| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:58 pm Post subject: Frank Gaffney: Feith's Fight-Damage Control as neocons bleed |
| When you read the following by arch-neocon Frank Gaffney, keep in mind that he is mentioned in Jason Vest's excellent 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article for 'The Nation' (which you can access via the following URL):
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
Robert Fisk mentions the above 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article by Jason Vest in the following article:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
Also, access the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left at:
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
When you read Gaffney's article below, keep in mind that it appeared in a known neoconservative publication (National Review):
Subj: Frank Gaffney: Feith’s Fight (Damage Control as neocons "bleed")
Date: 4/30/04 10:47:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jblankfort@earthlink.net
This article is very significant, not only because it distorts the thrust of the article in the New York Times to which he refers, but represents the panic among the pro-Israel neocons as the war and master plan that they orchestrated for Iraq continues to fall apart and their hero, Dubya, seeks the help of the hated UN to bail him out. Gaffney is one of the earliest neocons who established the CSP (Center for Security Policy), another low-profile pro-Israel "think tank" more or less as counter-part to JINSA. What he is doing in this article in William Buckeley's National Review is clearly an effort at "damage control."
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/gaffney/gaffney200404300909.asp
E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version
April 30, 2004, 9:09 a.m.
Feith’s Fight
Allegations against the undersecretary are baseless and base.
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
On Wednesday, the New York Times gave front-page treatment to an article that should at last put to rest the unsubstantiated yet oft-repeated allegations concerning the misdeeds of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and two Pentagon offices that reported to him at an early stage in the war on terror, the Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans. Despite the transparent desire to prove otherwise, the Times article, entitled "How Pair's Finding on Terror Led to Clash on Shaping Intelligence," demonstrates that these allegations are as baseless as they are base.
Specifically, Feith and his subordinates have been accused for months of exaggerating threats as well as manipulating intelligence related to Iraq and the war on terror in order to support a dubious and predetermined end: justifying the forcible overthrow of Saddam Hussein on the grounds that he was tied to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The Times article quotes one individual, identified only as "a C.I.A. official," saying that "...If you work hard enough in this nasty world, you can link just about anybody to anybody else." The Times reported that "another agency official summed up the Feith team's work by saying 'Leave no dot unconnected.'"
In fact, as the Times account grudgingly documents, Feith's Counterterrorism Evaluation Group did nothing more than subject available classified data to an independent review. In the process, the two-man group established that there was, indeed, evidence of longstanding connections between Saddam's regime and various terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda. In the end, it took 150 pages to document and explicate these ties. Secretary Feith characterized the study's findings for the Times as follows:
There was intelligence about contacts among these different players — the organizations, the state sponsors, the non-state sponsors. There was intelligence about contacts among them that crossed ideological lines to a greater extent than perhaps some people had appreciated before. The connections could be tight or loose. I don't mean to suggest that all international terrorists are really operating from a single organization. They're not. We use the term "network" advisedly.
Secretary Feith and his organization were not only justified after September 11 in reexamining the classified information — and the policy assumptions derived from it — that had guided America's approach to terrorists prior to that day's horrific attacks. They had an obligation to do so.
Incredibly, the Times article, by reporter James Risen, reveals that the U.S. intelligence community — which not only vehemently disagreed with the work done by the Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, but tried assiduously to impede it — still "largely dismiss[es]" what the author describes (somewhat inaccurately, as the above quote makes clear) as "the Pentagon view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden."
This position seems utterly untenable, given just the information in the public domain — to say nothing of what must be available in classified channels. For example, on April 26, ABC News aired part of a videotaped confession by suspected al Qaeda terrorist Azmi al-Jayousi, who was captured before he could unleash a devastating chemical attack in Jordan. Al-Jayousi admitted that he was trained in Iraq by al Qaeda deputy Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sometime after the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. According to ABC News, he reportedly confessed: "In Iraq, I started training in explosives and poisons. I gave my complete obedience to Zarqawi. No questions asked. After the fall of Afghanistan, I met Zarqawi again in Iraq."
Even more preposterous than the intelligence community's seeming cognitive dissonance about collaboration between terrorists across ideological and religious lines are claims made by various conspiracy theorists — including, notably, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker — that Secretary Feith's organization had its own mini-CIA cooking up fraudulent intelligence. Hersh penned a fantastic tale back in May 2003 that depicted Feith and his subordinates, certain other administration officials, and several Washington think tanks all operating under the insidious influence Leo Strauss to create, with the help of disreputable Iraqi defectors, "selective" (read fraudulent) intelligence that could justify removing Saddam Hussein from power.
