was the experience of Petty Officer First Class Larry Glover, who was discharged February 25 from the Navy after fifteen years for being gay: "I went from two commands that were not too bad to one that was pure hell," he says. Like so many others, Glover says he "didn't figure out that I was gay until I'd been in the Navy for three years--I had fought it up until then." For Glover, joining one of the uniformed branches was an escape route from both a stunted economic situation and from "a small town in East Tennessee in the middle of the Bible Belt--for me, it was a way of getting out to see the world." Glover has earned ten medals--"I rattle when I walk," he chuckles. He even has a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal for having risked his life to save a $77 million plane from going over the side of an aircraft carrier in high seas.

In his first two commands, Glover was eventually accepted by the sailors he worked with--"Once I told them, 'Yes, I'm gay, so what?' the issue went away." But on his last shipboard posting, the antigay atmosphere was particularly virulent. Glover found himself having to stand up for younger sailors who were being harassed as gay: "It was my job as a person in a leadership position. I put myself on the line every day. I witnessed spray-painting of the word 'fag,' destruction of private property or of uniforms in lockers--things like filling the lock with glue so sailors couldn't get to their uniforms, which caused them to be late, which got them punished. I witnessed chief petty officers using terms like 'the little fag,' 'the little butt-bandit,' 'ball breath.' One kid had a complete nervous breakdown--I took him off the ship crying." Glover's attempts to protect younger sailors led to his "being threatened" with negative performance evaluations. By this time he was in a relationship, and the effects of harassment and the pressure to be closeted "limits your compatibility with your partner; the job just wasn't worth what I was putting in. A friend high up in the military that I'd met at a gay bar told me about SLDN and gave me their number. They helped me write my coming-out letter to my commander. The day I heard they were going to process my discharge papers, I put a rainbow sticker on my locker." Glover, who had to give up $850,000 in pay and retirement benefits when he chose to stop hiding, now says, "I'm distraught with the Defense Department and government in general," adding, "We've got to fix this policy--we just have to."

* * *

Most of America's major NATO allies now allow gays to serve openly in the military, including France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada. Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Israel do as well. Britain was forced last fall by the European Court of Human Rights to end its military ban on gays and has now embraced them, even inviting gay soldiers who had been discharged to apply for reinstatement. Dr. David Segal, who directs the University of Maryland's Center for Research on Military Organization--which studies comparative military institutions--says that "there is no evidence from any country we've looked at that lifting the ban on gays impacts negatively on either unit cohesion or performance." He adds, "There's no question that the direction of social change will eventually deal with sexual orientation as irrelevant in terms of the military."

The Pentagon's brass hats know this is true. Aaron Belkin, who directs the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, points out that "gay discharges always go down in wartime. During the Korean and Vietnam wars there were about half as many such discharges as in peacetime. In World War II the discharge rate was substantially lower than in the postwar period. In the Persian Gulf War, the military had a 'stop-loss' order that suspended gay expulsions. What the Pentagon is saying is, when unit cohesion is most important and our survival is at stake, we'll keep them in. There is no intellectually honest case to be made that gays undermine cohesion in the military." Quite the reverse: The current US policy saps unit cohesion by subjecting gay servicemembers to career-ending blackmail.

The hypocrisy of the Pentagon's attitude is underscored by one of the Army's first African-American generals, Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, who retired in 1989: "Gays have been serving honorably in the military ever since it existed. It's never a problem until the leadership makes it one." Coleman compares the arguments against openly serving gays to those deployed against lifting the ban on racial segregation in the armed forces: "It's the same thing. Close your eyes, sit in a room and listen to the generals' discussions--you hear the same reasons." The right of gay people to serve openly is, Coleman says, "a legitimate civil rights and human rights question. It shouldn't even be an issue."

However, given the current conservative composition of our judiciary, it is unlikely that court challenges to the military's antigay policy will prevail in the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court has declined to hear five cases challenging the constitutionality of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and all four of the eleven federal circuit courts in which the policy has so far been challenged have upheld it. That kicks the ball back into the political arena.

* * *

In the most recent Gallup poll on the question, in January, 41 percent of Americans said gays should be allowed to serve openly; 38 percent--most of whom wrongly believe the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is a tolerant one--said gays should be able to serve under the current policy; while only 17 percent think gays should not be able to serve under any circumstances.

The issue flared into the news briefly during the presidential primary campaigns. Bill Bradley, who in 1993 had voted as a senator for outright repeal of the military ban before Clinton signed Don't Ask, Don't Tell into law, reiterated his position in his campaign last September and said he'd expect the military to follow his policy. Until then, Al Gore had said only that he'd implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell with "more compassion."

But competing with Bradley for the gay vote, in December Gore finally came out against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and said he would lift the ban entirely and make this a litmus test for his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (after the Republicans jumped on him for that last statement, Gore backpedaled somewhat, saying there would be no "political opinion" test for his military appointees). Even President Clinton got around in December to admitting that the current policy was "out of whack" (an unfortunate locution that led to a spate of raunchy jokes by late-night TV comedians). On the GOP side, George Bush declared in the primary debates that "I'm a Don't Ask, Don't Tell man," while John McCain likewise supported the current policy because it's "working."

But, of course, it isn't, as the rising discharge rates and the DoD's own harassment statistics show. Moreover, the Don't Ask and Don't Pursue elements of the current policy are continually violated by commanders, investigating officers and even legal personnel. SLDN, in its March annual report, "Conduct Unbecoming," documented 194 Don't Ask violations from February 1999 to February 2000, a 20 percent increase from the preceding year and the sixth consecutive increase since the policy began. In the same period the SLDN report also detailed 470 Don't Pursue violations, a 34 percent increase. This year, there was an antigay witch hunt at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, which ensnared fourteen enlisted personnel, mostly female. And at the beginning of June, SLDN forced the Navy to admit that for the past two years it has been sending undercover agents into five Washington, DC, gay bars and nightclubs to seek out patrons who are in the military. The Navy claims it's only going after illegal drug use, but SLDN's Benecke calls this "a ruse--our information shows they're only targeting gay establishments."

