James Baker’s (Iraq Study Group) Law Firm Represents Saudi Government Against 9/11 Families – MSM Doesn’t Report! — Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

James Baker’s (Iraq Study Group) Law Firm Represents Saudi

Government Against 9/11 Families – MSM Doesn’t Report!

December 8th, 2006

Besides the study group being a complete joke, it has now been brought to attention that James Baker’s law firm, Baker Botts, has a secret that nobody, including the MSM, wants you to know.James Baker is the conservative head of the recently formed Iraq Study Group which claims to be bi-partisan and without an agenda. I was one of the first to show you part of their agenda and now I will be glad to help educate you on another. Not to mention this shows that the media is willing to protect a conservative when that conservative is pushing the liberal agenda.

Baker Botts is a law firm of about 700 attorneys and a laundry list of political connections. James Baker is the senior partner of this firm.

Among other places, Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It has also opened an office in Dubai. James Baker has many ties to Saudi Arabia, including numerous meetings that took place when he was the Secretary of State for the first President Bush. He was able to get financial investments in Baker Botts from Price Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

If you remember back, the families of the 9/11 victims sued certain Saudis for their involvement in the attacks, the Saudi Defense Minister and his brother, the governor of Riyadh. These two men turned to none other than Baker Botts to form their defense team. The Saudi Defense Minister, Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, has given about $250,000 per year for the last sixteen years to the International Islamic Relief Organization, an organization being investigated by the U.S. government for funding Islamic terrorist groups.

In an exciting twist, it was none other than George W. Bush who gained employment at Baker Botts at the age of 15.

Does this make you think twice on why James Baker would recommend that Israel give away its land to Palestine? How about the fact that this Iraq “study” Group was able to come up with more than 75 recommendations, none of which described a way to win the war in Iraq? Why do people with these types of connections continue to be appointed to head councils on foreign policy? I consider this grounds for complete dismissal of the Iraq Study Group’s report and I demand that the taxpayers have their 1.3 million dollars returned to them immediately, with interest.

This information can be found on Newsweek, http://www.bakerbotts.com, and http://www.thenation.com. It has also been featured by Michael Savage.

Baker report dismissed as unrealistic and ill-informed

Baker report dismissed as unrealistic and ill-


Michael Howard in Irbil
Friday December 8, 2006
The Guardian

Amid growing Iraqi criticism of the findings of the Baker-Hamilton commission, senior government figures yesterday expressed bewilderment at a proposal to take the police force out of the hands of the interior ministry and put it under the control of the ministry of defence.The report claimed the problems with Iraq’s police – poor organisation and training, corruption, sectarian divisions and infiltration by militias – were so profound that only a radical reorganisation would enable them to carry out their mission “to protect and serve all Iraqis”.

But a senior security adviser to the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, dismissed the proposals. “Like too many of the Baker report’s recommendations, it is likely to cause more problems than it solves,” he said. “The interior ministry needs cleaning of some bad elements, and we are doing so. Transferring the national police lock, stock and barrel to the defence ministry is unworkable and unrealistic.”

He claimed the Iraq Study Group had included the suggestion at the behest of Sunni leaders, who charge the interior ministry, which is under Shia control, with running anti-Sunni death squads. The defence ministry is headed by a Sunni.

Restoring faith in the police among ordinary Iraqis is seen as crucial to reducing popular support for armed militias, which are causing so much damage to communal relations. A recent poll among Shia residents in eastern Baghdad suggested they looked first to their local militias for protection rather than the police.

Despite a lack of equipment and training, the fledgling Iraqi army has remained largely free of infiltration by the militia and the sectarian tensions that are rife in the police. However, forcing the defence ministry and the army into a policing role it is ill equipped to handle is not the answer, said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group.

“It is important to retain a dividing line between external defence and internal security,” he said. “What could also happen is that by importing bad elements from the police you dilute and possibly undermine those relatively good elements in the Iraqi army.”

The report, greeted with much fanfare in Washington, received only a guarded welcome in Iraq. Yesterday as the country’s politicians began to read the fine print of the 79 recommendations, the caution turned to dismay.

“It is not surprising they got so many things wrong,” said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish MP. “In the nine months it took to prepare this report, they were only in Iraq for four days and never left the green zone.”
Additional reporting by Salaam Jihad

Realist Fantasies

Realist Fantasies
By Philip Klein
Published 12/7/2006 2:18:35 AM

James Baker is known for being from the “realist” school of foreign policy, but if the Iraq Study Group’s report is any indication, he’s about as much of a realist as Baron Munchhausen.

Munchausen was an 18th century German aristocrat famous for telling tall tales about such feats as riding cannonballs and traveling to the moon. Baker, meanwhile, used the Iraq Study Group’s report as a forum to recount tall tales about when he ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Okay, not quite. But that’s what one would be led to believe by the report’s nostalgic references to Baker’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East following the first Gulf War. The commission, in a complete non sequitur, recommends that the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace process of the early 1990s should be the model for a broader diplomatic effort to persuade Iraq’s neighbors (including Iran and Syria) to help bring peace and stability to the war-torn nation.

Specifically, the report proposes a series of meetings “to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991” (which Baker organized when he was Secretary of State). These meetings, overseen by the international community, would be “between Israel and Lebanon and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel’s right to exist) on the other.” The fact that such a parenthetical statement is needed says it all.

