Dude, the Rosenborgs mishandled information too. So did Benedict Arnold. So did Judas. Plus, HE kissed a man on the lips, the queer. The picture at this point is unclear, but your knee jerk defense is HIGHlarious. PS...yes, I get the various levels of meaning in my post. It was a deliberate choice.
Yeah, but if you know anything about Saudi, you know they'll be hiring Filipinos to run the thing, and they're still our allies, so it's all good.
Hmm...despite the fact that I've been speculating wildly about some potential "neocongate" theories, I doubt that the document forging took place at high levels of the US government. For one thing, the fact that the Nigerien Embassy in Rome was chosen as a (completely arbitrary and fairly implausible) location for the phony plots described in the forgeries suggests that the Italian connection was central. Whoever was behind this probably picked Rome to be the center of the fraud because it was the only place where he/she/they could pull it off. However, if it turns out to be true that someone in Italian intelligence was distributing the forgeries - which still hasn't been substantiated - then I'd say there's a strong possibility that somebody linked to the administration at the very least knew something about the scam. Also, I'd guess that the Plame case is mostly separate, and motivated more by politics than anything else. If someone knew that there was something about the uranium forgeries that could seriously incriminate them, they'd probably lay low and hope for the issue to disappear from public view as fast as possible - and would NOT go picking a fight with the CIA over Wilson's mission, just to get back at him for criticizing the president's case for war. I suspect that this was just a typical Rovean attack that ended up backfiring.
And all this time I thought it was Ollie North's fault ! If it is "well documented and clearly established" where can one find the proof ?
So you have made the observation that the current government in Israel (i.e. the Likud) and some of the foreign politicos (i.e. the neocons) interests in the middle east might be congruent - i.e. get some democratic pro-Western governments in there. 1. I don't see how you can argue this premise is bad. 2. You can argue (and I do) about the methods. 3. Where is the connection you are espousing ? The tail wagging the dog ? Just because the interests are congruent how do you conclude one pushes the other ? Unless you are about to tell us that the Mossad planned 9-11.
The more I look at this story, the more it looks like this Ghorbanifar is Iran's answer to Ahmed Chalabi, and look where that got us.
Still reading Juan Cole? Mishandling information is a specific crime, much less serious than espionage. Maybe you don't like American values, but not only is a person innocent until proven guilty, there haven't even been charges yet. My "knee jerk defense" is against wildly exaggerated speculation.
I think Feith is turning out to be a fanatical true believer and a loose canon. This is why I believe it was his office that had a hand in the Niger forgeries. He is obviously very dedicated to Israeli hegemony in the Mideast and he probably felt that those who are more moderate were standing in his way. Couple this with the obvious fact that Bush is easily manipulated by his cabinet and viola a plan is hatched. Forgered documents delivered to Italy and the justification for a Saddamectomy is established. The problem is that the Iraqis didn't cooperate with the reconstruction to become the model of democracy he wanted or needed. I believe Team B was setting up Iraq to be step one in their plan to transform the Mideast not by becoming a shinning example of democracy but the new base of military operations. 1st Iraqi, 2nd Iran, 3rd Syria. Unfortunately for Feith the Iraqis, the CIA, and the State Department all got in his way. I threw in the part about Plaime because a man so consumed with his mission will take major offense to anyone trying to stop him. It is all about Feith's belief that Israel must be saved and belief is a powerful thing. I was trying to look into Feith's head and thought it would follow that he would want revenge on Wilson. This has been complete speculation on my part.
I think your speculation is dead-on except for the line above. I still am not convinced that the neocons are doing all this "for Israeli hegemony". I think they are doing all this because they beleive that it is in the US's best interest. The fact that it serves Israel as well is only icing on the cake. Once again, its hard to argue with the premise that the world would be better if more totalitarian regimes were transformed into democracies. Where I have the beef is the "ends justifying the means" and the means being basically a juvenile, ludicrous fantasy.
The main problem is that some people hate Israel more than they love America. They'll tolerate serious threats to the USA so long as Israel faces greater ones. America facing an x% chance of nuclear terrorism is worth it if hated Israel faces a 3x% risk.