Congressional supporters of lifting entirely the ban on open gays in the military are deeply pessimistic about any positive legislative changes. "This Congress is not going to overhaul this policy," declares Representative Marty Meehan, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the ranking member of its subcommittee on personnel. Meehan says that "there's no way even to have hearings on harassment now--we'd go backward, not forward." On the Senate side, another longtime opponent of the ban, Massachusetts's John Kerry, likewise paints a bleak picture, at least "until we [the Democrats] get a majority." About all he and his like-minded colleagues can do at this point, he says, is "turn up the heat a notch" on the Pentagon and the Administration. Kerry says that "what's missing is the investigative component" to identify those who engage in or tolerate harassment, and he wants Clinton to issue an executive order for an investigation that would root out violations of the Don't Ask, Don't Harass and Don't Pursue sections of the policy and hold military leadership accountable. In May he and Senator Max Cleland, a paraplegic veteran from Georgia, sent a tart letter to Defense Secretary Cohen pointing up the failure to implement antiharassment training in the armed forces in a meaningful way.

Even Representative Barney Frank, one of the Administration's most visible defenders, says he is "deeply disappointed with the way Bill Cohen has handled the harassment issue." On June 7 Frank and thirty colleagues (including minority leader Dick Gephardt and two GOPers--Connie Morella and Mark Foley) sent an even stronger letter to Cohen calling the Pentagon's failure to curb harassment "disgraceful"; denouncing the promotion of General Clark, the Fort Campbell commander; attacking the Navy and Air Force for trying to recoup training costs from servicemembers discharged as gay, even though this violates the DoD's own policy; and asking for a White House meeting. To date, neither the Kerry/Cleland nor the Frank et al. letters have received anything more than a "we'll get back to you" acknowledgment.

* * *

Coming to grips with one's homosexuality when already in uniform is a terrifying experience. The Pentagon has to be forced to take seriously its obligation to provide comprehensive antiharassment training (the training materials are thoroughly confused); to provide a safe way in which victims can report harassment without fear of losing their careers; and to punish not only harassers but those commanders who tolerate harassment (not a single one has been disciplined). Until then, SLDN is the gay servicemembers' only protection.

It's amazing how much this small legal-aid group has accomplished already. Founded in 1993 on a shoestring, SLDN--which has already handled 2,300 cases--is today struggling along on a $1.4 million budget and desperately seeking additional funds for more legal staff to handle the soaring number of harassment complaints. Its "Survival Guide" is the only document that tells military gays how to cope with the current policy and what their rights are (the DoD provides no such material). Jeff Cleghorn, a retired major in US Army military intelligence who got a law degree after he left the service in 1996, is one of SLDN's legal-aid intake staff; he says that the organization's clients "are mostly young people concerned about, if not their physical well-being, then their emotional well-being." SLDN counsels active targets of investigation on "what they can do to minimize the risk of those investigations being either initiated or expanded," Cleghorn says. "If there's harassment or physical threats, we contact base commanders and legal officers and remind them of the investigative limits in the current policy." The group has just under 200 open cases at any one time--but the number is growing. And there's no question that SLDN has saved lives. "Just the other day I had a call from a kid at a naval base in Florida who'd been assaulted physically by several sailors," says Cleghorn; "he was in tears and suicidal. I called the Metropolitan Community Church [a gay denomination] in the city he was in to arrange counseling in a safe space, and contacted the chaplain at his base. He survived. We go with what's there--even if it's just someone who'll give 'em a big hug and listen to their problems."

Bill Clinton, Bill Cohen, Al Gore and their lame-duck Administration still have six months to do something to protect kids like that sailor in Florida. But will they act?

For information or to make a contribution to SLDN: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, PO Box 65301, Washington, DC 20035-5301 (or For free, confidential counseling, call (202) 328-3244.

Doug Ireland writes frequently on politics for The Nation. Research support was provided by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute.

No cure for cancer? Wanna bet?

Losing his father at a young spurred award-winning scientist Sir David Lane to find a way to conquer the devastating disease. Now, more than 20 years after making a major genetic breakthrough, he tells Eddie Gibb the end is in sight
Publication Date: Jun 25 2000
, Sunday Herald Scotland © 2000

PROFESSOR Sir David Lane is getting good use out of his academic gown. This week he will line up with more than 1000 undergraduates at Stirling university to receive another accolade for his contribution to science.

"I'm very excited," he says, sitting in his cramped office in Dundee's Ninewells hospital. Without wanting to downplay this latest accolade, Lane is not enthusing about the honourary degree from Stirling. Over the last decade he has been picking up science prizes at the rate of one a year, including the knighthood in the last New Year's honours list, and he has already been whispered as a potential Nobel prizewinner.

No, the reason for his excitement is this. He thinks he's found a cure for cancer. How many times have you read those words, which have become a flippant phrase which contains a hint of both the scepticism and implicit faith we have in science? We want to believe, but can't quite bring ourselves to do so.

Lane, 47, knows the pressure of these expectations, which stem from the way we regard cancer as not just a disease but a dark force. It's an illness with a person ality. The word "malignant" comes from a Latin root meaning "of evil disposition", which contrasts with our rather more rational view of other illnesses.

"Cancer is a disease that makes people feel that they have lost control," says Lane. "Psychologically, it's one of the most difficult diseases imaginable to deal with. It's rare that anyone else would find themselves in a situation where the doctor says you have six-to-nine months to live and there's not much he can do. Whatever your beliefs, that's a very challenging place to be."

Lane's father died of cancer when he was 19, and he has always cited this premature death as a motivation for his work. This may seem a little glib as a complete explanation for a glittering scientific career, but the point is that while Lane has spent his life trying to understand the workings of individual molecules in the human body, he still thinks of the future patients who could benefit. "I'm not doing it for him, but I am certainly doing it for people like him," he says. "I'm very aware of what it means to people."

