Posted: December 26, 2012 by BlackNETintel-2 in W. Scott Malone

W. Scott Malone–  OPEN SOURCE
US/1; ATTN: HD/23; HST/2

Do crocodiles fly?

 [No doubt unbeknownst to this author, but Eugene Meyer, Kay Graham’s father, from whom she inherited ownership of the Washington Post in 1959, was the primary financier of young George H. W. Bush’s first 1957 foray into the mid-land oil patches of West Texas, which became Bush’s Zapato Oil. 

In late 1988, Kay Graham was the secret guest lecturer at CIA’s Langley HQ, as the then CIA director William H. Webster furiously lobbied Graham to lobby her father’s financial benefactee and family friend, former DCI GHW Bush, to keep his intelligence directorship

WSM’s and his colleague at that time, Mark Perry, asked then Post Outlook Editor David Ignatius if he “would like a transcript?”

With wary surprise on his face, he not-so-demurely declined to get involved in the high politics between the Washington Post, the CIA and the White House,  putting both hands up in a stopping motion: “No, no, no…” was all he said. During a subsequent discussion, however, David did say that he played tennis with Webster, and that Webster “cheats on line calls…”

“Holy s**t, David–that’s hisprecise God-damned function as the DCI,” both of us practically shouted in unison. David just shrugged his shoulders. Discussion over…
“And I suppose ‘SIRO’ is a meaningless State Department cable tag designator for the TS/SCI codewordcleared “ROGER CHANNEL” for US covert operations traffic?” … David?

He doesn’t know, for sure, apparently. He titled his third spy-thriller, (a quite excellent read), ‘SIRO.’ 
Go figure…

(Separately, his statements either comport with, or not quite comport with, David’s later reputation in certain sensitive quarters, wherein WSM has labored for the last decade. Combined, they give credence to certain particular members of the Navy SEAL and SpecOPS communities, who still occasionally refer, perhaps not-so-fastidiously, to Davidas “the Washington Post Chief of Station.”)]

14 January 2011

Scandal Almost Sank Secret Cambodia War
BlackNET Intelligence Channel OPEN SOURCE
 [ed.note: Corrupt officials in Afghanistan? US/1 is shocked…shocked.
Bob WOODWARD, back in the day, used to say that he sought ‘Holy Shit’ stories.
Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee Burned in Effigy 
Unbeknownst to us, sometime Member David IGNATIUS, then the editor of the Washington Post’s Sunday OUTLOOK section, apparently ambled over to INR-DepSEC Morton ABRAMOWITZ’s office at the State Department for a verbal brief.
To SIRO or not to SIRO, that was the question … [Special Intelligence Reporting Office]
ABRAMOWITZ recorded his outrage at our story about Thai Generals stealing the CIA’s Cambodian resistance money in a TOP SECRET cable we recovered soon enough thereafter:
They HAVE the ROGER CHANNEL” ABRAMOWITZ declared on the ROGER CHANNEL, the secret encrypted channel reserved only for the discussion of classified covert operations.
Member Tony KIMERY, and retired Member Mark PERRY, and Scott MALONE [US/1] ambled in to the Washington Post’s OUTLOOK section back in October 1988. After much cigarette smoke, some yelling, and at least one table pounding, US/1 was later heard to mutter as he was being escorted off the premises: “Yeah…we got a ‘NO Shit’ story–Thai Generals are corrupt?”Oh well, never mind. Ben BRADLEE, the Executive Editor of the Washigton Post, did get himself burned in effigy outside the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, a first for him.
Needless, to say, the Thai generals kept the CIA money…] 


NO DISSEMINATION [lifted], above. Article below is OPEN SOURCE.

    October 30, 1988,Sunday, Final Edition

How Scandal Almost Sank Our Secret Cambodia War

By Mark Perry and William Scott Malone

A $ 3.5-MILLION corruption scandal involving Thai military officers nearly derailed funding last summer for the Reagan administration’s covert program to assist non-communist rebels in Cambodia.

The scandal surfaced last spring, when Central Intelligence Agency officers in Thailand involved in running the covert program  uncovered evidence that Thai military officers, and perhaps businessmen, had skimmed money from the U.S. covert-assistance program, which totaled $ 12 million in fiscal 1988.

The CIA then informed the Senate Intelligence Committee, which sent a team of auditors to Thailand to review the program. The auditors reported back to the committee on July 12 about “corruption which had been uncovered” in the Cambodia aid program, according to a late July document prepared by the State Department and made available by a source in the executive branch. The theft of U.S. funds appears to have totaled about $ 3.5 million, according to intelligence sources.