I never said anything about Mossad planning 9/11. Please... The ultimate vision of Likudniks (Israelis and Americans) was inopposite of the whole concept of a negotiated settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of a "land for peace" trade. Everything else that informed the policies laid out by the neocons, including in the position paper written for Netanyahou, was built on how that Likud ambition could possibly be realized. These other notions about a crusade to establish "pro-Western democracies" in the Middle East (leaving aside the contradiction involved in having a democracy which is forced to be 'pro-Western') sound nice but in reality were a little more than mere subterfuge. (The idea they could establish governments by force that won't be hostile to US/Israel was seriously taken by many, but that is a different issue than a geniune concern about bringing true democracy to the region). The real aim of the Likudniks was to make sure these other countries don't have the capacity to either threaten Israel -- or to otherwise stand against its expansionist designs. So ambitious was this plan that it didn't satisfy itself with just remaking the Middle East in Likud's favored vision; it even sought to redefine US relationships with a host of actors outside the region, from traditional US allies to attitudes towards international institutions such as the United Nations. These other insitutions and countries were also targeted because they too had exercised their influence inopposite of the Likud vision of how the Middle East map should look like. As for the "tail wagging the dog", many find the analogy useful. Of course, those neocons who identified US and Israeli interests as synonymous, would object to the notion. But when it is rather predictable that a war in Iraq would further inflame anti-Americanism in the region, not diminish it; when it requires falsified intelligence, misapplied focus, and bogus claims to redirect attention from Al Queda and the culprits behind 9/11 to an Iraqi dictator with no real connection to the issue; when all this is done through the influence of a group so staunchly pro-Israeli that they are willing to damage established American alliances (as well as American treasure and blood) only to remove what they see as a potential threat to Israel; and given all the other facts of this case; I think you should forgive those who do think this is yet another case of the proverbial "tail wagging the dog". As for your question earlier on the Iran-Contra affair, and Israel's role -- what is your point? Have you read the Tower Commission Report? Or the other studies on the subject since, including a book specifically about Israel's role? Are you aware of later disclosures that surfaced that saw Peres and other Israeli politicians acknowledge unanimous Israeli government endorcement of that policy of trying to foster relations with Iranian "moderates" by supplying them with arms? It was a tangetial comment anyway, but if you are really interested to learn about Israel's role in the Iran-contra affair, here is one source on the subject and there are many others. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19890...-israel-s-role-in-the-iran-contra-affair.html
It could have been forged by Chilabi for all we know. However Feith, trying to make his case for invading Iraq, could have transmitted it directly to the Italians who assume it had been authenticated. When Wilson goes public, the Israelis out him and Feith acts as one of Novak's sources in the administration. There were probably many who couldn't stand Wilson getting off the reservation and were itching to rat him out. . . . . . . . . . then Godzillia, angered by the hum of electricity used by modern man rises up out of the Mediterranean to put an end to the Italians. . . . okay I made that last part up and that is why I don't like conspiracy theories. They say more about what a person wants to be true than the facts tell him.
How could anyone force a democracy to be anything? Do you distrust your fellow Iranians to the point that you think they'd somehow be pro-Western if they were allowed to select their leaders? When your country is a democracy, it will no longer be able to blame the Moussad for Iran's troubles. Won’t that suck? You'll realize that you have to take responsibility for your own selves. PS - We've been trying to get France to be pro-US and it's not working out. If you know anything we don't about forcing democracies to do anything, please share. PPS - We could have used your help with Turkey before the Iraq war too.
This is really the crux of the issue. When will these countries stop blaming everyone but themselves for their problems? When you allow your govt to do this, they are doing a grave disservice.
No, the main problem is that some people love Israel more than they love America (you know who they are). They'll tolerate serious threats to the USA so long as Israel faces less ones. America facing an x% chance of nuclear terrorism is worth it if beloved Israel faces a (0/x)% risk.
I don't think there's one main problem, but a problem is that many Americans hate any country that thinks for itself and attempts to act in its own interests without considering those of us, it's imperial master. It doesn't matter whether that country is Israel, France, Japan, China, or whoever. We loved Saddam until he got too big for his britches and attacked our other buddy Kuwait and threatened those terrorist-loving friends of the Bush clan, the Saudis. Israel is (by necessity, I might add) an utterly amoral, and faithless Macchiavellian state, not our bestest buddy ally. You get like that when you're surrounded by enemies. If the various allegations are true, their Macchiavellianism may bite them in the ass this time. I'm not terribly worried for Israel, though, because the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. will make sure the damage is minimized and nothing terribly long-lasting or serious will happen because of this. And besides, in a few weeks this incident will be forgotten among the election shenanigans anyway.
It's no more hyperbolic than the garbage from the other side. One would hope that we would try to prevent fanatical terrorist regimes that continually threaten America from acquiring nuclear weapons even if those weapons might be targeted at Israel first.
Some newer reports on the case: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31inquire.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47521-2004Aug30.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/30/national/main639542.shtml From what's come out over the past couple days, it's looking less likely that this particular investigation is directly connected to the pre-war intelligence/ Ghorbanifar stuff that I've been going on about. Instead, it seems more like it was part of some sort of investigation into secrecy at the Defense Dept. that had been going on for well over a year. A few details: - Other defense officials, including Wolfowitz and Feith, have been interviewed about the case - but apparently the interviews were more of a briefing on the investigation than any sort of questioning. - Franklin first attracted the feds' attention when he unexpectedly showed up at a meeting between an Israeli diplomat and someone from AIPAC - the meeting was being monitored by FBI counterintelligence. No indication of why they were monitoring that meeting in the first place. - Franklin has been cooperating with law enforcement for a few weeks. According to yesterday's NYT, Franklin agreed to let the authorities monitor his meetings with AIPAC. - NYT and WaPo quote multiple anonymous sources as saying that the leak about the investigation has seriously hindered it. But, according to CBS, "U.S. law enforcement officials did not object to the timing of the CBS report." That contradiction worries me a bit. - The Washington Post article ends with a sort of strange quote from an unidentified American "not in government" who was interviewed in the probe. I'd definitely like to know who that person is.
I agree which is why Bush's actions concerning nuclear proliferation are alarming. For example his administration recently opposed the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty that would ban the production of enriched uranium and plutonium. Bush also decreased funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction initiative that has deactivated more than 6,000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union(from Lawrence Korb at www.centerforamericanprogress.org) If Bush was really worried about ending the nuclear threat he would try to clean up all the world's fissile nuclear material. But if he did there would be no threat to justify enormous expeditures like the National Missile Defense system.