The last thing Lane wants to do is raise false hopes, but he is quietly confident this could be the one. The word from the rat lab is already very positive. Assuming the regulatory hoops can be jumped through over the summer, Cyclacel, Lane's Dundee-based company, will shortly be able to begin the first clinical trials for a new drug treatment which could be effective on a number of different forms of cancer. If successful, a commercially available drug could be part of the oncologist's armoury inside five years. Best of all, it's expected to be in the form of a pill which, as Lane says, would be a less "aggressive" approach than existing treatments.

So, once again, it's fingers crossed time. We seem to read about a new scientific breakthrough relating to this most feared of diseases at least once a week, but in reality progress is painfully slow. "A breakthrough in my view is when you've established that a treatment enhances the quality of life and survival," he says. "Quality of life is terribly important. It's not enough to say, 'I've kept this person alive for another six months', it's the quality of that life that's critical and I sometimes think the 'cure' concept gets lost in that."

Even so, a "cure" remains the holy grail for Lane's team. It has been more than 20 years since he helped identify what came to be known as the "guardian angel" gene - P53 - which plays a central role in the body's natural defence against cancer. In fact, he identified a protein made by the gene which was found to be a common factor in a variety of tumours. A link seemed likely, but nobody knew if it was cause or effect. Another team isolated the gene itself, but it was a full 10 years after Lane's initial discovery before scientists twigged that P53 was actually part of the body's defence mechanism.

Only now have these breakthroughs resulted in a testable drug. Thousands of scientists have been involved in developing an understanding of how this gene works, but Lane can claim to have been there since the very start. No wonder he is excited. "It will be momentous," he acknowledges. "I will be thrilled and terrified at the same time. You can go with every regulation there is to ensure safety, but it's still the first time that chemical has been in a person. It's a real threshold you're crossing."

The guardian angel gene produces a protein which helps cancerous cells to fix themselves or, if they are beyond repair, self-destruct in order to avoid replicating into a malignant tumour. If P53 is damaged, this crucial defence against mutant cells is lost. There is no single cause of the disease and so its unlikely there'll ever be a single cure, but a damaged or ineffective gene is implicated in 60% of all cancers. These include cancers of the ovary, breast, lung and colon, which are all hard to detect and tough to treat with surgery and radiotherapy. An effective "cancer pill" would mark a turning point in the treatment of these organs.

Lane was a 26-year-old biochemist who had not long completed his PhD when he made the discovery, but it was a few more years before P53 became the hot area for cancer research. "It's very hard to do original research when there are so many people going after the same thing," noted Arnold Levine, a leading US research scientist who finally nailed P53's role as a cancer killer.

However, despite an initial scientific feeding frenzy, the major pharmaceutical companies soon went cold on this area of research. Only now are they beginning to sniff around companies such as Cyclacel. Lane believes the mythical "cure for cancer" would have progressed further down the track by now had the drugs giants spent some of their massive research budgets into P53-based treatments sooner. "A few years ago they had almost decided that cancer wasn't worth doing," says Lane. "Larger companies don't want to take risks because the only thing that matters is having a blockbuster drug that follows on from the last blockbuster."

Thus the formation of Cyclacel, whose investors include £4 million from Stagecoach millionaires Brian Souter and Ann Gloag. If the clinical trials work out, the company's value will soar. But although biotech start-ups are almost as hip as dot.coms, Lane's main motivation seems not to be money, but the speed with which things can be accomplished. He gives the impression of being a man in a permanent hurry.

Cyclacel represents only part of Lane's research and he is constantly juggling competing demands each day. As we walk through the corridors of Ninewells, he constantly stops to have snatched conversations peppered with technical jargon about with members of his research team. Even his home life is a place to continue discussions. His wife, also a professor at Dundee, works in a related field so the pillow talk can get pretty technical.

"The great benefit of being married to a scientist is they really do under stand why you must send that paper off tonight, go to that conference, work late or catch the shuttle to London yet again. I would find it hard to live with someone who didn't have that same drive," he says.

Motivation is a word Lane uses continuously. If the Cyclacel trials are positive, it's likely the company will do a deal with a pharmaceutical giant which can back the expensive final stages of refining and marketing a new drug. But the payback will have been so long coming, and so uncertain, that it can't have been much of a motivation.

Lane truly wants to find a cure for cancer, but is aware of the limited impact any one scientist can have. Only last month a colleague at Dundee was extolling the virtues of broccoli in preventing colon cancer.

"People giggle at broccoli," says Lane, "but there's no question that the best way to deal with cancer is to prevent it. If I could stop people smoking I would make a much bigger contribution to cancer than I'm ever going to make through anything I do here. To walk out of the hospital and see the nurses smoking, or to lecture medical students on the causes of cancer and then see them all light up, is so depressing it's hard to deal with. Sometimes I think I'll give all this up and go on the campaign trail."

He's not serious, of course, adding: "I can't image anything else giving me as much satisfaction and enjoyment."

Clinton's Long CIA Connection

This article is copied from NameBase
Sidebar from NameBase NewsLine © 1996, No. 15, October-December 1996

An awareness of obscure connections can go some distance toward making our history comprehensible. Almost all accounts of recent U.S. social and cultural history have been written by micro scholars on someone's payroll, rather than by macro historians who accept that many facts are hidden. The 1960s still mean something to those of us who contributed, but to judge from the popular history of the period, it consisted of little more than lone nuts, hippies, drugs, and rock music. A more specific example of historical cover-up is the major media's willingness to accept the current White House at face value.

One happy exception is a biography of the Clintons, Roger Morris's Partners in Power, that made the bestseller list for several weeks during the summer of 1996. It confirmed a story that was rumored since 1992 (and appeared in Spotlight newspaper) to the effect that the CIA recruited Bill Clinton when he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. Ironically, by this time Clinton was already an admirer of Carroll Quigley, his professor at Georgetown (see the main essay for comments on Quigley [and here too --risephoenix]).