The corruption problem emerged at a delicate time, when the Reagan administration was hoping to expand U.S. support for the resistance forces that are fighting Vietnamese troops in Cambodia. The goal of the program isn’t simply to drive out the Vietnamese, but to help develop a non-communist alternative to the communist Khmer Rouge — so that if the Vietnamese eventually withdraw their troops in a negotiated settlement of the war, the Khmer Rouge won’t simply fill the vacuum with another bloody dictatorship….

—————————————–, Tuesday, May 1, 2012
W. Scott Malone: The Panama Debacle — Uncle Sam Wimps Out
[redacted]; US/1           MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS 
[ed.note: (Check how we spelled Muammar Gadhafi back in the day.)
In 1988-9, Colonel Gadhafi had supplied some $50 million in Libyan cash to his Panamanian money-laundering amigo, General Manuel Noriega. 
According to then secret US intelligence documents that had come our way at the time, Gadhafi’s $50 million cash infusion helped the Panamanian strong-man withstand the harsh rhetoric and grand jury indictments emanating from Noriega’s once-close amigos at the Yankee running-dog CIA and military for almost a year.
But as the 1988 US presidential elections approached, the secret effort to unseat Noriega, negligible to begin with, was put off until after Vice President Bush was sworn in a President in January 1989. 
As events would unfold, the provocatively head-lined Washington Post article (below) could have been entitled “How to start a war against a friendly dictator without really trying too hard.”
There remains much more back-story still to be written on the escalating repercussions that followed and metastasized from this one single article.
The George H.W. Bush Administration, through the auspices of then Secretary of State, James L. Baker, III,  leaked to the US News & World Report the claim that President Bush 41 had signed a until then quite ‘secret,’ $10 million Covert Action Finding authorizing a limited program for “regime change.”

The calculated leak in response to the our article had come on a SATURDAYto a weekly magazine whose deadline is FRIDAY, as was the Washington Post’s for Sunday Outlook Section articles. Needless to say, havoc reigned at the Washington Post’s fifth-floor newsroom. latest possible Saturday evening “stop-the-presses” deadline moment neared…

Then Outlook Editor David Ignatius rushed over to the Post’s 15th Street headquarters, absolute, zero-hour deadline clock tick-toc-ed away. I was orderednot to come anywhere near the Post building, and not even to try to call him there again unless I had a major story-changing, on-the-record quote.

Period. Slam. Dial-tone.

The Sunday Washington Post for April 23, 1989, was an hour and half late in arriving at the distributors. One of the earliest places in DC to catch the widely and much anticipated Sunday Post was the distributor at the corner of 23rd and M Street, just outside of Georgetown, where I lived at the time. 

It was a lonely vigil on that pleasant April evening, but as the minutes turned into an hour, I was the only one left still standing around waiting for the Sunday paper. 
Looking forlorn, and holding my putz…
But a half an hour later, the Post truck drove up, and there was the story in black and white.
The next week, General Noriega, pounding a silver-plated machete on his presidential podium, denounced the leaked $10 million CIA funding claim, and promptly called off Panama’s first scheduled elections since he had seized power in 1982. (CK-date).

Eight months later, employing whatever little Libyan cash he still had to hand, Noriega fled in to the deposed-dictator mists of confusion, with U.S. Delta and special forces at his heals. Unlike Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, Manuel Noriega surrendered and lived, though ever since 1990 in a Florida federal prisonand most recently, a French prison.]

April 23, 1989 
Sunday, Final Edition
The Panama Debacle — Uncle Sam Wimps Out
By William Scott Malone
   A YEAR AGO, the United States was trying to intimidate Panama’s Manuel Antonio Noriega and oust him from power. Today, the opposite seems to have happened: It is Noriega who is intimidating the United States and our power in Panama that is crumbling.
The Panama fiasco is a classic lesson in the misuse of American power. Indeed, it seems almost like a re-run of the 1982-84 Lebanon debacle: the United States faced a challenge from an intractable foe; administration hardliners responded with aggressive military options, but without a practical political strategy; the Pentagon, worried about the risks to U.S. forces, opposed the hardliners. The resulting policy was a half-hearted middle course that accomplished little and left America’s allies hanging.
Added to this messy mix was election-year politics. Panama became a political hot potato during the 1988 campaign. The Reagan-Bush administration, which had provoked the confrontation with Noriega, then walked away from it as the election approached. They never returned to the fray — to the point that today, the United States can’t even provide a radio transmitter for the Panamanian opposition we helped create!

The folly of our Panama policy was captured by New York Sen. Alphonse D’Amato (R), who likened it to “setting your hair on fire and trying to put it out with a hammer.”
[US/1’s All Time Favorite Quote EVER…]
The following reconstruction of how Noriega outfoxed the United States is based on classified U.S. documents and interviews with over a dozen American officials and Panamanian opposition figures.  The State Department and the National Security Council declined to comment on any of the information. Some of the evidence remains controversial within the U.S. government, which has been bitterly divided for more than a year about Panama policy. Among the highlights:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s