This claim too has been shown to be without merit. As the Washington Post reported in an article last month headlined "Feith's Analysts Given a Clean Bill": "Neither the House nor Senate intelligence committees...which have been investigating prewar intelligence for eight months, have found support for allegations that Pentagon analysts went out and collected their own intelligence.... Nor have investigators found that the Pentagon analysis about Iraq significantly shaped the case the administration made for going to war." In short, there is, as the saying goes, "no there, there" with regard to the series of scurrilous charges leveled at Feith and his team of dedicated, principled and courageous professionals.
I have long been proud to call Doug Feith a friend and colleague and to be associated with many of those who are helping him and Donald Rumsfeld perform difficult, usually thankless work in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during a time of grave national peril. I have never been prouder of these outstanding men and women, however, than I am today. For while some clearly intend to continue to manufacture and publicize allegations of misconduct on their part — presumably in the interest of undermining public confidence in President Bush, his national security team, and its conduct of the war on terror — America owes them a deep debt of gratitude. As papers of record, however reluctantly, eventually publish the truth, they will be recognized for the heroes they truly are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200404300909.asp | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:49 pm Post subject: Ambassador Wilson to Out Bush Regime Leaker of CIA Operative |
| Ambassador Wilson to Out Bush Regime Leaker of CIA Operative (his
wife):
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/04/int04023.html
Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, Author of "The Politics of Truth: Inside
the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity."
Check out how Gaffney didn't like the front page New York Times
article too much either (from the day before yesterday):
Frank Gaffney: Feith’s Fight (Damage Control for the neocons):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/30/frank-gaffney-feith-s-fight-damage-control-as-neocons-bleed.php
I used to be a Republican (until I found out about the JINSA/PNAC Neocon hijacking of the Bush regime to take us to war for Israel in the Middle East as conveyed to us by Pat Buchanan in his 'Whose War?' article which you can read via the following URL):
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Mission Not Accomplished
Mission Not Accomplished
by Senator Robert C Byrd
US Senate Floor Remarks
April 29, 2004
Senator Byrd delivered the following remarks in the Senate to mark the one-year anniversary of President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, which occurred on May 1, 2003.
A year ago, the President of the United States harkened back to his days as an aviator for the Texas Air National Guard to deliver a dramatic, made-for-television speech. Eager to experience the thrill of a carrier landing, the President donned a flight suit, strapped into a jet, and rocketed off into the wild blue yonder for a 30-mile journey.
This flight of fancy concluded with the dramatic landing of that speeding plane onto the deck of an aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln -- so named for the stoic leader who guided our country through one of its most troubling times.
Such was the scene on May 1, 2003, under the warming rays of the California sun. The President delivered to the sailors on that ship a welcome and long overdue message: he commended the men and women on their outstanding service to our country during the trials of the war in Iraq, and welcomed them back to the United States of America.
While the President delivered those words of appreciation, every television viewer in the country -- and, indeed, the world -- could see in the background a banner with the words "Mission Accomplished" superimposed upon the Stars and Stripes.
In contrast to the simple humility of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, President Bush's speech was designed from the outset to be remembered right up until November 2, 2004.
The President announced unequivocally that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," and that "in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Now, one year later, combat deaths are more than five times that of a year ago when our President celebrated "mission accomplished."
Since that time, Iraq has become a veritable shooting gallery. This April has been the bloodiest month of the entire war, with more than 120 Americans killed. Young lives cut short in a pointless conflict and all the President can say is that it "has been a tough couple of weeks." A tough couple of weeks, indeed.
Plans have obviously gone tragically awry. But the President has, so far, only managed to mutter that we must "stay the course." But what course is there to keep when our ship of state is being tossed like a dinghy in a storm of Middle East politics? If the course is to end in the liberation of Iraq and bring a definitive end to the war against Saddam Hussein, one must conclude, mission not accomplished, Mr. President.
The White House argues time and again that Iraq is the "central front" on the war on terrorism. But instead of keeping murderous al Qaeda terrorists on the run, the invasion of Iraq has stoked the fires of terrorism against the United States and our allies. Najaf is smoldering. Fallujah is burning. And there is no exit is in sight. What has been accomplished, Mr. President?