Morris was an aide to Kissinger at the National Security Council until 1970, when he resigned over the bombing of Cambodia. His is the most solid and responsible book on the Clintons so far. Morris cited three inside intelligence sources who confirmed that Bill Clinton became a CIA asset at Oxford.

By running Clinton's Oxford classmates through NameBase, another curious CIA connection pops out: Richard Stearns, who may have handled Clinton's CIA recruitment. On September 9, 1969, Clinton wrote to Stearns agonizing over his draft situation. At that time he was manipulating every angle and connection he could to avoid getting drafted.

That fall Clinton went to Norway. In December he traveled to Moscow, then to Prague in January 1970. These trips, some believe, were CIA- sponsored. In spring of 1970, Clinton and Stearns took a bus tour of Spain. By then Clinton's draft problems were over, due to the December 1969 draft lottery.

In 1967, Ramparts magazine exposed the fact that the National Student Association had been receiving CIA funds for many years [see here on this subject--risephoenix]. Stearns was international vice president of the NSA. Allard Lowenstein was a former NSA president, who was famous for the "Dump Johnson" campaign of 1967. He stated then that he had not been involved with the CIA while in the NSA. However, Roger Morris told this writer that Lowenstein admitted to him in 1969 that he had been knowledgeable and complicit in the CIA compromise of the NSA. At this time, Morris was an NSC aide specializing in Africa, and Lowenstein was a New York congressman working on the humanitarian problem in Biafra.

Richard Stearns and Edward Schwartz, another NSA vice president, issued statements deploring CIA support. Schwartz was probably aware of the CIA funding, because he tried to talk Ramparts editor Warren Hinckle out of breaking the story before the exposure. As international vice president, Stearns almost certainly was witting of the connection with the CIA: most of the CIA money was spent on the NSA's international activities. While at the NSA in December 1966, Stearns wrote to the UAW to propose a "program of aid conducted by American labor and students, for students in Spain working for the restoration of democratic government." This would have involved CIA funds from the NSA's International Commission, which was headed by Stearns. The international activities of U.S. labor were also CIA-funded at the time.

At a window of opportunity in the middle of Clinton's draft problems, we have him in a close relationship with Stearns at Oxford. Stearns had all the CIA connections anyone would have needed at that time, and the CIA was in the habit of securing exemptions for its assets. In a summer 1969 meeting with Willard Hawkins, the Selective Service head in Arkansas, Clinton agreed to "serve his country in another capacity later on" if the July 28 induction order could be lifted. Clinton was clearly working various angles simultaneously.

One approach may have been an arrangement through Stearns to do some globe-trotting for the CIA. If such a commitment was made by Clinton, he would have followed through even after he was out of danger from the draft. It's one thing to blow off someone in Arkansas after you get a high lottery number, but something else to blow off the CIA and the well-connected Rick Stearns, particularly if you want to be president someday.

In 1970-1972, Stearns played a major role in placing Clinton in the McGovern campaign, thereby nurturing Clinton's political ambitions. Today Stearns is a judge in Boston. Before Louis Freeh was selected, he was considered by the White House as a possible appointee to head the FBI.

Morris includes a chapter on Clinton's cooperation with drug-running and money-laundering operations at Mena, Arkansas during the 1980s. If Clinton was recruited by the CIA at Oxford, it explains why he would tolerate a CIA laundry in Arkansas -- he was already compromised by his past association.

Ambitious young men don't "just say no" when the CIA comes calling. The CIA knows how to plant stories, spin the media, and set up scandals that can sink a candidate. Just ask Gary Hart, a 1988 candidate who for thirteen years had questioned the official version of the Kennedy assassination. Hart's presidential campaign was instantly derailed by the Donna Rice affair. In 1992, Clinton had a more serious bimbo problem than Hart ever had, but it never became a media issue.


For references to more information on this topic, search for the proper names found in this essay by using NameBase Online, a cumulative name index of 500 investigative books, plus 20 years of assorted clippings.

This article by Daniel Brandt is copied from:
NameBase NewsLine,© 1993 No. 1, April-June 1993

Clinton, Quigley, and Conspiracy:
What's going on here?

When Bill Clinton delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on July 16, 1992, it didn't contain any surprises, nor were any expected. There were the usual feel-good platitudes: he wanted to talk with us "about my hope for the future, my faith in the American people, and my vision of the kind of country we can build.... This election is about putting power back in your hands and putting the government back on your side.... It is time to heal America." Any speech writer could have pulled boiler-plate from the files and pasted together something similar. Speeches for occasions like this one aren't meant to be long on specifics.

Toward the end of the speech Clinton mentioned that "as a teenager I heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so."

This was not the first time that Clinton had paid tribute to the memory of his Georgetown professor. A few days earlier, a story on Clinton's background mentioned that he had never forgotten Quigley's last lecture. "Throughout his career he has evoked [this lecture] in speeches as the rhetorical foundation for his political philosophy," according to the Washington Post, which offered another Clinton quotation praising Quigley's perspective and influence.[1] A kindly old professor appreciated as a mentor by an impressionable, idealistic student? This is how it was interpreted by almost everyone who heard it, particularly since Quigley's name was not exactly a household word.

But in certain rarified circles among conspiracy theorists, Clinton's reference to Quigley was surprising. Now that Clinton had one foot in the White House, the conservative Washington Times soon ran an item that tried to clear matters up. Professor Quigley, according to the Times, specialized in the history of a secret group of elite Anglo-Americans who had a decisive influence on world affairs during the first half of this century. Quigley, in other words, was a conspiracy theorist -- but one who had an impeccable pedigree as "one of the few insiders who came out and exposed the Eastern establishment plan for world government." These words belong to Tom Eddlam, research director for the John Birch Society. As someone who had sold two of Quigley's books, Eddlam knew plenty about Quigley. But we can't have a Democratic draft-dodging liberal candidate who admires a Birch Society conspiracy hero, so the Times quickly resolved the issue by noting that Quigley wanted the conspiracy to succeed, whereas the Birchers wanted it to fail.[2] Thus the Times summed matters up, in six column inches.

