Josh Marshall discusses some of the recent reports, and suggests that the NYT might be being spun by relying too much on Pentagon sources. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_29.php#003379 And here's a look into some of the other things about Feith's office that may be under investigation - possibly including illegal and unapproved covert operations. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...obe_at_the_pentagon_examines_actions_on_iraq/ I imagine that a top priority for Republican legislators on the relevant committees is to keep anything incriminating under wraps until after the election. We'll see how successful they are.
Another ringing endorsement of our absentee National Security Advisor: "A senior administration official said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, were "apprised of the counterintelligence investigation of AIPAC" more than two years ago. " http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6141697
Give Condi a break. It is taking her longer than expected to photoshop herself into all of the W and Laura Bush wedding photos.
There are others in our government who have already provided classified information... and they're still working for the government. http://www.counterpunch.org/green09032004.html "[Stephen] Bryen had been overheard in the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop, offering classified documents to an official of the Israeli Embassy in the presence of the director of AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee." Bryen is a member of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission." "In 1983, on the recommendation of Richard Perle, [Michael] Ledeen was hired at the Department of Defense as a consultant on terrorism. His immediate supervisor was the Principle Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, Noel Koch. Early in their work together, Koch noticed with concern Ledeen's habit of stopping by in his (Koch's) outer office to read classified materials. When the two of them took a trip to Italy, Koch learned from the CIA station there that when Ledeen had lived in Rome previously, as correspondent for The New Republic, he'd been carried in Agency files as an agent of influence of a foreign government: Israel." ... "He, like Bryen, is presently a serving member on the China Commission and, with the support of DOD Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, he has since 2001 been employed as a consultant for the Office of Special Plans OSP). Both involve the handling of classified materials and require high-level security clearances." Ledeen also worked for Olie North during the Iran-Contra Scandal. "But [Douglas] Feith was fired because he'd been the object of an inquiry into whether he'd provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington." http://www.latimes.com/news/yahoo/la-na-spyprobe3sep03,1,1985762.story "Despite its fervent denials, Israel secretly maintains a large and active intelligence-gathering operation in the United States that has long attempted to recruit U.S. officials as spies and to procure classified documents, U.S. government officials said." ... "They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations," the former official said. "People here as liaison … aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable." http://antiwar.com/justin/ "If the authorities were watching AIPAC, and just happened to stumble on Franklin's clumsy efforts to pass documents to Israeli officials, the rest can be inferred: This is big, much bigger than Franklin, if it required a systematic and ongoing surveillance of AIPAC and Israeli government agents."
kropolski, Thanks for the information and excerpts you posted. There is indeed a lot more to this story than appears on the surface, although the very fact that the story has enormous reach also makes it one that might be too difficult to fully uncover. There are a lot of influential people who will try to stop any serious investigation of the issue, and along with others in and around government and media, will bring pressure to bear to make any investigation end up with at most a few sacrificial lambs getting a slap in the wrist. I regret that Aipac will survive all this, although I hope its armor will at least find some dents and scratches. At the very least, I hope those who are fed up of being pushed around by Aipac's tactics will now find the courage to be more outspoken about how they feel about the issues. Many are simply cowed to say and sign whatever Aipac passes around, while others among the neocons make even Aipac look like a good civic organization!
Not this again. People - quit replying. Ben and IranianMonitor need to sleep. As for this issue, its relevant only to those who can't see past the edge of their noses. Do some Israeli pols think the war in Iraq is good for Israel? Probably (although God knows why they do). Could it have possibly influenced the US decision? Sure. However, IT WAS NOT AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. Read that part again - its important. I'm visiting Buenos Aires. Several people on these boards suggested I go to the Bombonera while I'm down here. Ergo, IranianMonitor can now claim certain parties on bigsoccer have been working US contacts to provide more tourist revenue to Boca Juniors. That going to the Bombonera was not even remotely the real reason for my trip (I've always wanted to see Brazil and Argentina) can be safely ignored if your seemingly only thought in the universe is how the US aids Boca Juniors at the expense of River. Context people. Anyone here who seriously think Wolfowitz and Feith are conducting foreign policy by Israel's dictates are dumber than a lobotomized Dan Quayle. If we really wanted to help Israel, why didn't we take out Syria? Of all the states in the middle east that we don't like, Iraq did the LEAST to piss Israel off. DOES NOT COMPUTE. For fvck's sake, when people get married, they think getting gifts is fun. Is that the reason they marry? Use some logic. O-I-L is far more important to Bush than some Jewish state he probably can't spell correctly. As for the spying allegations - possibly true. Odd, but possibly true. OK. We've supposedly been spying on Western Europe for decades. (Google Echelon.) Don't overly bother me.