Al Qaeda has morphed into a hydra-headed beast, no longer dependent on Osama bin Laden. The Administration has flippantly claimed that it is better to tie down terrorists in Iraq than to battle them in our homeland. Mr. President, with hundreds of thousands of American troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, and a worldwide campaign of terrorism gathering steam, who is tying down whom?
Indeed, our attack on Iraq has given Islamic militants a common cause and has fertilized the field for new recruits. The failures by the United States to secure the peace in Iraq has virtually guaranteed al Qaeda a fertile field of new recruits ready to sacrifice their lives to fight the American infidels. These extremists openly call for "jihad", swear allegiance to bin Laden, and refer to the September 11 murderers as the "magnificent 19." According to intelligence sources, hundreds of young Muslims are answering terror recruitment calls with a resounding "yes."
Amidst all this, the American people are asking themselves one central question: Have we been made more safe by the President's war in Iraq? Do we sleep more soundly in our beds now that Saddam Hussein is captured? Or, instead, are we starting to fully comprehend and regret the fury which has been unleashed by the unprovoked attack on Iraq?
Deaths and casualties of Iraqi civilians are in the thousands, but an actual number cannot be obtained. Is it any wonder that Iraqis see us, not as liberators, but as crusaders and conquerors? A growing number of Iraqis see us as we would see foreign troops on the streets of Chicago, New York, Washington, or any small town in America. Surely one can understand the hatred brewing in Iraq when we see the agony of an Iraqi family that has lost a loved one due to an errant bomb or bullet.
One year after President Bush proclaimed the conclusion of major combat operations in Iraq, is the world any safer from terrorism? Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists of all stripes. The Middle East seethes in deepening violence and the culture of revenge. Our war on terror appears to many as a war against Islam. A one-sided policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict drives both sides away from the peace table, and hundreds of millions more to hatred of our country. No, the world is not safer.
One year after the "mission accomplished" speech, is America safer? We have not secured our homeland from terrifying threats of destruction. This President has sown divisions in our long-standing alliances. He has squandered our treasure in Iraq and put us deep in debt. Our brave soldiers are pinned down in Iraq while our enemies see the invincible American armor as penetrable by the sword of urban guerrilla warfare. No, America is not safer.
One year ago, the President announced an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Yet, our troops are having their deployments extended in Iraq while our lines are stretched thin everywhere else. Billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into Iraq. Seven hundred and twenty-two American lives have been lost. Unknown thousands of Iraqis are dead. Claims of WMD and death-dealing drones are discredited. And bin Laden is still on the loose.
I stand behind no one in supporting our troops through the dangers they face every day. I grieve along with the families that have lost loved ones. The failures of post-war Iraq lay squarely on the Bush Administration for recklessly sending this country to war. A war that should not have been fought. A war in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.
Mission accomplished? The mission in Iraq, as laid out by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, has failed. Even more disturbing, the disdain for international law, and the military bombast of this cocky, reckless Administration have tarnished the beacon of hope and freedom which the United States of America once offered to the world.
How long will America continue to pay the price in blood and treasure of this President's war? How long must the best of our nation's military men and women be taken from their homes to fight this unnecessary war in Iraq? How long must our National Guardsmen be taken from their communities to fight and die in the hot sands in Iraq? How long must the fathers and mothers see their sons and daughters die in a far away land because of President Bush's doctrine of preemptive attack? How long must little children across our land go to sleep at night crying for a daddy or mother far away who may never come home?
President Bush typified the Happy Warrior when he strutted across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln a year ago this coming Saturday. He was in his glory that day. But on this May 1, we will remember the widows and the orphans that have been made by his fateful decision to attack Iraq; we will be aware of the tears that have been shed for his glory.
How long? | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 12:39 am Post subject: Israeli Businesses Invade Iraq |
| http://www.peopleforchange.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10048
Israeli Businesses Invade Iraq:
http://www.peopleforchange.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10048
Israeli business invasion into Iraq
Sharaga Elam
The Israeli daily Ma'ariv reported on April 2, 2004 on a wide scale Israeli business invasion into Iraq. 70-100 Israeli firms have been storming Iraq over the last year. "Most of them do not like to speak about it," writes Ma'ariv. "[They export] Beer, phones, textiles, electronics, buses, bullet-proof vests, shielded vehicles, everything goes, even fuel. What are the Jordanians doing? - Mediating. The Iraqis? - Buying. The Americans? - Closing their eyes. It is no wonder that in Baghdad rumours circulate that the Israelis, including a former chief of staff, have bought already half of Iraq."
The first shot for this invasion came on July 21, 2003 when Israeli finance minister Benyamin Netanyahu signed an authorization enabling Israel to trade with Iraq, according to the Trade with the Enemy Ordinance, pursuant to which Iraq shall not be considered anymore an enemy nation.
In the Israeli official announcement one can read: "Minister Netanyahu signed the Ordinance amendment after meeting with numerous business people who expressed their willingness to conduct commercial relations with Iraq, while presenting the inherent business potential."
This step was conceived skeptically in Washington as it seems capable of corroborating the views emphasizing the role of Israel and its US lobby in pushing America towards the Iraq war.
Five months after Netanyahu's declaration, the US published the name of the states allowed to tender a bid for the reconstruction of Iraq. Though it supported the war, Israel was missing on this list in order not to annoy and embarrass Arab countries and especially the Iraqis.
Notwithstanding the impression that Washington tries to create, Israelis are allowed to participate as sub-contractors in the reconstruction work. This was confirmed by the media officer of the US Program Management Office (PMO) in Iraq, Bruce Cole, in an e-mail to Ma'ariv. "Israeli companies," he wrote, "may act as sub-contractors in construction tenders and are allowed to win tenders for supplying services and equipments."
The Iraqi businessmen dealing with the Israelis are aware in many cases of the identity of their counterparts, but of course not the Iraqi public, who is very hostile towards such developments. Some of the goods, like used cars, are sent to Jordan, where they are stripped from anything that might identify them as originating in Israel. In one case, 1,500 air conditioners still had some inscriptions in Hebrew and the Jordanian competitors were quick to make public this marketing mistake. The whole shipment had then to be withdrawn and caused heavy losses for the Israeli investors and the cancellation of another project.
Netafim, which makes drip irrigation systems, already sold its smart products to Iraq during Saddam Hussein's era and naturally hope now to extend its activities in this country.
Some other Israeli commodities sold are used buses of the Tel Aviv bus company Dan, or bullet-proof vests worth $ 12 million dollars (US) produced by Rabintex, which in 1991-2 had already sold special fire-retardant clothings to Iran. The Israeli defence ministry claims that Rabintex products and that of another company are sold only to the coalition forces in Iraq. These forces are supplied with fuel through the Israeli company Sonol as part of a $70 million contract.
Transclal Trade LTD, logistic services filed the first bill of lading to Iraq in August 3, 2003; the content of this consignment: 9 tons of electronics and other consumption goods. Another Israeli transportation company, Agish reports about some 20-30 shipments to Iraq and Ma'ariv estimates the value of goods transported to Iraq through Israel in the last year at $40 million (US). The volume of shipments should increase, considering the expected closing of the Syrian sea ports for traffic to Iraq. In this case the Israeli ports will be of more importance.
Most of the Israeli transportation companies cooperate with Jordanian firms, who collect the goods at the border between the two countries, and then repack them in order to erase any Israeli traces.
Some of the Israeli companies, writes Ma'ariv, wishing to be active in Iraq, joined US, European or Arab companies in order to make bids as sub contractors for the real big money by the tenders of the US army and coalition provisional authority.
Ma'ariv estimates, for example, that some 15 Israel companies succeeded in getting fat Iraqi contracts from Bechtel, who on its side won orders in the value of billions of US dollars. The procedure, according to an involved Israeli businessman, is very far from good administration, as the US Defense Department is not accustomed to manage a country. The Israeli companies who succeed in getting the closed tenders are those who possess excellent US connections.
A list of Israeli companies active in Iraq:
The bus company Dan (used buses)
Rabintex ( bullet-proof vests)
Shirionit Hosem (security doors)
Etz Carmiel (doors and other wood products for border posts)
Tambour (paints)
Tempo (beer and other drinks)
Tami 4 (Water-purifying application)
Trellidor (folding bars)
Tanurgaz (kitchens)
Iridium Israel (mobile satellite communication services)
Sakal (electronic products)
Naan Dan(irrigation equipment)
Sonol (fuel)
This post has been edited by leave_no_millionaire_behind on 4/30/04 - 07:10 AM
--------------------
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer)...
White man's burden
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://www.nogw.com/warofforisrael.html | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
