The Council on Foreign Relations
and the Trilateral Commission

David Rockefeller    Henry Kissinger    Zbigniew Brzezinski

Visit the CFR's own web server at or email them at Note that CFR also stands for "Code of Federal Regulations," the counterpart to the US Code, and to the uninitiated this can at times be confusing.

Also, visit the Royal Institute for International Affairs, one of the CFR's sister organizations, on their webserver at or email them at

Visit the Trilateral Commission's own web server at, or email them at

The Council of the Americas was founded in 1965 "by David Rockefeller and a group of like-minded business people." It claims to be "the leading U.S. business organization dedicated to promoting regional economic integration, open markets, free trade, and investment, and the rule of law throughout the Western Hemisphere." They state that "membership has grown to over 240 firms with interests and investments in Latin America. Member firms include manufacturing, natural resources, technology, communications, banking, financial services, and law firms." The COA appears to have been instrumental in enactment and defense of NAFTA. Email them at

The conferences and meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations, Council of the Americas, Royal Institute for International Affairs, Institute of Pacific Relations, Trilateral Commission, Gorbachev Foundation, Bill Gates, etc., are not places where major decisions are made or new strategies embraced. These are simply arenas where the agenda of the inner circle is imparted in camouflaged form to representative leaders from the six conspirator categories (industrialists, financiers, ideologues, military, professional specialists (lawyers, medical doctors, etc., and organized labor). These representatives also provide feedback on the status of their area of responsibility. If you were a fly on the wall at one of these conferences, you would seldom hear anything approaching "smoking gun" evidence of the grand design of the inner circle conspirators. Most of the 3000-odd rank and file members of the CFR have no more suspicion of it than do most rank and file members of the public at large. The Bilderberg apparatus is indeed a place where one would hear noticeably more candid treatment of the strategies discussed in this compilation, but is still not by any means truly open. Bilderberg and the other gatherings are all arenas in which psychological warfare is waged on the world's visible elite.

from :

The Background
The Council on Foreign Relations and the New World Order
By Charles Overbeck (PSCPirhana)
Matrix Editor

The Council on Foreign Relations, housed in the Harold Pratt House on East 68th Street in New York City, was founded in 1921. In 1922, it began publishing a journal called Foreign Affairs. According to Foreign Affairs' web page (, the CFR was founded when "...several of the American participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private American Citizens to become familiar with the increasing international responsibilities and obligations of the United States."

The first question that comes to mind is, who gave these people the authority to decide the responsibilities and obligations of the United States, if that power was not granted to them by the Constitution. Furthermore, the CFR's web page doesn't publicize the fact that it was originally conceivedas part of a much larger network of power.

According to the CFR's Handbook of 1936, several leading members of the delegations to the Paris Peace Conference met at the Hotel Majestic in Paris on May 30, 1919, "to discuss setting up an international group which would advise their respective governments on international affairs."

The Handbook goes on to say, "At a meeting on June 5, 1919, the planners decided it would be best to have separate organizations cooperating with each other. Consequently, they organized the Council on Foreign Relations, with headquarters in New York, and a sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London, also known as the Chatham House Study Group, to advise the British Government. A subsidiary organization, the Institute of Pacific Relations, was set up to deal exclusively with Far Eastern Affairs. Other organizations were set up in Paris and Hamburg..."

The 3,000 seats of the CFR quickly filled with members of America's elite. Today, CFR members occupy key positions in government, the mass media, financial institutions, multinational corporations, the military, and the national security apparatus.

Since its inception, the CFR has served as an intermediary between high finance, big oil, corporate elitists and the U.S. government. The executive branch changes hands between Republican and Democratic administrations, but cabinet seats are always held by CFR members. It has been said by political commentators on the left and on the right that if you want to know what U.S. foreign policy will be next year, you should read Foreign Affairs this year.

The CFR's claim that "The Council has no affiliation with the U.S. government" is laughable. The justification for that statement is that funding comes from member dues, subscriptions to its Corporate Program, foundation grants, and so forth. All this really means is that the U.S. government does not exert any control over the CFR via the purse strings.