It’s pure fantasy to believe that Israel could negotiate a settlement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that would not be subject to the veto of Hamas, which can derail talks either through terrorism or the exercising of political power it gained after its substantial election victory earlier this year. Back in 1991, Israel agreed to the Madrid meetings under the condition that no representatives of the PLO would be present, but the Palestinian delegation got around this by bringing an “advisor” who was in constant contact with the terrorist group, which ran the show from behind the scenes. Hamas, meanwhile, helped disrupt the talks in December 1992 by kidnapping and murdering an Israeli border policeman on the fifth anniversary of the start of the first intifada.

But the report’s magical thinking does not end there. It recommends negotiating a settlement in which Syria agrees to small details such as: helping convince Hamas to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, ending its meddling in Lebanon and its aid to Hezbollah, fully cooperating with investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon and blocking Iran from using Syrian territory to transport weapons to Hezbollah.

Israel, meanwhile, will be expected to return the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a larger “land for peace” deal in the spirit of United Nations Resolution 242. The problem is that the resolution was passed in the wake of the 1967 war and its meaning has been debated ever since. Palestinians believe it means Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders, Israelis believe it means they can keep some territory captured during the Six Day War to maintain defensible borders. Whatever one’s position on this debate, it’s unlikely that after nearly 40 years of fighting and diplomacy, the issue will be resolved in time to make a difference in Iraq.

But even if, by some miracle, the Arab-Israeli conflict were resolved tomorrow, it’s hard to see how that would have any impact on what is going on inside Iraq. According to the report, sectarian violence between the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias “has become the principal challenge to stability” and “causes the largest number of civilian casualties.” Al Qaeda wants to instigate the sectarian war and drive the U.S. out of Iraq. Regional players such as Iran and Syria, meanwhile, want to gain influence over different regions of the country. If peace were achieved between Israel and the Palestinians, would Sunnis suddenly be content to be in the minority? Would Syrians and Iranians have less interest in gaining power in Iraq?

In addition to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the commission suggests other “possible incentives” to win over Iran and Syria. Among them are: “The continuing role of the United States in preventing the Taliban from destabilizing Afghanistan.” To be considered an incentive, a party has to receive something it otherwise would not have. It’s hard to imagine Iran’s leaders living in fear that the U.S. may stop fighting the Taliban. Other incentives include entrance into the World Trade Organization and “enhanced diplomatic relations with the United States.” However, the report also says that negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program should be conducted separately, along the path they are proceeding down now. If that’s the case, why should the U.S. use all of its bargaining chips on getting Iran to cooperate on Iraq?

Of course, it’s ridiculous to expect Iran to cooperate with the U.S. on Iraq when our interests are diametrically opposed. In the report, the commission argues repeatedly that a chaotic Iraq is not in Iran’s interest. But were Iran to help stabilize Iraq, it would only do so in exchange for extending its own power and influence — not to help America build a democracy. Just last week, when Iraqi President Jalal Talabani crawled to Iran for help, Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei said that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq was a prerequisite to securing the country.

The Iraq Study Group’s report does acknowledge that “Our limited contacts with Iran’s government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq,” but that does not prevent the commission from concluding that “as one of Iraq’s neighbors Iran should be asked to assume its responsibility…”

If this is what “realism” looks like, I’d prefer to pin my hopes on Santa Claus coming to Baghdad this Christmas and bringing peace and joy to the world.

Philip Klein is a reporter for The American Spectator.

Appeasing the Nazis of the Middle East

Appeasing the Nazis of the Middle East – Thursday, December 07, 2006 5:30 PM
I have been distracted by other agendas of late, but not enough that I don’t notice that the appeasers and the Saudi crowd are ascendant in our political firmament these days and that this means a lot of Americans, Jews and all those generally in the way of the Islamic crusade are going to die because of it. The happy warriors these days are the Jim Bakers, the Jimmy Carters and all those who sold Israel and the Iraqis and the Lebanese down the river after the 1991 Gulf War, invited the terrorist Arafat into the West Bank, gave him an army and launched the terrorist jihad in earnest in the Middle East. The news is sickening to every decent soul except to the Islamic Nazis and their friends in the international left and the delusional folk who think that if America leaves Iraq the terrorists will leave too (Speaker Pelosi actually made that precise comment this October). Talking to the Hitler in Teheran and the Arab Mussolini in Damascus makes perfect sense to the contemporary Chamberlains — Baker, Hamilton (he of the capitulate to the Sandinistas crowd). I never thought I would live to see a day when the last years of the Thirties would be repeated, let alone by Americans. But there it is.Andrew McCarthy has a terrific piece on the Iraq War in National Review, and our own Sean Daniels has a lead story in today”s Frontpage about the white paper proposing “Peace In Our Time” that Baker-Chamberlain and his Saudi patsies are waving at Achmadinejad.We are in a war and the enemy is the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Madhi Army, Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran, the PLO and the Saudi Wahabbis. Victory will be acheived by the bloody defeat of most of them or some of them and the surrender of the rest. Those who expect more from these Islamic fanatics are sellers of a toxic illusion. The victims will be the vulnerable. The anti-Syrian Lebanese, the pro-democracy Iraqis, the Jews most of all.