James Baker III’s Conflict of Interests

Though, technically Mr. Baker’s law-firm can represent whom they like, there’s a principle at stake. On principle, I believe that the man whom advices and represents the president, should not simultaneously represent a client with apparent ties to one of the worst terrorists attacks against our nation. Note that when one speaks of Saudi Arabia in any fashion, one is in fact speaking of the Saudi Royal family; because, as an institution, the royal family exerts total control over the kingdom.

At the moment, there are some reports linking Saudi Intelligence Agencies and the Al Queda cells that attacked us on 9-11. I’ve only performed a very cursory search to document and support what I’ve written here; however, for anyone that’s interested, I would urge you to do same. Moreover, like many I’m sure, I’ll be reading the 911 Commission Report, where much of this is documented.

Again, for me the problem with Mr. Baker’s law firm representing the Saudi Family and Mr. Bush at the same time, is one of an apparent conflict of interests; and, too, the fact that this situation is the very thing that General Eisenhower warned us we should be vigilant against: The confluence of, 1. BIG TIME money (Mr. Baker’s firm is defending the Saudi Family in a 1 TRILLION DOLLAR suit), 2. Politics (Mr. Baker’s firm is representing and advising our nation’s leading political office holder), and 3. The industries that gain from the nation’s war-enterprise (Mr. Baker is a sitting member of the Carlyle Group).

To me, these are sufficient reasons for Mr. Baker to, at the very least, recuse himself from advising and representing Mr. Bush.