In reality, CFR members are very tightly affiliated with the U.S. government. Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members, beginning with CFR founding member Allen Dulles. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.

Almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by CFR members. President Clinton, himself a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, employs almost one hundred CFR members in his administration. Presidents come and go, but the CFR's power--and agenda--always remains.

When it was founded in 1921, the CFR was dominated by J.P. Morgan. Morgan is a Rothschild tentacle. This simply reinforces the obvious, that the CFR is a Rothschild instrument operated by the Rockefellers. The CFR is the immediate progeny of Rhodes' Round Table, which was underwritten by the Rothschilds.

David Rockefeller is the chairman emeritus of the CFR. Rockefeller also founded in 1973, and is honorary chairman of, the Trilateral Commission. In 1979, Barry Goldwater published this treatise on the subject:

from :

Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties

By U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater (1979)

In September 1939, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations visited the State Department to offer the council's services.

They proposed to do research and make recommendations for the department without formal assignment or responsibility, particularly in four areas - security armaments, economic and financial problems, political problems, and territorial problems. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to finance the operation of this plan.

From that day forward, the Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members in policy-making positions with the State Department and other federal agencies. Every Secretary of State since 1944, with the exception of James F. Byrnes, has been a member of the council.

Almost without exception, its members are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status and educational background. The organization itself began in 1919 in Paris when scholars turned their attention to foreign affairs after the end of World War I. It remains a non-governmental private grouping of specialists in foreign affairs.

A number of writers, disturbed by the influential role that this organization has played in determining foreign policy, have concluded that the council and its members are an active part of the communist conspiracy for world domination.

Their syllogistic argument goes like this: the council has dominated American foreign policy since 1945. All American policy decisions have resulted in losses to the communists. Therefore, all members of the council are communist sympathizers.

Many of the policies advocated by the council have been damaging to the cause of freedom and particularly to the United States. But this is not because the members are communists or communist sympathizers. This explanation of our foreign policy reversals is too pat, too simplistic.

I believe that the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a New World Order, they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, a monarchy, an oligarchy - it's all the same to them.

Their goal is to impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. They see the elimination of national boundaries, the suppression of racial and ethnic loyalties, as the most expeditious avenue to world peace. They believe economic competition is the root cause of international tension.

Perhaps if the council's vision of the future were realized, it would reduce wars, lessen poverty and bring about a more efficient utilization of the world's resources. To my mind, this would inevitably be accompanied by a loss in personal freedom of choice and re-establishment of the restraints that provoked the American revolution.

When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four Democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction.

There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protegé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protegé.

Starting in the '30s and continuing through World War II, our official attitude toward the Far East reflected the thinking of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Members of the institute were placed in important teaching positions. They dominated the Asian affairs section of the State Department. Their publications were standard reading material for the armed forces, in most American colleges, and were used in 1,300 public school systems.

The Institute of Pacific Relations was behind the decision to cut off aid to Chiang Kai-Shek unless he embraced the Communists, and the Council on Foreign Relations is the parent organization of the Institute of Pacific Relations.

In 1962, Nelson Rockefeller, in a lecture at Harvard University on the interdependence of nations in the modern world, said: "And so the nation-state, standing alone, threatens in many ways to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city-state eventually became in ancient times."

Everything he said was true. We are dependent on other nations for raw materials and for markets. It is necessary to have defense alliances with other nations in order to balance the military power of those who would destroy us.

Where I differ from Rockefeller is in the suggestion that to achieve this new federalism, the United States must submerge its national identity and surrender substantial matters of sovereignty to a new political order.

The implications in Nelson Rockefeller's presentation have become concrete proposals advanced by David Rockefeller's newest international cabal, the Trilateral Commission.

Whereas the Council on Foreign Relations is distinctly national, representation is allocated equally to Western Europe, Japan and the United States. It is intended to act as the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller screened and selected every individual who was invited to participate in shaping and administering the proposed New World Order.