ROTFLMAO. Really, why would Israel deserve or need a lobby? I mean, certainly, the most historically secure group in the world should have nothing to fear from anyone. No reason at all for them to try and lobby the US government. You need a new hobby. Like writing new "history" texts set in the future. I'm just curious - when does Iran get ray-guns? The US gets them first, right? I just want a cite for when I write my history paper.
Whether it computes for you or not, the Likudnik plan always involved first going after Iraq as the most vulnerable part of the larger group of countries to be destabilized and removed as threats to Israel. If you had bothered to read the numerous writings published by these folks, even when they were writing for Israel and not for the US, you would know better.
I hate to tell you this, but AIPAC succeeds because Israel's enemies are such bloodthirsty dishonest cowards. I get annoyed by the prevailing attitude in the US that Israel is the 51st state. Israel behaves sometimes like a parasite, just finagling more ways to squeeze more money out of Uncle Sam. This spying thing is just a reminder that Israel is a foreign country. However, it doesn't take long for a palestinian suicide bomber to put things in perspective. If I must choose sides in that conflict, the good guys are easy to spot and they're the Israelis. Not the people who cackle when another suicide bomber kills randomly.
And my vacation to Buenos Aires always involved seeing the Bombonera. That's not, however, the real reason I went. Unfortunately, you can't read. So I'll just say this again. I didn't disagree that some of them thought getting rid of Saddam would be a good thing. I said, however, that Israel's gain from any war with Iraq was icing on the icing on the cake in Republican strategizing. Can you ice icing? I suppose so. Now - back to history. When does Iran finally develop dilithium crystals?
I regret that the usual suspects will continue to smear AIPAC without any actual proof. The AIPAC angle is too cute by half. Perhaps some of these accusers should get a free trip to Guantanamo (looking for a Fifth Column is fun, remember). ------ How much would you like to contribute to AIPAC? $50 $100 $250 $500 Other https://secure.aipac.org/aipacform/join.cfm
I can't speak for "Israel's enemies", as I have stated my own position that I prefer that there be an Israel in the Middle East -- albeit acting very differently than this one, and having far less influence in the US then it does. However, the side you choose, and the vocabulary you use, shows how you don't see the crimes of the other side. The side which doesn't need to strap bombs on himself/herself to commit dastardly acts, but does so using powerful weapons that kill with greater effect. Besides, while attacks on civilians by some Palestianian groups doesn't and shouldn't win those who perpetuate such crimes any favor, the same way no favor should be given to the other side when they violate international law with impugnity and cause much grief in the region, none of that changes the basic and fundamental issues that concern me. Those issues have to do with clear evidence of disproportionate power and influence by pro-Israeli groups in the policy-making levers in and around the government here in the US, making it harder for the world's only superpower to throw its weight around to see this simmering conflict come to a just end. And with that failure, fueled by some complicity in the way Israel is shielded by the US from worldwide censure and sanction, you find the source of much of what fuels the wider animosity that exists in the region towards the US. You also find what fuels the radicalization of politics in the Middle East, giving greater voice and place to strange voices than they would receive otherwise. But, really, it is rather a hopeless case for people like me to try to convince people like you anyway. I will do my part speaking out to what I find to be fair and right -- for the US, for the entire region, and even for Israel (not as militaristic state, but as a vibrant and integral part of the Middle East). The rest, well c'est la vie. To each his/her own perspective!