Clinton's supporters depict him as an intellectual, someone whose heroes traffic in solemn ideals. If so, Clinton presumably read Tragedy and Hope, Quigley's best-known book, which appeared while Clinton was at Georgetown. At any rate, Quigley's work is well worth looking at, along with Clinton's early career, for its possible clues to Clinton's thought.

Reading Quigley may turn you into a student of high-level conspiracy, which is exactly what many influential people around Clinton and elsewhere say you shouldn't be. Almost all of the 3,000 members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) [info on the CFR can be had: here (external link) and here-- risephoenix] will go on record ridiculing any of the conspiracy theories that, according to all polls, are taken seriously by large majorities of average people. CFR member Daniel Schorr will tell you again and again that Oswald was a lone nut, and CFR member Steven Emerson will write article after article debunking Pan Am 103 and October Surprise theories. It's not that people in high places know better, it's simply that they have more to protect and cannot afford to be candid.

As new research is published about the JFK assassination, for example, it becomes clear that virtually all the high-level players, from LBJ on down, assumed it was a conspiracy from the moment the shots were fired. It took until recently for dedicated researchers to dig this fact out.[3] But thirty years later many journalists still find it useful to defend the Warren Commission or belittle its critics.

Carroll Quigley was a conspiracy historian, but he was unusual in that he avoided criticism. Most of his conspiracy research concerned the role of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups in Britain from 1891 through World War II. His major work, Tragedy and Hope (1966), contains scattered references to his twenty years of research in this area, but his detailed history of the Round Table was written in 1949. The major reason he avoided criticism is because his work wasn't threatening to people in high places. Quigley's research was too obscure, and too much had happened in the world since the events he described. Quigley was also an insider, so his criticisms of the groups he studied are subdued. He did his undergraduate and graduate work at Harvard, where he received a doctorate in 1938. He later taught at Princeton and Harvard before settling in at Georgetown's conservative School of Foreign Service in 1941, where he remained for the rest of his career. He was a consultant for the Brookings Institution, the Defense Department, the State Department, and the Navy,[4] and taught western civilization and history. In 1962 the Center for Strategic and International Studies was established on the Georgetown campus, where it maintained close ties with the School of Foreign Service. CSIS included a number of people on its staff who had high-level CIA connections. Quigley moved in these circles until his death in 1977:

In his 1949 detailed look at the Cecil Rhodes - Oxford - Alfred (Lord) Milner - Round Table nexus, published posthumously in 1981 as The Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley was more forceful with his criticism. While endorsing this elite's high-minded internationalist goals, Quigley wrote that "I cannot agree with them on methods," and added that he found the antidemocratic implications of their inherited wealth and power "terrifying." This is as tough as he got with his comments:

Quigley also avoided criticism because his books are the product of years of painstaking research into primary diplomatic sources. To qualify as a critic of his analysis, someone would have to duplicate that research -- and so far no one has. It also helped that Quigley was doing most of his work at a time when conspiracy theories were considered curious and quaint, but not threatening. Clinton, at any rate, had no reason to feel uneasy about citing the virtually unknown Quigley in his convention acceptance speech.

But serious researchers can hardly afford to pass over Quigley's potential significance so lightly. The Washington Times, to begin with, is clearly mistaken to brush Quigley off as simply one more liberal elitist one-worlder. Certainly he is no streetcorner agitator, whether of the right or left. But his understated critique of his elite colleagues is nevertheless a searching one.

In the years following the publication of Tragedy and Hope in 1966, writers on both the right and left began to recognize this. For example, New Left writer and activist Carl Oglesby came to realize that some of his ideas about elite power in the U.S. had been anticipated by Quigley.[7] On the far right, meanwhile, Quigley found a convert in W. Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent who later became a star of the John Birch Society's lecture circuit. In 1970, Skousen published a book-length review of Quigley's Tragedy and Hope that was titled The Naked Capitalist. It quoted so heavily from Quigley's work that Quigley threatened to sue for copyright infringement.

Skousen chose to emphasize Quigley's mention of subterranean financial arrangements between certain Wall Street interests and certain groups on the U.S. left, in particular the Communist Party.[8] Oglesby, meanwhile, shared Quigley's interest in the challenge posed to Wall Street's Eastern elite by newer oil and defense-aerospace money concentrated in the Southwest.[9] But as Oglesby recognized, Quigley's meticulous research into elite power shaded insensibly over into the study of "conspiracy":

But it's a bad word for polite editors, so the issues surrounding the "C" word are almost never discussed in print. One needs to tease out Oglesby's observation that there is a qualitative difference between the way that the left and right in the U.S. have addressed this issue. Both tendencies can at least get together on which groups deserve attention: the Council on Foreign Relations [see above], which became the American branch of the Round Table in 1919; Bilderberg, which has held secret meetings in Europe for select participants since 1954; and the Trilateral Commission [see here and here], a group that began in 1973 and now has 325 members from Japan, Europe, and America. CFR consists of Americans only, whereas Bilderberg adds the Europeans and TC also adds the Japanese. The Americans in Bilderberg and TC are almost always members of CFR also.

But some leftists and left-liberal sociologists prefer to take the curse off their interest in such groups by calling their investigations "power-structure research." The implication seems to be that tracing interlocking directorates, let's say, belongs to science in a way that tracing Lee Harvey Oswald's intelligence connections never could. Still, G. William Domhoff, the most prominent of the "power structure" researchers, admits that attempting to maintain this quarantine can itself become unscientific:

And what makes Domhoff's middle ground on the problem of conspiracy so difficult to maintain is precisely the existence of inconveniently concrete cases like Oswald's. If there was a conspiracy and cover-up, then it was carried out by interested individuals rather than by blind social forces. The best that Domhoff can do with the JFK assassination is to ignore it, which he does.