In the late 1950s, Brzezinski, an accepted member of the inner circle of academics, asserting the need for global strategies, was openly anti-communist. By 1964, he had modified his criticism of communism.

In his prospectus describing the Trilateral commission, David Rockefeller said that he intended to bring the best brains of the world together to bear on the problems of the future.

I find nothing inherently sinister in this original proposal, although the name he gave his new creation strikes me as both grandiose and presumptuous. The accepted definition of a commission is a group nominated by some higher authority to perform a specific function.

The Trilateral organization created by David Rockefeller was a surrogate - its members selected by Rockefeller, its purposes defined by Rockefeller, its funding supplied by Rockefeller.

Whether or not the approximately 200 individuals selected for membership on the commission represent the "best brains" in the world is an arguable proposition.

Examination of the membership roster establishes beyond question that all those invited to join were members of the power elite, enlisted with great skill and singleness of purpose from the banking, commercial, political and communications sectors.

Nor was the governmental community over-looked, Invitations to join were extended to Sen. Walter Mondale, Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia, George Ball, Cyrus Vance, Paul Warnke and Reps. Donald Fraser and John Brademas, among others.

In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.

All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community. I have no hesitancy about judging its wisdom and the results of its actions.

A report presented at the plenary meeting of the Trilateral Commission in May 1975, at Kyoto, Japan, called for an enlargement of central authority and expressed a lack of confidence in democratically arrived at public decisions.

It also suggested that it would be helpful to impose prior restrictions on the press and to restructure the laws of libel to check the power of the press.

I've suffered as greatly from an abusive press as any man in public life, but I get an itchy, uncomfortable feeling at the base of my spine when someone suggest that government should control the news.

The entire Trilateral Commission approach is strictly economic. No recognition is given to the political condition. Total reliance is placed on materialism. The commission emphasizes the necessity of eliminating artificial barriers to world commerce, tariff, export duties, quota - an objective that I strongly support. What it proposes to substitute is an international economy managed and controlled by international monetary groups.

No attempt has been made to explain why the people of the Western world enjoy economic abundance. Freedom - spiritual, political, economic - is denied any importance in the Trilateral construction of the next century.

The Trilateral Commission even selects and elevates its candidates to positions of political power.

David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be an ideal candidate, for example. They helped him win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency.

To accomplish their purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community - which is subservient to the wealthy of the great tax-free foundations - and the media controllers represented in the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

It was no accident that Brzezinski and Rockefeller invited Carter to join the commission in 1973. But they weren't ready to bet all their chips on Carter.

They made him a founding member of the commission but to keep their options open, they also brought in Walter Mondale and Elliot Richardson, a highly visible Republican member of the Nixon administration, and they looked at other potential nominees.

After his nomination, Carter chose Mondale as his vice president. He chose Brzezinski as his foreign affairs adviser and Cyrus Vance as his secretary of state.

Accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in New York, Carter denounced those "unholy, self-perpetuating alliances that have formed between money and politics."

The outsider, Carter, had been co-opted by the insiders in the power elite.

The following is an abridged version of a speech given by Senator Jesse Helms (on the Senate floor) on 1987-Dec-15, from the Congressional Record 1987-Dec-15 p.S18146 (et seq), from :

This campaign against the American people -against traditional American culture and values - is systematic psychological warfare. It is orchestrated by a vast array of interests comprising not only the Eastern establishment but also the radical left. Among this group we find the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the money center banks and multinational coporations, the media, the educational establishment, the entertainment industry, and the large tax-exempt foundations.

Mr. President, a careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a New World Order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called New World Order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles. . . .

The psychological campaign that I am describing, as I have said, is the work of groups within the Eastern establishment, that amorphous amalgam of wealth and social connections whose power resides in its control over our financial system and over a large portion of our industrial sector. The principal instrument of this control over the American economy and money is the Federal Reserve System. The policies of the Industrial sectors, primarily the multinational corporations, are influenced by the money center banks through debt financing and through the large blocks of stock controlled by the trust departments of the money center banks.

Anyone familiar with American history, and particularly American economic history, cannot fail to notice the control over the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency which Wall Street seems to exercise....

The influence of establishment insiders over our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time. This pervasive influence runs contrary to the real long-term national security of our Nation. It is an influence which, if unchecked, could ultimately subvert our constitutional order.

The viewpoint of the establishment today is called globalism. Not so long ago, this viewpoint was called the "one-world" view by its critics. The phrase is no longer fashionable among sophisticates; yet, the phrase "one-world" is still apt because nothing has changed in the minds and actions of those promoting policies consistent with its fundamental tenets.

Mr. President, in the globalist point of view, nation-states and national boundaries do not count for anything. Political philosophies and political principles seem to become simply relative. Indeed, even constitutions are irrelevant to the exercise of power. Liberty and tyranny are viewed as neither necessarily good nor evil, and certainly not a component of policy.

In this point of view, the activities of international financial and industrial forces should be oriented to bringing this one-world design - with a convergence of the Soviet and American systems as its centerpiece - into being. . . . All that matters to this club is the maximization of profits resulting from the practice of what can be described as finance capitalism, a system which rests upon the twin pillars of debt and monopoly. This isn't real capitalism. It is the road to economic concentration and to political slavery.

an excerpt from How you became the enemy: America's Military Looks Inward , by Sam Smith, from The Progressive Review:

Of course, just as people really can be out to get paranoids, so even a rampantly misguided military establishment can really face some serious threats. This fact raises America's military myopia from absurdity into the realm of justifiable concern.

An open discussion of such threats, however, is virtually impossible. Even the right to talk about such things is a tightly held prerogative of the mandarin class. The Council of Foreign Relations, a cult-like like organization that journalist Richard Hardwood approvingly calls "the nearest thing to a ruling establishment in America," routinely holds meetings at which participants (including guests) are prohibited from speaking about what transpired.

It's not that one would really want to listen to much of it. The men and women who have designated themselves the guardians of America's future policies are among the most boring and unimaginative folk one finds in Washington. Many are like those described by LBJ as having gone to Princeton and ended up in the CIA because their daddies wouldn't let them into the brokerage firm. Still it is not too comforting to realize that in the quiet places of Washington, the first half of the 21st century (as they never tire of calling what the rest of us call the future) is in the hands of the conceptually dyslectic.

And the media is not about to challenge these folk. One good reason may be found in a 1995 membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations as reported by Public Information Research. Here are just a few of the media CFRers:

Roone Arledge, Sidney Blumenthal, David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William F. Buckley Jr., Hodding Carter III, John Chancellor, Arnaud de Borchgave, Joan Didion, Leonard Downie Jr., Elizabeth Drew, Rowland Evans Jr., James Fallows, Leslie Gelb, David Gergen, Katharine Graham, Meg Greenfield, Jim Hoagland, Warren Hoge, David Ignatius, Robert Kaiser, Marvin Kalb, Joe Klein, Morton Kondrake, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, Jim Lehrer, Anthony Lewis, Michael Lind, Jessica Matthews, Jack Nelson, Walter Pincus, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Rather, Stephen Rosenfeld, A. M. Rosenthal, Diane Sawyer, Hederick Smith, Laurence Tish, Garrick Utley, Katrina vander Heuval, Milton Viorst, Ben Wattenberg, Lally Weymouth, Roger Wilkins, and Mortimer Zuckerman.

Ask any of these people what went on at their last CFR tête-à-tête and you'll probably find their concern for a free press rapidly evaporating. Katherine Graham, for example, once told a CIA gathering: "There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't."

There are substantial implications to all this. If, for example, the CFR puts out a report decrying restraints on the CIA, may we infer that the aforementioned concur? If not, how many have publicly stated their disagreement? How, in fact, can we tell what is going on if foreign policy discussions are handled in the manner of meetings of the Masons, Montana Militia, or Skull & Bones?

excerpt from, "The Shadow Government of the United States and the Decline of America" by Richard D. Eastman (November 1994):

CFR control in government actually began in earnest in 1939 by establishing within the U.S. State Department a "Committee on Post-War Problems", the group (staffed and funded by the CFR) which designed the United Nations. (the story of which is contained in State Dept. Publication 2349-"Report To The President On The Results of the San Francisco Conference").

Since WWII, the CFR has filled key positions in virtually every administration since then. Furthermore, since Eisenhower, every man who has won the nomination for either party (except Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980) has been a member of the CFR:


*    John W. Davis(1924)
*    Adlai Stevenson (1952,56)
*    John F. Kennedy (1960)
*    Hubert Humphrey (1968)
*    George McGovern (1972)
*    Jimmy Carter (1976,80)
*    Walter Mondale (1984)
*    Michael Dukakis (1988)
*    Bill Clinton (1992)


*    Herbert Hoover (1928,32)
*    Wendell Wilkie (1940)
*    Thomas Dewey (1944,48)
*    Dwight Eisenhower (1952,56)
*    Richard Nixon (1960,68,72)
*    Gerald Ford (1976)
*    George Bush (1988,92) (who was also a director of the CFR 1977-1979)


from <>, 1999-Jan-22:

CFR Secretaries of Defense

The National Security Act of 1947 established the office of Secretary of Defense. Since 1947 there have been 19 Secretaries of Defense. At least nine of them have been Council on Foreign Relations and/or Trilateral Commission members.

According to Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 525-7-1, The Art and Science of Psychological Operations,

"The Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the president in all matters relating to Department of Defense, and exercises direction, authority, and control over the department. He serves as a member of the National Security Council. Among the several principal military and civilian advisor and staff assistants to the secretary, his assistant secretary for international security affairs, has major Psychological Operations(PSYOP) related responsibilities."1

President Clinton has appointed three Secretaries of Defense -- William Cohen, William Perry, and Les Aspin. As Under Secretary for International Security Affairs, Lynn Etheridge Davis, has been coordinating Psychological Operations under all three. Davis has been involved with the US intelligence community and a part of every administration from the 70's through the 90's.

Davis, Clinton and Perry are Trilateral Commission members. Davis, Clinton, Cohen, and Aspin all belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Davis published a book titled "The Cold War Begins - Soviet-American Conflict Over Eastern Europe" (1974). Council on Foreign Relations members Warner Schilling, William Fox, Howard Wriggins, Marshall Shulman, and Henry Graff, are acknowledged in the beginning of her book.

Davis is also a Vice President at Council on Foreign Relations member David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan bank. Does Davis help plan Psycho-political operations whose focus is economic warfare?

The RAND Institute is a federally-funded Council on Foreign Relations think-tank. Clients, include the Pentagon, the Atomic Energy Commission, and NASA. RAND's Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, was formerly called RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior. Many RAND studies deal with how to manipulate large groups of people.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense sponsors the RAND National Defense Research Institute, headed by Council on Foreign Relations member Michael D. Rich. Fifty per cent of RAND's work is labeled secret. Despite the secrecy governing its activities, RAND has a prodigious outpouring of books, reports, memoranda, briefings, and communications. Joseph Kraft summed up the propaganda effect of this material, "Though little known, RAND has had an enormous impact on the nations strategic concepts and weapons systems, and in one way or another RAND has affected the life of every American family. " Members of the Council on Foreign Relations play a crucial role in RAND's application of strategies and techniques to purposely keep the American public misinformed.

In July 1992, the RAND convened a group of outside experts and RAND staff to discuss the problems of peacekeeping and peacemaking in the new world environment brought on by the collapse of Soviet power and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Dr. Davis, then RAND's Vice President, Army Research Division, prepared a paper setting issues for the group's discussion. The paper was revised and published as a RAND Summer Institute Report titled Peacekeeping and Peacemaking After the Cold War. In the report the word peace is used in an Orwellian doublethink manner. We are told the Secretary General of the UN "defines peace building as post conflict action... The Secretary General has linked preventive diplomacy with preventive deployments of military forces". We learn, "The Secretary General in his Agenda for Peace... emphasizes the need for governments to share information on Political or military situations, and in so doing, he is asking for an expansion of the intelligence sharing... "2

There were thirteen other participants at the RAND Summer Institute Peacekeeping and Peacemaking After the Cold War workshop.At least six belong to the Council on Foreign Relations including: Professor Robert D. Blackwill, Harvard University, Professor Richard Gardner of Coudert Brothers, Mr. James Hoagland The Washington Post, Ambassador Thomas Pickering NEA/INS Department of State, Dr. Enid Schoettle Council On Foreign Relations and Dr. Charles J. Zwick. At least one of the thirteen is connected to the CIA - Professor Thomas C. Schelling University of Maryland. 3

When World War I broke out in 1914, Elihu Root displayed antagonism to Woodrow Wilson's neutrality and was an avid proponent for promoting America's entry into the war, and uncritically backed Allied proposals that American Troops be integrated into British and French armies. When America entered the war in April of 1917 Wilson rejected the notion of having American troops commanded by foreigners and selected Major General Pershing to command an expeditionary force to Europe. When the Council on Foreign Relations was formally established, Elihu Root became its first Director. 4

Eighty-Five years latter the Council on Foreign Relations is still trying to put American Troops under foreign command. The last sentence of the Council on Foreign Relations RAND Summer Institute Report is,"The most important step would be for government to place "volunteer" military forces under UN command. "5

Should appointed officials who belong to an organization whose members are closely connected with industries that profit from war be making decisions that will send American Troops into battle? Are peacekeeping operations designed to maximize the profit of Council on Foreign Relations controlled, medicine, media, food, banking and energy industries?

Is this the next stage in a plan to maintain the most powerful military establishment in peace time history; the next stage in a plan to establish a new world order; the next stage in a plan for the men in control of that world order to be members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and their branch organizations in other nations? Why are we readying two military bases to launch US Troops on UN Peacekeeping missions, under the command of non-US military personnel to fight in wars that have not been sanctioned by congress?

A list of US Secretaries of Defense, indicating Council on Foreign Relations membership follows:

*    appointed Jan. 1997 second term of Clinton Administration, Council on Foreign Relations member Cohen, William S.US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1994-1997 first term of Clinton administration., Trilateral Commission.Member Perry, William J. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1993 first term of Clinton administration, Council on Foreign Relations member Aspin, Les US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1989 (Bush administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Cheney, Richard B. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1987 (Reagan administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Carlucci, Frank C. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1981 (Reagan administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Weinberger, Caspar W. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1977 (Carter administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Brown, Harold US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1975 (Ford administration)., Rumsfeld, Donald H. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1973 (Nixon administration)., Council on Foreign Relations member Richardson, Elliot L. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1969 (Nixon administration), Laird, Melvin R. US Secretary of Defense .
*    appointed 1968 (L. B. Johnson administration)., Clifford, Clark M. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1961 (Kennedy administration) and 1963 (L. B.Johnson administration), Council on Foreign Relations member McNamara, Robert S. US Secretary of Defense .
*    appointed 1959 (Eisenhower administration)., Gates, Thomas S. Jr. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1957 (Eisenhower administration)., McElroy, Neil H. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1953 (Eisenhower administration)., Wilson, Charles E. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1951 (Truman administration)., Lovett, Robert A. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed (1950-51) (Truman administration), Marshall, George C. General of the Army and U.S. Army Chief of Staff during World War II (1 September 1939 18 November 1945) and later U.S. Secretary of State (1947-49) and Secretary of Defense (1950-51). The European Recovery Program he proposed in 1947 became known as the Marshall Plan. He received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1953.
*    appointed 1949 (Truman administration)., Johnson, Louis A. US Secretary of Defense
*    appointed 1947 (Truman administration), Forrestal, James V. First US Secretary of Defense

Part 2 of this ARTICLE


TRUE DEMOCRACY     SUMMER 2001     Copyright © 2001 by News Sourse, Inc.