The "real reason" the US went to war with Iraq is a complicated question, as the "US" is not a homegenous entity with one voice and objective. What is clear is that the staunchest proponents of the Iraqi adventure in and around the US government were those which had advocated a similar course even before 9/11. And who had done this to benefit Israel, even if (some of them) have translated US and Israeli interests to be synonymous. I guess following your twists of logic, specially peperred with ad hominum attacks, does require a special skill that I obviously lack. The "Republican" strategizing you refer to was first developed by a group whose loyalties were clearly to Israel. The fact that they brought others along to build up their coalition doesn't change one fact: that the common demonitor between these otherwise often desperate groups was a staunchly pro-Israeli bias. Don't waste my time.
So when Bush declared war it was really a variety of people? What are you talking about? The US that chose to go to war is the US. Its not an entity, its my government. I also like your logic. If the real reason the US went to war are complicated, perhaps so was the support for it. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm making sense again. Carry on. As most here believe the Iraqi invasion idea germinated before 9/11, what's your point? You've shown no evidence that this is clear. At all. You have shown that some of the people high up in the Republican power structure believed that the war with Iraq would help Israel. Again, this is logically not the same as pushing a policy to BENEFIT Israel. They saw a way to get a disparate goal together. Again. It was previously my stated goal to visit the Bombonera on any trip to Argentina. I then took said trip. Upon taking that trip, I did indeed see the Bombonera. This does NOT mean the reason for my trip was that visit. Hello? Is this thing on? Instead of writing history books set in the future, you should really look into the concept of self interest. If Iran nukes Israel, and its leader had earlier stated he really hated Arafat, even before becoming grand high poobah ayatollah nutjob (official title, I believe), that does not mean the primary aim of that nuclear blast was to kill Arafat. Even though he did. My logic is perfectly normal. Your logical contortions meanwhile, are impressive. You're the first person to discover that Likud, rather than a heterogeneous political party that doesn't always agree with its leader is actually a political philosophy. Attributing neocon though to Likud rather than to the Chicago school is sheer lunacy, and a sign that you're just looking to blame those dastardly Jews for something they didn't really do. Really? The whole Chicago school is loyal to Israel? Who knew! Again, you have one article that proposes a thesis that there are some dual loyalties. I suppose you're going to claim that Thomas Friedman, who supported the Iraq war, is also a neo-con who's loyal to Israel? Conspiracy theories are rarely true because they're too neat in their creation. You've started with the premise that it's a pro-Israel bias, and you keep finding it. Wow, what a shock. Next you'll be using Anselm's proof that God exists. Again - there are many common denominators (or, to use your word, "demonitors") for neo-cons. The Chicago school, to which so many of them belong, is the most obvious. Then there's the oil connection of this administration. Hell, Haliburton owns our VP. Yet you've found the Jews? Of all the links, its the MOST tenuous! Correlation is not causation. Repeat that, and maybe it will sink in. I do have to give you credit though. This is one of the more creative anti-semitic screeds I've seen in a long time. Now I understand why the early Hollywood moguls were so afraid of being seen as Jewish, and adopted names like "Warner". Because apparently advocating that X is good for Israel means you have dual loyalties if you believe X is also good for the US. Clearly, if Feith were to write a book about how Israel needs Oxygen, and then tried to create more Oxygen for the world, he'd be doing it for Israel, and has too much influence. In the words of the Guiness commercial, BRILLIANT! You are the same person that: A. Speaks of nothing BUT the Israeli influence on the US. That's not a good sign for your objectivity. You're on a soccer message board and the vast majority of your posts - nay, nearly all your posts are on this topic. I know Roswell nuts who have less bias. B. Claim as "proof" one article you've found which has major holes. C. Cited your own work in regard to ancient history as credible when your work is in fact set in the FUTURE. D. In an argument over history, cited gaming websites to counter my link to an in depth discussion of Herodotus. Don't waste MY time.
nicephoras, It appears to me that you have a troubled relationship with the truth. When I have time to spare on you, I might intercede to help reconcile your differences. For now, however, let me quote from a couple of other articles (among many) that I have cited on the subject that I have been discussing here.