But this won't do for Michael Albert, editor of the leftist Z Magazine and a Domhoffian "structuralist," who has attempted to finesse this problem. His argument on the JFK assassination, as best I can understand it, goes something like this: JFK was a predictable product of established institutions; these institutions wanted a war in Vietnam; it's inconceivable that JFK would have disagreed with this because his behavior was determined (that is, he could not have changed his mind), and therefore, the assassination of JFK, conspiracy or not, made no difference to our history and is unimportant. The problem with Albert's approach is that he's fairly close to vulgar Marxism, which by now has been thoroughly discredited.

To my thinking, the reason why the JFK assassination is so important is this: It's one thing to believe that there are rich people who become richer because their environment tells them to behave that way, and quite another to believe that there is a powerful, secret government that doesn't have to play by the rules. If you can prove that the assassination was a conspiracy, then the first notion becomes silly and insignificant. Essentially, conspiracy theories restore notions of freedom and responsibility that have been stripped from the "value free" social science establishment. Quigley is between Domhoff and Oglesby on our spectrum, which is not a left-right spectrum but rather a conspiracy spectrum. Oglesby deals seriously with the JFK assassination while Quigley does not. But Quigley at least follows the money trail and believes that human agency and individual actors are important forces in history. Domhoff, on the other hand, is more interested in class distinctions and general behavior.

Skousen is much more conspiratorial than Oglesby. He applies conspiracy thinking to complex issues where a middle ground would be productive (such as CFR, Bilderberg, and Trilateralism), and treats them in an either/or fashion as if they were similar to the JFK assassination. It doesn't work very well. The New World Order may be a bad idea, but to assume as a starting point that it's a Communist plot doesn't help us understand the who or why behind it.

Before returning to Clinton, it will help to fill out our spectrum a bit. So far we have Domhoff, Quigley, and Oglesby in a line, and Skousen off further on the pro-conspiracy end. On the anti-conspiracy end we should add Erwin Knoll, longtime editor of The Progressive. According to Knoll, "none of the conspiracy theories we have scrutinized meets the test of accuracy -- or even plausibility -- we normally apply to material published in The Progressive, so none has appeared in the pages of this magazine.[12] Knoll's advisory board includes three members of the Council on Foreign Relations, so this fits okay. There's also Chip Berlet, who berates unwitting leftists for falling prey to conspiracy theories that the devious right has conspired to foist on them. He isn't critical of conspiracy thinking on the basis of the evidence, but waits until the theorist can be shown to have incorrect political associations.[13] Berlet doesn't fit anywhere on our spectrum; he's running his own show.

A conspiracy bookseller named Lloyd Miller[14] is farther out than Skousen. Miller is aware of Quigley and sells his books. While Oglesby is toying with an American ruling-class Yankee-Cowboy split that goes back a generation or so, Miller dwells on a split between the Knights of Malta and the Knights Templar going back to the year 1307. The modern derivative of this struggle provides his hypothesis that "the overt and covert organs of the Vatican and British Empire are locked in mortal combat for control of the world." In Miller's theory, Jesuit-controlled Georgetown is the Vatican headquarters on the American front, and Quigley is a Vatican agent exposing the Anglo-American connection. Miller is more sophisticated than this description allows, but I have difficulties with him. On a case by case basis, the theory produces as many questions as answers. More importantly, perhaps, my historical interests and imagination don't extend much beyond the last 100 years.

Miller is mentioned because there are similarities between his analysis and the theories of Lyndon LaRouche. For anyone who wants to figure out what LaRouche is talking about, it is necessary to be conversant with esoterica concerning Freemasonry, the Knights of Malta, and British imperialism. The alternative is to see all of the above as code words for Jews, and LaRouche's enemies -- namely Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and the Anti-Defamation League -- tend to take this easy way out. I don't believe that right-wing globalist conspiracy theories in general, or LaRouche's theories in particular, can be dismissed by claiming that they are disguised anti-Semitism -- that is to say, code-word versions of the old international Jewish banking conspiracies. While there is some anti-Semitism on the right, it is no longer the driving force it might have once been. Most right-wing theories are more sophisticated than Berlet, King, or the ADL are ready to believe.

I don't consider any of the people I've mentioned as crackpots, because I'm convinced that there are vital issues at stake. All of them are doing their best with checkered evidence, and for the most part I share their instincts if not always their conclusions. Regardless of where we decide to place Bill Clinton on the spectrum, which will be discussed after a review of his career, at least two other former (and future?) presidential candidates have staked out positions. Ross Perot believes that there is massive corruption and occasional conspiracies in high places; he belongs somewhere close to Quigley. Pat Robertson is a less hysterical version of Skousen, modified for post anti-Communism, and should also be taken seriously. Along with Ross Perot's movement, some see Robertson's Christian Coalition as a populist challenge to our one-party Republocrat system.

Most of Pat Robertson's latest book, The New World Order (1991), is a popularized yet articulate presentation of recent American history as controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, the Federal Reserve System, and Wall Street. Several pages are spent on Quigley's theories, which provide the background for an understanding of the Rhodes Trust, CFR, and the foundations with their "One World agenda." Unfortunately, the only mention of this book in the left press ignores the analytical material that Robertson draws on, and dismisses "its more bizarre conspiracy theories such as those targeting mainstream figures as dupes of the Devil."[15]

Yes, Robertson finally couches his theories in a Biblical context (after keeping the Bible out of it for the first two-thirds of the book), and most of us don't find the Bible necessary or compelling. But when leftists skip to the end in order to belittle his critique, at a time when they have lost the capacity to provide an alternative critique, this is self-defeating. My main objection to Robertson is that he doesn't deserve to have a monopoly on these important issues; his vision is too apocalyptic and too narrow. Unlike the politically-correct "progressive" press, however, I consider him potentially closer to populism than to fascism.

Robertson spends several pages recounting the 1976 campaign of Jimmy Carter, and describes how he concluded that Carter's strings were being pulled by the same Trilateralists who created him. A similar analysis -- much more detailed and convincing -- can also be found from a leftist perspective.[16] It wasn't too many years ago, before politically-correct thinking carried the day, that the left took Trilateralism seriously. Since 1980, the only left perspective on Trilateralism has been written by a Canadian professor.[17] His Gramscian categories tend to be academically overbearing, but he took the trouble to interview 100 Trilateral Commission members.