Hey - you got my name right! Good first step. Funny, since you failed to respond to any of my points. What, are you going to take time away from the history of the future you're undoubtedly writing? A. Newsmax is as reliable as............Pravda in its heyday. Except Newsmax is more partisan. B. Your non-newsmax link doesn't work. C. Zinni's opinion is noted. However, please show me the part of his speech where he claims that the operative reason we went into Iraq is Israel's desires.
I didn't know you really had any point? But just in case you did, I thought the articles I quoted would be sufficient to respond to your confusion. I guess my work didn't impress you. It doesn't matter; historians with far greater erudition than an unspecified degree in "ancient history" have complemented my work. But that is neither here or there; it certainly has nothing to do with issues you like to confuse. That article was written by Arnaud de Borchgrave -- editor at large for both UPI (a respected wire service) and the Washington Times (a conservative paper in the capital). It was written by a journalist who, defending against the typical kind of attacks launched against him by (the non-existant) lobbyists for Likud's version of truth and justice, "is entitled to live in Israel under the Law of Return and who has been covering the Middle East on and off for half a century -- and is the fortunate recipient of 10 major journalism awards for Middle Eastern reporting." It is an old article, so the link has apparently become outdated. But here is a Washington Times article by Arnaud de Borchgrave where he writes about reactions to his piece "The Bush-Sharon Doctrine" (widely covered at the time and carried by many papers) and again summarizes the same points: http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040304-082407-3242r Do you have his "speech"? Actually, although General Zinni did write about his views in a newspaper column as well, the comments quoted come from an interview with "60 Minutes". The comments were reported as follows, with the emphasis mine to help clear your confusion. Or, to quote Arnaud de Borchgrave, quoting from the neocon bible on this issue
Potentially important article here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040913-692835,00.html A couple things stick out. Back on page 3 of this thread, a few hours after this story broke, I wrote: "it's possible that part of the FBI's purpose in going after the person mentioned in these reports is to try to obtain testimony about other things and other people." Apparently I was correct - it looks like the feds have been using Franklin to try to gain evidence on other misdeeds by Pentagon officials, including passing classified information to Chalabi and the INC. Second, the article notes that top Bush administration officials were informed about an ongoing FBI investigation into AIPAC not long after entering office in 2001 (I believe the AP has also reported this). So, counterintelligence has obviously been concerned about this issue for quite a while.
nicephoras, Don't put quotes on comments I have not made, as you did in the above post. Anyway, this portion of the debate has run its course. The portion that remains of interest to me is whether this FBI probe will be allowed to run its nature course? If it does, IMO it will find a bigger scandal than Watergate, except this one has aspects that cut across party lines.
Another important story, from Laura Rozen and Jason Vest: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8467 The FBI has interviewed Stephen Green, the journalist who wrote the article that Kropolski cited earlier. Apparently, they were asking him questions about his research into earlier investigations that implicated prominent neocons in illegally passing on classified material. So, this might actually go back a few decades. The article has some other interesting pieces of information as well. Rozen's blog, www.warandpiece.com, is a good source for the latest on the case.
NGV, An excellent article. Thanks for linking it here. Mentioned in that article is another one that is also very good. A must read for those who want to know how their government has been hijacked by a group of Likudniks: A CounterPunch Special Report Serving Two Flags Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration By STEPHEN GREEN http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html There is so much information in that article that I can't even excerpt some without doing an injustice to the whole. When you piece together the whole picture, including the ones later on falsified intelligence, the Niger document scandal, and other activities of the Office of Special Plans, their links to Israel and Mossad, and when you add Aipac to the picture as well, you have the makings of arguably the biggest scandal in American political history. The only problem is that the scandal is so big that it might be hard to find people with enough clout to carry it to its natural conclusions.