The Jimmy Carter story is depressing. Hamilton Jordan reportedly said, "If, after the inauguration you find Cy Vance as secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of national security, then I would say that we failed." That's exactly what happened, and seventeen other key members of the administration were also Trilateralists. For his entire administration, every move on foreign policy was cleared with the hard-liner Brzezinski.


Robertson's book was written just one year before Clinton's name became a household word. One wonders how Robertson reacted to Clinton's reference to Quigley in his acceptance speech. And then what Robertson thought when he learned that Clinton checked off on almost every group you care to name: he is a Rhodes Scholar, a CFR member, a Trilateral Commission member, a Bilderberg participant, and most of his appointees are at least one of the above. If Clinton's mention of Quigley in July 1992 had been an isolated case, then one might interpret this as simply a ploy to disguise his elitist loyalties. But Clinton has mentioned Quigley many times over the years, and I suspect that on this he is sincere. Then again, it's hard to believe that Clinton is unaware of Quigley's anti-elitist tendencies. What's going on here?

After shaking John Kennedy's hand, they say that William Jefferson Clinton never doubted that he was headed for the White House. A band major in high school, he was favored by his school principal, who encouraged him to run for class offices and to participate in a leadership program that sponsored his trip to Washington. He attended Georgetown from 1964-1968, majoring in international affairs and immediately running for student office ("Hello, I'm Bill Clinton. Will you help me run for president of the freshman class?"). When he wasn't listening to Quigley or networking and glad-handing his way through a student council election, he was working in the Senate Foreign Relations Office of Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and former Rhodes Scholar who started criticizing the CIA and Vietnam policy in 1966. During his first two years, Clinton was a trainee in Georgetown's ROTC unit, and could be seen around campus in Army fatigues.

Between Quigley and his Georgetown connections, Fulbright and his Rhodes Trust connections, and Clinton's keen interest in his own political power, it's not surprising that the big, bearded, amiable Clinton became a Rhodes Scholar in 1968 and went off to spend two years at Oxford. Another power behind Clinton was Winthrop Rockefeller (1912-1973), two-time Republican governor of Arkansas, who reportedly functioned as a father figure. At Oxford, Clinton participated in one or more demonstrations against U.S. policy in Vietnam in front of the American embassy, and used his connections to stay out of the draft. After Oxford he went to Yale Law School [see Skull and Bones about Yale's connections to the CIA and power elites --risephoenix]. In the fall of 1972 he directed McGovern's campaign in Texas. He ran for Congress in Arkansas in 1974 after finishing Yale, but barely lost. Then he taught law in Arkansas until 1976, when he was elected state attorney general after running unopposed. That year he also headed up the state campaign for Jimmy Carter. Two years later he won the race for governor.

The anti-war sentiments among Clinton's Oxford colleagues did not produce an antipathy toward the CIA. Robert Earl, later an assistant to Oliver North at the National Security Council, was one of these colleagues. And while governor, Clinton was aware that an airfield in Mena, Arkansas played a major role in secret contra logistics involving gun and drug running. Clinton's security chief is being sued for an alleged Mena-related frame-up, and many believe that there were cover-ups by both state and federal agencies.[18]

Bill Clinton is promoted as the first baby boomer and anti-war activist in the White House. Yet I was also these things, and I cannot identify with Clinton at all. In order for this piece to make any sense, it's important that I show how two different anti-war protesters might have stood together in a demonstration for different reasons, after arriving from different directions.

To begin with, one has to divide the student movement into two periods, before and after 1968. This year was pivotal: the McCarthy campaign, the RFK and MLK assassinations, the police riot in Chicago. Anti-war protesters on conservative campuses such as my University of Southern California and Clinton's Georgetown, were almost always bona fide prior to 1968. There was no percentage in it otherwise, as the polls were overwhelmingly in favor of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. At USC I organized a peaceful draft card turn-in ceremony in 1968. We were physically ejected from the campus by fraternity boys, and had to continue in a church across the street, where the frat rats feared to tread. A poll by our student newspaper showed that most students agreed with the fraternity. At USC, and the same was probably true of Georgetown, a student politician couldn't get more than a handful of votes by taking an anti-war position.

In 1969 everything suddenly changed. Major anti-war organizing efforts appeared on campus, coordinated through national networks. I guessed that these new activists, who seemed to come out of nowhere to organize the Vietnam Moratorium, were former McCarthy-Kennedy campaign workers. Although I had been co-chairman of our SDS chapter the previous year, these were all new faces to me. I was astounded and a little suspicious. Everything had turned around completely: now no student politician could hope to win without the long hair, the beads and sandals, and speaking at freshmen orientation by abandoning the lectern and sitting on the edge of the stage, "rapping" to them movement-style.

When it came time to confront the draft, these same student politicians used their mysterious connections to get out the easy way. Sometimes they pulled strings to secure a place in the overbooked National Guard, but most got out clean. Almost half of all undergraduate men were released when the first lottery was held at the end of the year, which of course brought our anti-draft movement to a halt. I now refer to my 1969 experience as the "Sam Hurst syndrome," after the articulate and good-looking student body president who sat on the edge of the stage and rode into power on the post-1968 wave. It's my euphemism for slick, well-disguised self-interest and a great head of hair.

I noticed that new students could not tell the difference between Sam Hurst's activism and mine. Students with safe lottery numbers sadistically inquired about my number -- they would find it amusing if my number was also safe, now that I had been convicted for refusing induction. It was every man for himself. Then it got worse. By September 1970 the big movement on campus centered on Timothy Leary's old colleague Richard Alpert, who now called himself Baba Ram Dass and told overflow crowds that the best way to do revolution was to sit in the lotus position and do nothing. Soon Rennie Davis of Chicago Eight fame was spending his time puppy-dogging a teenaged guru from India. Within another year there was no discernible movement at all, just embarrassing burnouts like the Weather Underground and eventually the Symbionese Liberation Army, which kidnapped and brainwashed Patty Hearst.

Bill Clinton is even slicker than Sam Hurst. His anti-war activism, as well as everything else he did, developed from a focused interest in his own future. After 1968 it would have been unthinkable for Clinton to ignore the anti-war movement and face political obsolescence -- not because of his revulsion over carpet bombing, but because it was time to hedge his bets. Clinton is not an intellectual, he's merely very clever. A clever person can manipulate his environment, while an intellectual can project beyond it and, for example, identify with the suffering of the Vietnamese people. But this involves some risk, whereas power politics is the art of pursuing the possible and minimizing this risk. Almost everything that happened to the student movement is best explained without conspiracy theories. There are, however, some bits of curious evidence that should be briefly mentioned. Each of these alone doesn't amount to much, but taken together they suggest that something more was happening -- the possibility that by 1969 a significant sector of the ruling class had decided to buy into the counterculture for purposes of manipulation and control:

The major point here is that by 1969, protest was not necessarily anti-Establishment. When thousands of students are in the streets every day, and the troops you sent to Vietnam are deserting, sooner or later it's going to cut into your profits. If you can't beat them, then you have to co-opt them. [for more on this subject, see the article on Philanthropies --risephoenix] Clinton's mentors and sponsors realized this, Clinton himself sensed the shift, and until more evidence is available it's fair to assume that his anti-war activity was at a minimum self-serving, and perhaps even duplicitous.

How else can we explain why he has recently embraced the very organizations who got us into Vietnam in the first place? He joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1989, attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1991, is currently a member of the Trilateral Commission, and has appointed numerous Rhodes Scholars, CFR members, and Trilateralists to key positions. These are the very groups whose historical roots, according to Quigley, are essentially conspiratorial and antidemocratic. A cynic would say that Clinton appropriated from Quigley what he needed -- which was a precise description of where the power is -- and ignored those aspects of Quigley that did not fit his agenda. He may have read a book or two by Quigley, but he didn't inhale them.

On February 2, when Clinton's nominee for CIA director was asked some polite questions, Senator John Chafee (R-RI) joked about what he called "a Mafia that's taking over the administration."[26] Be sure to smile when you say that, Senator. The new director, R. James Woolsey, was an early supporter of the contras and served as defense attorney for Michael Ledeen and Charles E. Allen, he has Georgetown-CSIS connections, and he's a Rhodes Scholar, CFR member, and Yale Law School graduate, several years ahead of Clinton. Yale, of course, is thick with CIA connections.[27] The new CIA director was close to Brent Scowcroft at the Bush White House, and is a director of Martin Marietta, the eighth-largest defense corporation, whose contracts include the MX missle and Star Wars weapons.

It's becoming clear that on inauguration day we merely had a changing of the guard. But it's still the same old team at headquarters, wherever that is, and you won't find any television cameras there. Ultimately, then, Clinton's references to Quigley are worth as much as his anti-war record. And both are worth nothing at all.

1. David Maraniss, "Bill Clinton: Born to Run...and Run...and Run. Washington Post, July 13, 1992, p. A1.

2. "Clinton a Bircher?", Washington Times, July 22, 1992, p. A6. For a more useful discussion of the right and Quigley, see Frank P. Mintz, The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy and Culture (Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1985), pp. 145-51.

3. This conclusion in inescapable after reading Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992).

4. Who's Who in America, 1976-1977 (Chicago: Marquis Who's Who, 1976).

5. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 950.

6. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (New York: Books in Focus, 1981), pp. xi, 197.

7. Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War (New York: Berkley Publishing, 1977), pp. 6-7.

8. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, pp. 945-9.

9. Ibid., pp. 1245-6.

10. Oglesby, p. 25.

11. G. William Domhoff, "Who Made American Foreign Policy, 1945-1963?" In David Horowitz, ed., Corporations and the Cold War (New York: Monthly Review, 1969), p.34.

12. Erwin Knoll, "Memo from the Editor," The Progressive, March 1992, p. 4.

13. Chip Berlet, Right Woos Left (Political Research Associates, 678 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205, Cambridge MA 02139), July 28, 1992, $6.50.

14. A-albionic Research, P.O. Box 20273, Ferndale MI 48220.

15. Kate Cornell, "The Covert Tactics and Overt Agenda of the New Christian Right," Covert Action Quarterly, No. 43, Winter 1992-93, p. 51.

16. Laurence H. Shoup, "Jimmy Carter and the Trilateralists: Presidential Roots"; Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, "Shaping a New World Order: The Council on Foreign Relations' Blueprint for World Hegemony, 1939-1945"; and several other relevant articles. In Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management (Boston: South End Press, 1980).

17. Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

18. Association of National Security Alumni, Unclassified, February-March 1992, pp. 6-9.

19. James Simon Kunen, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary (New York: Avon Books, 1970), pp. 130-1.

20. Steve Weissman, Big Brother and the Holding Company (Palo Alto CA: Ramparts Press, 1974), pp. 298-9.

21. AP in San Francisco Examiner, June 21, 1986.

22. Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain, Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD, and the Sixties Rebellion (New York: Grove Press, 1985).

23. Kai Bird, The Chairman: John J. McCloy, The Making of the American Establishment (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), pp. 483-4, 727.

24. Richard Cummings, The Pied Piper: Allard K. Lowenstein and the Liberal Dream (New York: Grove Press, 1985).

25. Douglas Valentine, The Phoenix Program (New York: William Morrow, 1990), p. 337.

26. Douglas Jehl, "CIA Nominee Wary of Budget Cuts," New York Times, February 3, 1993, p. A18.

27. Robin W. Winks, Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961 (New York: William Morrow, 1987).


For references to more information on this topic, search for the proper names found in this essay by using NameBase Online, a cumulative name index of 500 investigative books, plus 20 years of assorted clippings: