| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:16 pm Post subject: JINSA Zionist Jew Ledeen after Iran, Syria and Lebanon |
| JINSA Zionist Jew Ledeen after Iran, Syria and Lebanon for Israel:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
Here is the 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article (by Jason Vest) which Fisk refers to (as appearing in 'The Nation) in the article (URL) referenced above:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
2) Michael Ledeen says "it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and
free Lebanon"
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:00:42 EDT From: RePorterNoteBook@aol.com
Who is Michael Ledeen?
http://www.alternet.org/story/15860
By William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service.
PNS contributor William O. Beeman teaches anthropology and directs
Middle East Studies at Brown University. He is author of "Language,
Status and Power in Iran," and two forthcoming books: "Double Demons:
Cultural Impediments to U.S.-Iranian Understanding," and "Iraq: State
in Search of a Nation."
May 8, 2003.
>From "creative destruction" to "total war," the guiding beliefs of the
most aggressive foreign policymakers in the Bush administration may
originate in the works of an influential yet rarely seen
neoconservative.
Most Americans have never heard of Michael Ledeen, but if the United
States ends up in an extended shooting war throughout the Middle East,
it will be largely due to his inspiration.
A fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Ledeen
holds
a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin. He
is a former employee of the Pentagon, the State Department and the
National Security Council. As a consultant working with NSC head
Robert
McFarlane, he was involved in the transfer of arms to Iran during the
Iran-Contra affair -- an adventure that he documented in the book
"Perilous Statecraft: An Insider's Account of the Iran-Contra Affair."
His most influential book is last year's "The War Against the Terror
Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We'll Win."
Ledeen's ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the
stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed
before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that
violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's
manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical
legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.
Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an
address entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern
Terrorism," for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, "the time for
diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and
free
Lebanon."
With a group of other conservatives, Ledeen recently set up the Center
for Democracy in Iran (CDI), an action group focusing on producing
regime change in Iran.
Quotes from Ledeen's works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about
American attitudes toward violence. "Change -- above all violent
change
-- is the essence of human history," he proclaims in his book,
"Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as
Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago." In an influential
essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again
to
export the democratic revolution."
Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force behind the
neoconservative movement and the military actions it has spawned. His
1996 book, "Freedom Betrayed; How the United States Led a Global
Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Away," reveals the
basic neoconservative obsession: the United States never "won" the
Cold
War; the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight without a shot being
fired. Had the United States truly won, democratic institutions would
be sprouting everywhere the threat of Communism had been rife.
Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this
should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should
be
achieved is a violent one, termed "total war," a concept pioneered by
the 19th century Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz in his classic
book "On War."
Ledeen's take on this idea is wedded to ideology. In summarizing his
book "The War Against the Terror Masters" on the American Enterprise
Institute Web site, he writes: "We wage total war because we fight in
the name of an idea, and ideas either triumph or fail ... totally." In
his reckoning, force is the only reliable strategy to enforce our
ideology on our enemies. In the same summary he claims, drawing
inspiration from Machiavelli: "We can lead by the force of high moral
example ... [but] fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once
we
show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our
enemies, our power will be far greater."
Consequently, Ledeen has excoriated both the State Department and the
United Nations for their preference for diplomatic solutions to
conflict; and the CIA for equivocating on evidence that would condemn
"America's enemies" and justify militant action.
"No one I know wants to wage war on Iran and Syria, but I believe there
is now a clear recognition that we must defend ourselves against
them,"
Ledeen wrote on May 6 in the Toronto Globe and Mail.
Though he appears on conservative outlets like the Fox television
network, Ledeen has not been singled out for much media attention by
the Bush administration, despite his extensive influence in
Washington.
His views may be perceived as too extreme for most Americans, who
prefer to think of the United States as pursuing violence only when
attacked and manifesting primarily altruistic goals toward other
nations.
Clearly a final decision has not been made on whether the United States
will continue military action in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. But Ledeen
has a notable track record. He was calling for attacks against Iraq
throughout the 1990s, and the U.S. invasion on March 19 was a total
fulfillment of his proposals. His attacks against the CIA and the
State
Department have contributed to the exclusion of these intelligence
bodies from any effective decision making on Iraq. His attacks on
Iran,
even when Iran was assisting the United States, helped keep the Bush
administration from seeking any rapprochement with Tehran. Were it in
Ledeen's hands, we would invade Iran today.
Given both his fervor and his influence over the men with the guns,
Americans should not be surprised if Ledeen's pronouncements come
true. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:44 pm Post subject: Jewish neoconservative (all for Israel) agenda |
| Jewish neoconservative (all for Israel) agenda:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
Anyone democratically elected in Iraq (in a non-rigged election) would be anti-Israel, and the US/Israel alliance will not accept such... Nice try at your 'democracy' propaganda line by the Zionist neoconservatives (most of whom are Jewish racists like Michael Ledeen).
Democracy and the Neocons (most of whom are racist Zionist Jews who are all out for Israel first): Marriage of Convenience:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/07/24/democracy-and-the-neocons-a-marriage-of-convenience.php
Read at the following (Life of an American Jew in Racist/Marxist Israel) article how Zionists in Israel and in the USA would trick the USA into fighting wars in the Middle East for Israel (with many Americans dying and getting horribly wounded) like we have seen already in the invasion/occupation of Iraq (with Syria and Iran to follow as conveyed in the 'A Clean Break' agenda of Zionist Jews Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser of page 261 of James Bamford's new book ('A Pretext for War'):
http://www.rense.com/general31/lifeof.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090204A.shtml
How Soon Will the U.S. or Israel Bomb Iran?
By Steve Weissman
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 02 September 2004
I can just hear the Presidential conversation. "Did I say Iraq backed
al-Qaeda?" he asks with a boyish grin. "Oh, heck, I meant Iran. I
always get those
two mixed up."
What should Iran do? What would you do if you were an Iranian
Ayatollah?
The President of the United States has branded Iran part of the "Axis
of
Evil." He has demanded that Iran "abandon her nuclear ambitions." He
has claimed
the right to wage pre-emptive war against any enemy he chooses.
To add weight to these threats, the U.S. House of Representatives
passed a
resolution on May 6, 2004, calling on the president "to use all
appropriate
means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." The vote was
overwhelming: 376 for, three against. On July 22, the Senate passed a
similar resolution
with wording only slight less inflammatory.
The Americans now have nearly 150,000 troops just across the border
in
Iraq. They also have aircraft and missiles in easy striking distance,
as do the
Israelis, who - as the New Yorker's Sy Hersh reported - are currently
working
with the Kurds to make raids into Iran.
Put yourself in Israel's shoes. The Iranians are building a major
nuclear
industry, with the ability to enrich bomb-grade Uranium-238 and
reprocess
plutonium from spent nuclear fuel rods. Iran has facilities in Tehran,
Bushehr,
Natanz, and Arak, and could soon produce 15-20 nuclear weapons a year,
according
to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has already found traces of
the
bomb-grade U-238 in Natanz and Tehran. The Iranians say this is only
contamination
from used centrifuges they bought from other countries.
An Iranian Bomb would challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly in the
Middle
East, creating a short-range, hair-trigger stand-off that would
continually
encourage each side to strike first before the other could.
Now think like an American neo-conservative. You and your fellow
policy
wonks have struggled for years to persuade both Democrats and
Republicans in
Washington and successive Likkud governments in Tel Aviv to play
hardball
throughout the Middle East. You urged them to expand control over the
world's
diminishing supply of oil and to overthrow nasty regimes, especially in
Iraq and Iran.
Your neo-con colleagues currently hold key posts in the Pentagon and
elsewhere in Washington, but your policies and performance have made a
hash of Iraq,
causing President Bush to turn increasingly to other advisors. Worse,
Mr.
Bush could lose the November election amidst a burgeoning spy scandal
that widely
paints neo-cons, whether Christian or Jewish, as not-to-be-trusted
Israeli
agents.
As in the perfect storm, the activities of the three groups - Iranian
Ayatollahs, Israeli Likkudniks, and American neo-cons - are now
creating just the
right conditions for a ghastly outcome - an aerial attack on Iran's
nuclear
installations. While no one can predict with certainty where the
madness might
lead, it would clearly isolate Israel and the United States even more
from most
of the world, unify rival Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims, and encourage the
Iranians to intervene massively in Iraq.
On the other hand, an October Surprise to make America safe from an
Islamic
Bomb might help Mr. Bush win a close election.
Can anything stop an attack on Iran, whether before the elections or
- as I
think more likely - after? At this juncture, even a cockeyed optimist
has
difficulty seeing much hope.
From where they stand, the Iranian leaders have little choice but to
press
ahead with their quest for nuclear weapons. They may say - as did the
Pakistanis, Indians, and Israelis before them - that they want only
peaceful uses of
atomic energy. They may see nuclear power as the best way to meet a
growing
population's demand for electricity. In fact, much of the program began
under the
Shah, and with American blessings. But the Bush Administration has
given Iran
the strongest argument yet for wanting atomic bombs - and the missiles
to
drop them on Tel Aviv. Nothing less seems as likely to hold the
pre-emptive
Bushies at bay.
Given the way atomic energy works, the Iranians could move ahead with
an
entirely peaceful program to produce electricity, as they say they are
doing.
They could allow full inspections and monitoring from the International
Atomic
Energy Agency. But once they reprocess plutonium or enrich Uranium 238
in
sufficient quantities, they are only weeks away from having an atomic
bomb.
Senators Kerry and Edwards, the Democratic contenders, have suggested
offering Iran "a great bargain." If the Iranians give up their capacity
to produce
bomb-grade materials and accept full supervision to ensure that they
have,
other countries - including the United States - will provide whatever
nuclear
fuel Iran needs.
It's a great start. But a Kerry Administration would also have to
offer
security guarantees far beyond any yet mentioned - or any they could
easily
mention. Too many Americans still remember with bitterness the pictures
of
Ayatollah Khomeini's young supporters holding fifty-two of our fellow
citizens as
blindfolded hostages. The Great Satan, as the Iranians called us, does
not forgive
and forget without an enormous effort.
Nor would the Iranians find it easy to overcome their rational fears.
As
Shia Muslims, with historic and religious interests in the Shia areas
of Iraq,
they would increasingly bump up against the Americans, who show no sign
of
leaving no matter who wins the November election. Even if President
Kerry could
contain the inevitable conflicts, some future president could easily
return to
the evil-hunting crusades of the current incumbent. Better a nuke in
the hand,
which some analysts believe the Iranians could have as early as 2006.
For the Israeli Likkudniks, and for me personally, the situation
looks like
déjà vu all over again. We all saw the same thing back in 1981, when
Prime
Minister Menachem Begin took on the French government of then-Prime
Minister
Jacques Chirac, which was helping Saddam Hussein build his OSIRAK
nuclear reactor
near Baghdad. Israel's Mossad led the charge. In April 1979, secret
saboteurs
entered a small French engineering firm on the French Riviera in
Toulon,
where they dynamited the reactor core only hours before the Iraqis
could take
delivery. In June 1980, in a hotel room in Paris, an unknown intruder
bludgeoned
to death an Egyptian nuclear engineer who played a leading role on the
OSIRAK
project. In August, a series of bombings and telephone threats
terrorized
French and Italian engineering firms supplying equipment to OSIRAK.
During that time, Mossad was also secretly leaking information to
journalists about Pakistan's effort to build what Prime Minister
Zulfikar Bhutto called
his "Islamic Bomb." Among the journalists was a team from BBC's
Panorama, for
whom I worked. The Israelis, who would never meet me face-to-face,
could
never understand why a Nice Jewish Boy insisted on checking out first-
hand every
bit of information they proffered. In fact, our team discovered several
parts
of the Pakistani story Mossad had apparently missed. We also found an
Israeli-American defense analyst who boldly predicted on camera that
the Israelis
would bomb the Iraqi reactor, which they did on Sunday, June 7, 1981.
What a scoop! Breathlessly recounted in several books and articles,
the
daring Israeli attack still stands as a model of pre-emptive warfare,
which the
Israelis now threaten to repeat on Iran. According to one recent news
story,
they have already rehearsed the bombing run, much as they did before
sending
their American-supplied F15's and F16's to wipe out OSIRAK.
But, before jumping on the bandwagon, please remember some
oft-forgotten
facts. Prime Minister Begin rushed the attack in part because he feared
his
party would lose a close election. Seeing military action as the only
remedy, he
also feared that his opponent Shimon Peres would try working
diplomatically
with the newly elected French President Francois Mitterand, who had
already
ordered significant steps to safeguard the Iraqi reactor. On the other
side, one of
Begin's staunchest supporters for the attack was his Minister of
Agriculture,
Ariel Sharon.
For the American neo-cons, recent events could push them to become
even
more extreme. The Israeli spy flap involving retired Air Force Col.
Larry
Franklin focuses heavily on Iran, and the cooperation between leading
neo-cons, the
Israelis, and Iranian exiles to overthrow the Ayatollahs. There are
also
suggestions of improper Pentagon arms transfers to Israel, unauthorized
back-channel
dealings with foreign governments and private groups, and the question
of how
closely the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the chief
pro-Israeli
lobby group, works with the Sharon government.
All of this will terribly embarrass the neo-cons, who will grasp at
any
straw to divert attention from both their failures in Iraq and their
efforts
behind the scenes. Enlarging the Iraq war to Iran offers the perfect
solution. In
the advice often attributed to their Pentagon protector, Defense
Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, "If you're having difficulty dealing with small
problems, make
them bigger."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spy probe scans neo-cons' Israel ties
By Jim Lobe
SEATTLE - The growing scandal over claims that a Pentagon official passed highly classified secrets to a Zionist lobby group appears to be part of a much broader set of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Pentagon investigations of close collaboration between prominent US neo-conservatives and Israel dating back some 30 years.
According to knowledgeable sources, who asked to not be identified, the FBI has been intensively reviewing a series of past counter-intelligence probes that were started against several high-profile neo-cons, but which were never followed up with prosecutions, to the great frustration of counter-intelligence officers, in some cases.
Some of these past investigations involve top current officials, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, whose office appears to be the focus of the most recently disclosed inquiry; and Richard Perle, who resigned as Defense Policy Board (DPB) chairman last year.
All three were the subject of a lengthy investigative story by Stephen Green, published by Counterpunch in February. Green is the author of two books on US-Israeli relations, including Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel, which relies heavily on interviews with former Pentagon and counter-intelligence officials.
At the same time, another Pentagon office concerned with the transfer of sensitive military and dual-use technologies has been examining the acquisition, modification and sales of key hi-tech military equipment by Israel obtained from the US, in some cases with the help of prominent neo-conservatives who were then serving in the government.
Some of that equipment has been sold by Israel - which in the past 20 years has become a top exporter of the world's most sophisticated hi-tech information and weapons technology - or by Israeli middlemen, to Russia, China and other potential US strategic rivals. Some of it has also found its way onto the black market, where terrorist groups - possibly including al-Qaeda - obtained bootlegged copies, according to these sources.
Of particular interest in that connection are derivatives of a powerful case-management software called Promis that was produced by Inslaw, Inc in the early 1980s and acquired by Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, which then sold its own versions to other foreign intelligence agencies in the Middle East, Asia and Eastern Europe.
But these versions were modified with a "trap door" that permitted the seller to spy on the buyers' own intelligence files, according to a number of published reports.
A modified version of the software, which is used to monitor and track files on a multitude of databases, is believed to have been acquired by al-Qaeda on the black market in the late 1990s, possibly facilitating the group's global banking and money-laundering schemes, according to a Washington Times story of June 2001.
According to one source, Pentagon investigators believe it possible that al-Qaeda used the software to spy on various US agencies that could have detected or foiled the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The FBI is reportedly also involved in the Pentagon's investigation, which is overseen by Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for International Technology Security John A "Jack" Shaw, with the explicit support of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The latest incident is based on allegations that a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) career officer, Larry Franklin - who was assigned in 2001 to work in a special office dealing with Iraq and Iran under Feith - provided highly classified information, including a draft on US policy towards Iran, to two staff members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of Washington's most powerful lobby groups. One or both of the recipients allegedly passed the material to the Israeli Embassy.
Franklin has not commented on the allegation, and Israel and AIPAC have strongly denied any involvement and say they are cooperating fully with FBI investigators.
The office in which Franklin has worked since 2001 is dominated by staunch neo-conservatives, including Feith himself. Headed by William Luti, a retired navy officer who worked for DPB member Newt Gingrich when he was speaker of the House of Representatives, it played a central role in building the case for war in Iraq.
Part of the office's strategy included working closely with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) led by now-disgraced exile Ahmad Chalabi, and the DPB members in developing and selectively leaking intelligence analyses that supported the now-discredited thesis that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had close ties to al-Qaeda.
Feith's office enjoyed especially close links with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I Lewis Libby, to whom it "stovepiped" its analyses without having them vetted by professional intelligence analysts in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the DIA, or the State Department Bureau for Intelligence of Research (INR).
Since the Iraq war, Feith's office has also lobbied hard within the US government for a confrontational posture vis-a-vis Iran and Syria, including actions aimed at destabilizing both governments - policies which, in addition to the ousting of Saddam, have been strongly and publicly urged by prominent, hardline neo-conservatives, such as Perle, Feith and Perle's associate at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Michael Ledeen, among others.
Despite his status as a career officer, Franklin, who is an Iran specialist, is considered both personally and ideologically close to several other prominent neo-conservatives, who have also acted in various consultancy roles at the Pentagon, including Ledeen and Harold Rhode, who once described himself as Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz's chief adviser on Islam.
In December 2001, Rhode and Franklin met in Europe with a shadowy Iranian arms dealer, Manichur Ghorbanifar, who, along with Ledeen, played a central role in the arms-for-hostages deal involving the Reagan administration, Israel and Iran in the mid-1980s that became known as the "Iran-Contra Affair".
Ledeen set up the more recent meetings that apparently triggered the FBI to launch its investigation, which has intensified in recent months amid reports that Chalabi's INC, which has long been championed by the neo-conservatives, has been passing sensitive intelligence to Iran.
Feith has long been an outspoken supporter of Israel's Likud Party, and his former law partner Marc Zell has served as a spokesman in Israel for the Jewish settler movement on the occupied West Bank. He, Perle and several other like-minded hardliners participated in a task force that called for then-Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu to work for the installation of a friendly government in Baghdad as a means of permanently altering the balance of power in the Middle East in Israel's favor, permitting it to abandon the Oslo peace process, which Feith had publicly opposed.
Previously, Feith served as a Middle East analyst in the National Security Council in the administration of former president Ronald Reagan (1981-89), but was summarily removed from that position in March 1982 because he had been the object of a FBI inquiry into whether he had provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, according to Green's account.
But Perle, who was then serving as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, which, among other responsibilities, had an important say in approving or denying licenses to export sensitive military or dual-use technology abroad, hired Feith as his "special counsel" and later as his deputy, where he served until 1986, when he left for his law practice with Zell, who had by then moved to Israel.
Also serving under Perle during these years was Stephen Bryen, a former staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the subject of a major FBI investigation in the late 1970s for offering classified documents to an Israeli intelligence officer in the presence of AIPAC's director, according to Green's account, which is backed up by some 500 pages of investigation documents released under a Freedom of Information request some 15 years ago.
Although political appointees decided against prosecution, Bryen was reportedly asked to leave the committee and, until his appointment by Perle in 1981, served as head of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a group dedicated to promoting strategic ties between the US and Israel and one in which Perle, Feith and Ledeen have long been active.
In his position as Perle's deputy, Bryen created the Defense Technology Security Administration, which enforced regulations regarding technology transfer to foreign countries.
During his tenure, according to one source with personal knowledge of Bryen's work, "The US shut down transfers to Western Europe and Japan [which were depicted as too ready to sell them to Moscow] and opened up a back door to Israel." This is a pattern that became embarrassingly evident after Perle left office and the current deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, took over in 1987. Soon, Armitage was raising serious questions about Bryen's approval of sensitive exports to Israel without appropriate vetting by other agencies.
"It is in the interest of the US and Israel to remove needless impediments to technological cooperation between them," Feith wrote in "Commentary" in 1992. "Technologies in the hands of responsible, friendly countries facing military threats, countries like Israel, serve to deter aggression, enhance regional stability and promote peace thereby."
Perle, Ledeen, and Wolfowitz have also been the subject of FBI inquiries, according to Green's account. In 1970, one year after he was hired by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, an FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Perle discussing classified information with an embassy official, while Wolfowitz was investigated in 1978 for providing a classified document on the proposed sale of a US weapons system to an Arab government to an Israeli official via an AIPAC staffer.
In 1992, when he was serving as under secretary of defense for policy, Pentagon officials looking into the unauthorized export of classified technology to China found that Wolfowitz's office was promoting Israel's export of advanced air-to-air missiles to Beijing in violation of a written agreement with Washington on arms re-sales.
The FBI and the Pentagon are reportedly taking a new look at all of these incidents and others, in the words of a New York Times story on Sunday, to "get a better understanding of the relationships among conservative officials with strong ties to Israel".
It would be a mistake to see Franklin as the chief target of the current investigation, according to sources, but rather he should be viewed as one piece of a much broader puzzle.
(Inter Press Service)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI02Ak02.html | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:04 am Post subject: FBI probes Jewish sway on Bush government |
| Even Israelis like Uri Avnery know that the Iraq invasion was for Israel and that most of the neoconservatives who pushed for the invasion are Jewish:
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html
Neoconservatism is a Jewish movement:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm
Iraq War for Israel:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/12/Counterpunch_1.html
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/473428.html
FBI probes Jewish sway on Bush government
By Nathan Guttman
WASHINGTON - The FBI investigation into the Pentagon mole affair has expanded beyond data analyst Larry Franklin's immediate circle to encompass the entire issue of Jewish influence on the neoconservative part of the administration.
The FBI queries have recently been focusing on a number of officials, all from the neoconservative wing, who had access to the debates on Iranian affairs, the Washington Post reported yesterday.
The officials include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Pentagon adviser Richard Perle; adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, David Wormser; and Iran specialist Harold Rhode, all of them Jews.
The Washington Post reported that FBI people recently spoke to administration officials and Middle East experts to sound them out on the suspicion that senior officials funneled secret material to Israel. They asked each official whether he believes that a certain group of people could spy for Israel and transfer secret information.
The investigation now appears to center on the claim made by the opponents of the neoconservatives in the administration - that the latter are responsible for the U.S. Middle East policy and that they are suspected of bias in favor of Israel's interests.
The issues being queried have also increased. It transpires that the FBI is investigating, in addition to funneling classified information to Israel, the possibility that secret information had been given to Ahmed Chalabi, of the Iraqi opposition. Chalabi was close to many of the people mentioned in the affair and was a central source of information to the Americans on the goings-on in Iraq before the war.
The Washington Post said the FBI asked the administration officials about Israeli embassy officials in Washington who allegedly held contacts with administration officials to procure secret information. So far, only the name of Naor Gilon, the political adviser in the embassy, was mentioned as involved in the affair.
The L.A. Times reported on Friday that the American administration does not believe Israel's contention that it does not spy on America and that U.S. government officials say Israel secretly maintains a large and active intelligence-gathering operation in the U.S.
The officials said the FBI and other bodies spy on Israeli diplomats in Washington and New York as a matter of routine. The report said that Israel has long attempted to recruit U.S. officials as spies and to procure classified documents, according to the Times.
Israel said it set a policy of not spying on the United States after Jonathan Pollard's arrest in November 1985 and the damage it did to bilateral relations in general and to intelligence and security ties in particular. For 20 years, Israel said, that policy has translated into unequivocal directives to the intelligence and defense communities: They are not allowed to locate candidates for recruiting as agents, cannot recruit and operate agents, nor pay for information. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:44 am Post subject: Haaretz: Israel worried about spying invesigation, pulling o |
| Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:28:18 -0700
From: "Jeffrey Blankfort" <jblankfort@earthlink.net>
Subject: Haaretz: Israel worried about spying invesigation, pulling out all stops
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=474807
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last update - 17:09 07/09/2004
Focus / 10 ways the Pentagon spy case may damage Israel
By Bradley Burston, Haaretz Correspondent
The dread felt by Israeli and American Jewish officials was as rooted as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as fresh as the headline that they feared could break any minute.
Could Israel have used its client American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbying group as a conduit to receive classified information from a Pentagon analyst or the National Security Agency?
Such was the implication of a flurry of media reports which emerged last month.
Stated differently, could an Israeli agency have been so unwise as to have, in a single stroke, risked blunting the efficacy of AIPAC, casting American Jews in the shadow of accusations of dual loyalty and undue influence on U.S. policymaking, and endangering the Jewish state's only indispensable alliance, its lifeblood tie to Washington.
Israel says no. AIPAC says the same.
And although from the start the reports have offered much smoke and little actual fire, the case surrounding Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin presented Israel and AIPAC with the diplomatic equivalent of an unexploded cluster bomb.
Even as the case recedes from the headlines, it could do significant harm to Israel in a large number of ways ? whether the allegations are true or not.
1. Conspiracy Theory and anti-Semitism
"Even if the present affair pales, shrinks and fades away, it can supply fuel to the conspiracy theory, one that is widespread in certain sectors of the American media," said political scientist Avi Ben-Zvi, citing maverick Republican rightist Pat Buchanan and other strident right and left-wing critics of Israeli influence on American policymaking.
According to the theory, Ben-Zvi said, Jews in key positions in the administration, among them suspect analyst Franklin's neo-conservative - and Jewish - superiors, Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, a senior aide to Donald Rumsfeld on Iran and Iraq policy, represent "an enthusiastically pro-Israeli group diverting American policy to a direction which serves non-American goals - manipulating and directing policy."
"It sounds almost like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Ben-Zvi said.
The post-Saddam quagmire in Iraq has only intensified the sensitivity of the issue, as some leftists have argued that only Israel has benefited from a war which a "cabal" of Jewish neo-conservatives drove into being.
2. Closing off sources of shared intelligence
Well-placed former members of the Israeli intelligence community have said that there are as many as thousands of contacts a year between American and Israeli figures, colleagues in a number of fields, in which non-classified but potentially valuable information is exchanged.
In the wake of the Franklin case, American officials, it is feared, will now shy away from contacts with Israelis, long a key source of information-sharing.
Moreover, the allegations tying Franklin, AIPAC, and Israel come at a time of strained relations between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Mossad, a tension that may have scaled down CIA cooperation with Israel of late.
The sharing of information is vital to both sides, as the United States has long received from Israel clues gleaned from the Middle East, while the Jewish state has relied on American sources for early warnings of potential attacks on Israel or Israeli or Jewish-linked interests abroad.
3. Undermining AIPAC
Of all the weapons in Israel's policy arsenal, few have been more consistently potent and reliable than the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
"Apart from our direct military strength, our relations with the United States, in which AIPAC plays a very strong part, are our second-ranking strategic asset," said former Israeli ambassador to Washington Itamar Rabinovich.
It has been suggested that a key source of AIPAC's strength is its widespread image of unparalleled clout in affecting foreign policy regarding Israel, an image that the affair could sap.
In fact, AIPAC's very success in lobbying for Israel's interests has also rendered the group, which boasts 65,000 members in all 50 states, vulnerable to charges of undue influence in Washington decision making.
Late last month, FBI agents probing the Franklin case are said to have questioned two senior AIPAC officials, its foreign policy affairs director and its specialist on Iran, the Gulf area and oil-related issues.
4. Compromising efforts to curb Iran
According to press reports, Franklin, a lead Iran hand in the Pentagon's policy planning office, is alleged to have given two AIPAC officials a draft of a presidential order on U.S.-Iran policy, a draft which then allegedly reached an Israeli diplomat.
The accounts said that FBI agents , using wiretaps and other surveillance methods, were monitoring a meeting between AIPAC officials and Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, when Franklin unexpectedly appeared and joined the group.
Unnamed U.S. officials were quoted as saying that the alleged document contained a range of proposals aimed at destabilizing the regime in Tehran.
Now, in the wake of shadowy reports on Franklin - a key Pentagon advocate of regime change in Tehran - there is a sense that the case could swing Washington's post-election policy balance, in favor of those officials who argue for a softer approach toward Iran.
"Coming after Iraq, this could take away momentum for a regime-change policy in a second Bush term," Middle East affairs expert Kenneth Katzman told the Forward newspaper last week.
The affair could also blunt a longtime Israeli campaign to persuade Washington to marshal its clout to counter Iran's widely suspected efforts to build nuclear weapons.
5. Estranging American Jewry
A major figure in the U.S. Jewish community responded last month with an explicit sense of relief on hearing that analyst Franklin was not Jewish.
Nonetheless, the affair has already stirred implied questions of dual loyalty and divided allegiance among American Jews, until recently a long-buried staple of native U.S. anti-Semitism.
The implied allegations of dual loyalty could have an effect on how American Jews themselves make career choices, persuading them to steer clear of government work for fear of falling prey to suspicions.
"Even if the story evaporates away, its unpleasant 'deposits' will not," Rabinovich argued. "Every affair of this type which fosters the murky atmosphere [of suspicions of divided allegiance] makes more people ask themselves if they really want to hire a Jewish analyst or other professional."
6. Souring ties with Washington
George W. Bush has often been expansive on matters related to Israel, lauding Ariel Sharon as a man of peace, inviting the prime minister to the White House again and again.
But the administration's silence over the FBI probe - reports of which threatened for a time to shadow what turned out to be a Bush victory lap at the Republican Convention - registered loud and clear in Israel, which fervently hopes that the alleged spying affair will not render administration officials reluctant to appear overly pro-Israel.
"The most important connection is that of the war in Iraq, in which Israel is viewed as having dragged the United States into the war," Rabinovich said.
"At the same time, there are figures in the American intelligence community, or on its margins, who for years have disliked the intimacy of the ties, and disliked the fact that Israel both receives U.S. aid to develop weapons systems and sells weapons systems, which may compete with American systems."
7. Restirring the Pollard affair
In a nadir of U.S.-Israel relations. Jonathan Pollard, a naval analyst, passed highly classified American material to Israeli intelligence agents until he was seized in the mid-80s.
"Although all of the information currently available shows that this isn't a new Pollard affair, in certain respects 'the Franklin affair' could prove more dangerous for the organized Jewish community," Haaretz Washington correspondent Nathan Guttman said.
"When the case of Jonathan Pollard erupted 19 years ago, it was easier for Jews to distance themselves from him and to claim that the man was a lone operative, not someone who could tarnish the entire community with the 'dual loyalty' brush.
"Now the situation is more problematic, not because of Larry Franklin, but because of AIPAC's role."
8. A Congressional investigation
A top ranking Republican member of the House of Representatives, Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, has indicated that Congress could at some point launch its own probe into the Franklin affair.
At the same time, congressional sources have said that no inquiry is likely unless the FBI turns up substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
9. A pattern of allegations
A new challenge facing Israeli officials is the difficulty of responding to news reports which are long on accusations but short on substance. A recent Los Angeles Times report stated:
"There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against the United States," said a former intelligence official who was familiar with the latest FBI probe and who recently left government.
"Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active countries targeting the United States."
10. An anti-neocon backlash
Some U.S. Jewish leaders have suggested that the Franklin affair was part of an wider campaign by CIA and State Department officials to sandbag, discredit, and ultimately dethrone the neo-conservatives in positions of influence.
Some believe that the neocon influence has given the Sharon government unprecedented access and understanding in the administration, a status they fear could be blunted by a backlash against neocon thought. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:07 am Post subject: What is said and what is hinted at |
| What is said and what is hinted at
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/471812.html
News Updates Wed., September 01, 2004 Elul 15, 5764 Israel Time: 02:36 (GMT+3)
What is said and what is hinted at
By Itamar Rabinovich
The recent Pentagon spy affair that did or did not happen should be viewed within four contexts. The first is the factual context. Very soon, we will learn if the CBS report has any real factual basis, or whether the story has been blown entirely out of proportion.
The second context is the long shadow of the Pollard affair. That scandal, which occurred 19 years ago, continues to harm Israel's security and intelligence relations with the United States. It also harms the image of the Jewish community in the eyes of certain parts of the American intelligence and legal communities, who unjustly suspect Jewish candidates and jobholders of giving priority to their loyalty to Israel over absolute fidelity to the United States and American interests.
Even unrelated to the Pollard affair is how some people in the American political system - official bureaucracy, military industry and media - look askance at the intimate relation shared by the United States and Israel, especially in the security sphere. These people have taken the trouble over the years to leak and blow out of proportion various issues, some of which may indeed be problematic. They have led to disagreements between the two countries, and present Israel and its friends in a negative light - in the role of exploiting the United States, biting the hand that feeds it, and damaging American interests.
Affairs such as Irangate, the Phalcon plane, the accusations regarding the transfer of American technologies to China and others that are less known are part of all this. It is important to bear in mind that in some of the cases, Israel's tactlessness and lack of discretion played into the hands of its rivals.
The fourth and most current context relates to the dispute over the war in Iraq. Israel's name was insinuated into this dispute even before the war began, and has repeatedly been mentioned as the extent of the American entanglement has become apparent. The claim is that Israel's neo-conservative friends, some of whom hold key positions in the Bush administration while others exert influence from without, dragged the United States into a war intended to serve Israel's interests.
To this claim is now added a new dimension: It is becoming increasingly evident that the attempt to block Iran's development of nuclear weapons by means of dialogue is doomed to failure. This awareness now raises some difficult questions: Can the United States, Europe, Israel and other countries live with a nuclear Iran? If not, would the United States be willing to use the military option? Or will Israel perhaps find itself forced to do so?
Against this background, it is important to reread the article that William Pfaff published last week in the International Herald Tribune, "Neocons have Iran in their sights." Pfaff latches on to a quote from Norman Podhoretz, "the neo-conservative godfather," as he puts it, who said in interview: "I am not advocating the invasion of Iran at this moment, although-." Pfaff writes, "Israel has an interest in promoting, if not exaggerating, Iran's supposed strategic threat to the United States. Iran already threatens Israel's interest in remaining the unchallenged military power of the region."
In other words, watch out for Podhoretz and his Jewish followers, who may soon drag the United States into an unnecessary military operation against Iran, just as they did with Iraq. The conceptual connection between this argument and affairs of the "Pentagon mole" type is clear and disturbing.
According to Pfaff, if Podhoretz's neocon disciples are able to drag the United States into a war in Iraq, and perhaps Iran too, for the sake of Israeli interests and against its very own, then they cannot be trusted even if they hold key administration positions.
A further extension of this logic would hold that aspersions should be cast on the dialogue Israel's friends are holding with members of Congress and administration officials. These are very serious and dangerous words, especially when written by a veteran columnist in an important newspaper. The assumptions and mood implicit in them mean that Israel and the Jewish community in the United States must take an in-depth look at what is being said and what is merely hinted.
Professor Rabinovich is president of Tel Aviv University, and served as Israel's ambassador to the United States in 1993-1996. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:55 pm Post subject: Treason in high places: Pentagon zionists, AIPAC and Israel |
| Treason in high places: Pentagon zionists, AIPAC and Israel
James Petras
7-9-4 Rebelión
The FBI investigation into Israeli espionage agents in the Pentagon is part of a major struggle between prominent Zionists in the Pentagon and the US security apparatus. Ever since the Bush regime came to power there has been a fierce political and organizational war between the Pentagon Zionists and their militarist collaborators, on the one hand, and the professional military and intelligence apparatus, on the other.
This conflict has manifested itself in a series of major issues including the war in the Middle East, the rational for war, the relationship between Israel and the US, the strategy for empire, as well as tactical issues like the size of military force needed for colonial wars and the nature of colonial occupation. From 9/11/2001 to the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon Zionists and the civilian militarists had the upper hand: they marginalized the CIA and established their own intelligence services to “cook the data”, they pushed through the doctrine of sequential wars, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq and projecting wars with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. The Pentagon Zionists increased Israel’s power in the Middle East and promoted its expansionist colonization of Palestine, at the expense of US soldiers, budget busting expenditures and CIA objections.
The US military and security apparatus has retaliated. First by debunking Zionist lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, then by exposing the role of Zionist client Ahmed Chalabi as a double agent for Iran, followed by a two-year investigation of Pentagon Zionists passing documents to Israeli military intelligence and the secret police, the Mossad.
More is at stake than a turf war between the ‘Israel First’ Pentagon crowd and their opponents in the US military, diplomatic corp and intelligence agencies. The fundamental issue is the freedom of the US people to decide or at least influence their political leaders and their appointees without being subject to the manipulation and control by a foreign government (Israel) and their highly placed agents in positions of power.
Israel has for decades subverted US foreign policy to serve its interests through the organized power of major Jewish organizations in the US. What is new in the current Pentagon spy case is that rather than pressuring from the outside to secure favorable policies for Israel, the Israel loyalists are in top positions within the government making strategic decisions about US global policy and providing their Israeli handlers with secret documents pertaining to top level discussions in the White House on questions of war and peace. Today the politics of Pentagon and AIPAC espionage is especially dangerous – because what is at stake is a new US and/or Israeli war on Iran which will ignite the entire Middle East.
The move to high-level spying by top Zionist policy-makers like Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the Bush Administration is the culmination of a long series of strategic policies promoted by AIPAC designed to enhance Israeli expansionist goals in the Middle East.
Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Perle, Rubin et al were the most zealous promoters of the war against Iraq. They worked closely with other Zionist ideologues like Bush speechwriter David Frum to promote the notion of “axis of evil”, to engage in a sequence of wars against Muslim regimes hostile to Israeli colonial policy in Palestine and beyond. Wolfowitz, Feith set up the parallel ‘intelligence’ agency (the Office of Special Planning) run by fellow Zionist Abram Shulsky using Chalabi to provide phony data on Iraq to precipitate that war.
An army of ‘Israel First’ academic and journalist ideologues wrote, spoke and acted to justify the US attack on Iraq as the first part of a regional war to destroy any and all regimes critical of Israeli expansionism. Cohen, Rubin, Kristol, Foxman, Ledeen and many others provided “expert” propaganda on why US soldiers should kill and be killed for Greater Israel. Almost daily meetings and consultations took place between the top Zionists officials and the Israeli military and intelligence leaders in the offices of Feith and other Zionists. The Pentagon offices of Feith and Wolfowitz appeared to be an upscale bordello for high ranking Israeli officials. Judging from the subsequent policies it is clear that Pentagon Zionists took their cues from their Israeli counterparts – Israel was given greater funding, unlimited access to US policy makers and information pertaining to US policy in the Middle East. Meantime US intelligence and military officials were marginalized, their objections to Israeli positions blown away, their very presence seen as obstacles to realizing Sharon’s vision of a Greater Israeli – sharing (?) domination over the Middle East.
Given the high level of structural collaboration and integration of US Pentagon Zionists and US Jewish organizations with the Israeli state, the boundaries of what is United States policies and interests and what are Israeli prerogatives and interests are blurred. >From the perspective of the Pentagon Zionists and their organized Jewish supporters, it is “natural” that the US spends billions to finance Israeli military power and territorial expansion. It is “natural” to transfer strategic documents from the Pentagon to the Israeli State. As Haaretz states, “Why would Israel have to steal documents when they can find out whatever they want through official meetings?” The routinization of espionage via official consultations between Israeli and US Zionist officials became public knowledge throughout the executive branch. Only it wasn’t called espionage, it was referred to as ‘exchanging intelligence’, only the Israelis sent ‘disinformation’ to the Pentagon Zionists to serve their interests while the latter passed on the real policies, positions and strategies of the US government.
The history of the key Zionists in the Pentagon reveals a pattern of disloyalty to the US and covert assistance to Israel. Harold Rhode and William Luti, both fanatical Pentagon Zionists under Feith , Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby have been under investigation by the FBI for passing documents to Israel. Rhode had his security clearance suspended recently. CIA operatives in Baghdad reported he was constantly on his cell phone to Israel reporting on US plans, military deployments, political projects, Iraqi assets and a host of other confidential information. Michael Ledeen, another influential Zionist policy maker who worked in the Pentagon lost his security clearance after he was accused of passing classified material to a ‘foreign country (Israel). In 2001 Feith hired Ledeen to work for the Office of Special Plans which handled top secret documents. Feith himself was fired in March 1983 from the National Security Council for providing Israel with classified data. The FBI investigated Wolfowitz for having provided documents to Israel on a proposed sale of US weapons to an Arab country.
It is clear that Israeli agents, not simply Zionists ideologues, infest the top echelon of the Pentagon. The question is not merely a question of taking this or that policy position in favor of Israel but of working systematically on a whole range of issues to further Israeli power over and against US imperial interests.
What is surprising is not the current investigation over Israeli spies in the Pentagon but why they have not been arrested, indicted and sentenced a decade or two earlier.
The problem of American Jewish organizational collaboration with Pentagon espionage - namely the role of the AIPAC as an accomplice in the current spy case - is not exceptional. In their books, former Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky ( The Other Side of Deception, 1994), and Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon (Robert Maxwell: Israel’s Superspy, 2002) describe how the Israeli security forces have recruited overseas Zionist Jews, who are called sayanim, to serve as back-up supporters and collaborators in Israeli overseas operations.
AIPAC is not merely a pro-Israel ‘lobby’ but a long-standing listening post and gatherer of public and confidential government information for Israel. At a more ‘philosophical’ level there is an insidious belief widely held among the leaders of major Jewish organizations like AIPAC that the basic question for all Jews is whether the “policy is good for the Jews” - narrowly defined to mean the interest of the State of Israel and its current rulers. In pursuit of “Defending Israel at all costs” it is very likely that some of these officials go over the line into wartime espionage.
President Bush has declared that he is a “wartime President” – the US is officially involved in a colonial war of aggression against the Iraqi people. In these circumstances, espionage in time of war is a capital offense… even if the spymasters are Israelis. It is no wonder that the Zionist and Israeli propaganda machine is working overtime to undermine the espionage investigation.
After the first announcement by CBS television, the rest of the mass media gave prominent space to Israeli and AIPAC denials. More seriously the CBS broadcast deliberately harmed the FBI spy investigation into the links between the Pentagon and AIPAC. The FBI blames CBS’s revelations concerning Franklin when, the latter had already confessed and was working with the FEDS to implicate AIPAC and Israeli agents. Zionist ideologues in the US mass media and the Israeli press try to downplay the incident – first through vehement denials and subsequently to reducing the case of treason to a question of a routine exchange of information by a single “lower level”, bumbling but fanatically pro-Israel Gentile functionary. They forget to mention he was hired and directed by Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz to be their expert on Iran deeply involved in handling top secret documents and formulating policy on Iran.
The Israeli officials claim that Mossad and military intelligence solemnly pledged to stop spying on the US after the Jonathan Pollard case. “We have never spied on the US since…”, they claim. In fact over 800 Israeli spies posing as ‘art’ students and tourists were expelled after 9/11 and several Mossad agents posing as movers in New Jersey and Tennessee were expelled.
The arrogance of Israeli power in then US, which Sharon publically boasted about, is largely based on the simple principle embraced by all Zionist zealots whether they are Ivy league academics or neo-fascist felons (like Elliot Abrams) is “What’s good for Israel is good for the US”. “Good for Israel” today means bloody US wars against Israel’s adversaries, unconditional support for Israeli expansion and pillage of Palestine and now spying on the US for the good of Israel. Guided by this slogan it is easy to see how everything in the US that might be of use to Israeli intelligence whether it be documents, directives or strategic debates about big wartime issues taking place in the White House are fair game for transmission to Israeli intelligence.
Rather than face the evidence, the Zionist ideologues have taken to ad hominum attacks on their espionage agent as merely a middle level official who didn’t influence policy. They overlook the fact that he was the ‘delivery boy’ for his Zionist bosses who actually do make policy and work with top echelons of the Israeli state in ‘coordinating’ US policy to fit Israel’s needs. The power of the Israeli-US Zionist propaganda machine is so overwhelming that the FBI had to investigate for 2 years, make endless wiretaps, videos and photos, interview dozens of government and not-government officials before they could prepare to make the charges.
Despite being taped and photographed in the act of taking top secret documents, AIPAC officials deny everything and then hire a string of high-powered defense lawyers. Already the pro-Zionists mass media suggest that Zionist-AIPEC spying is really a case of ‘mishandling sensitive documents’ – a case of putting top secret documents in the wrong mailbox. Really!
In less than two days the pro-Israel mass media buried the story, and a series of ‘news reports’ were published featuring AIPAC denials, Israeli ridiculing their Pentagon mole as a fanatical idiot (Haaretz) and launching a counter attack questioning the motives of the investigation and the FBI counter-espionage service. The media published stories from anonymous “insiders” who purportedly spoke of the FBI dropping espionage charges in favor of charges of “mishandling a classified document” or even simply dropping the case altogether. They claim that the spy handing over a classified document to Israeli interests didn’t know it was a crime, a case of an innocent, well-intentioned error of judgment. This piece of propaganda has been thoroughly discredited when it was revealed that the Israeli agent (Franklin) confessed and has been cooperating with the FBI for the past months.
Nothing captures the power and pervasive and corrosive influence of the US-Zionist apparatus on US politics as much as the absolute silence of both major candidates faced with a high-level security lapse and potentially damaging spy investigation. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate trailing Bush in the polls refuses to expose the Zionist Pentagon’s ‘security failures’ despite national security being at the center of his campaign. The reason is very clear: Kerry is tied to the AIPAC-Israel-US Zionist political machine and he is willing to sacrifice US security for the Zionist vote even when faced with the issue of Israeli espionage in a time of war.
The Republicans went one step further – sending their top politicos to an AIPAC political extravaganza organized in New York two days after AIPAC was cited by the FBI as the Israeli intermediary in the passing of secret documents. At no time in recent modern history has any governing or opposition party engaged in public festivities with an organization engaged in foreign espionage. The explanation is the unprecedented and unique political situation that exists in the US today – the extraordinary power that a small, economically dependent state exercises over a global imperial state via its wealthy organized political-religious agents.
If Israel can get anything it wants from its Zionist patriots in high places in the US government, then why engage in espionage? There are several explanations.
The hand delivery of documents by Franklin can be seen as a time saving and security-wise move. If discovered, Franklin’s mentors can simply deny involvement – he was acting on his own, an argument put forth in the Israeli press. The idea of Franklin as some kind of ‘loose cannon’ does not explain why he was hired, retained and given delicate assignments and praised by the senior Zionists (Feith, Wolfowitz, Ledeen and Abrams) up to the time of his exposure. Secondly the document transferred provided Israel with very timely information on a major top-level debate: US policy toward Iran, more particularly who was for or against a military assault on Teheran. This allows Israel to plan its own military strategy knowing in advance Washington’s possible response and directing its higher up Pentagon collaborators how to prepare the ground for acceptance of Israeli aggression.
<>
Fundamentally Israel wanted to be in the White House decision making loop at every stage of Middle East policymaking via Wolfowitz, Feith et al and via confidential documentary accounts which the Mossad could analyze directly. There was a ‘need’ for espionage, because the Mossad does not merely rely on one source of information, nor does it operate only on one track. It has direct formal and ‘informal’ relations (spying) with ‘friendly’ government policy-makers. It operates on many levels, legal and illegal, through Zionist collaborators as well as overseas agents, through agents with false passports and though local Zionist sleepers, who can be activated for specific tasks…
Conclusion
Investigations and evidence are usually enough to proceed with indictments, interrogations and the pursuit of the leaders and foreign handlers in a major espionage case, especially in wartime. Thousands of innocent South Asians, Arabs and Muslims have been picked up and jailed on the most flimsy excuses (“suspicions”). But in the case of Israeli-AIPAC-Pentagon espionage the normal legal processes are inoperative.
The question of espionage prosecution depends on political power - a struggle between the Israeli State backed by the major Presidential candidates and parties, the Zionist-American political machines and their mass media acolytes on the one hand and, on the other hand the FBI, professional intelligence apparatus (CIA, DIA), state prosecutor and his investigatory staff and few stray political voices.
The so-called progressive movements and policy critics are strangely silent: Even as they speak out against war, they fail to denounce an espionage case which is intimately related to the next Middle Eastern war – an Israeli attack on Iran. Why don’t progressive Jews denounce AIPAC espionage to further a new war in Iran?
A signed statement “Not in our name” would clearly separate them from these agents of foreign wars. Three days after the initial expose, the mass media have buried the story. The FBI is delaying any announcements. The prosecuting attorney is under tremendous one-sided political pressure. Lacking any mass media outlets the US republic is a helpless giant, tied in knots by malicious dwarfs, unable to defend itself, unable to define its own policy interests. The latest report from the FBI tells us that self-confessed Israeli agent was preparing to lead the authorities to his contacts in the Israeli government when CBS blew open the case.
Was CBS aware of the danger to the Israeli secret services and was it trying to undermine the investigation? No doubt some sort of official statement will be made, perhaps even an indictment will be made of the middle level functionary on secondary charges and the FBI may even dare to interview Wolfowitz and Feith on their knowledge of the espionage network with predictable consequences. However if there is anything beyond an interview, the Zionist media will charge “anti-Semitism”, a “Second Dreyfuss” case, which will probably end the current investigation.
<>The ‘underground’ struggle between the Pentagon Zionists and the US security apparatus will continue. If Bush is re-elected, Wolfowitz will most likely become Secretary of Defense. If Kerry is elected, the closet Zionist, Richard Holbrooke, will take charge of the Pentagon.
American citizens will have to face a serious question: If the security services are incapable of defending our country from foreign espionage in high places – What is to be done?
In either case we face an imminent Zionist designed and promoted military attack on Iran, which is likely to lead to a general conflagration which can only benefit the neo-fascists who run the state of Israel. And you are afraid of being called an anti-Semite for opposing the Israel’s espionage and regional wars.
August 31, 2004
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=4298 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:21 pm Post subject: US ZOG Will Not Prosecute Treason at the Pentagon |
| FBI investigates suspected Pentagon security breaches
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: September 7 2004 20:36 | Last updated: September 7 2004 20:36
An FBI investigation into suspected security breaches involving Pentagon officials and Israel is unlikely to result in prosecution of senior figures following pressure from the White House, according to people familiar with the case.
The investigation has highlighted concerns that a small group of neo-conservatives in the Pentagon not only may have divulged classified information to Israel, but also tried to mount intelligence and foreign policy operations without informing the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency.
Analysts said that although the neo-conservative proponents of regime change in Iraq and Iran had fallen out of favour with the White House, the presidential election in November still afforded them protection.
The White House denied allegations of a cover-up. A spokesman said there was full support for the investigation.
Sources familiar with the investigation said the White House and John Ashcroft, the US attorney-general, had intervened to apply the brakes. “The White House is leaning on the FBI. Some people in the FBI are very upset, they think Ashcroft is playing politics with this,” a former intelligence official said.
Paul McNulty, the Virginia district attorney in charge of the probe, had been told to slow down, the sources said. Asked for comment, Mr McNulty's office would only say that the investigation was continuing.
The investigations came to light last month, when officials confirmed reports that Lawrence Franklin, a mid-level analyst at the Pentagon, was the subject of an FBI inquiry into whether he passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat in Washington and to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), an influential lobby group.
Aipac had been under investigation for more than two years, a senior White House official said. Aipac and Israel deny involvement in espionage.
Stephen Green, author and investigative reporter, said the FBI had interviewed him about several prominent neo-conservatives, including Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, Douglas Feith, undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon, as well as former officials including Richard Perle, Stephen Bryen and Michael Ledeen.
The FBI is said to be looking back at investigations into alleged breaches of security involving Israel and current and former officials. None of the cases reached court. However, David Frum, former speechwriter for the president, said the investigators had found nothing serious and were about to drop the matter. He described what he called an anti-Israeli obsession among some parts of the administration who viewed Israel “not as the ally it is by law and treaty but as the source of all the trouble in the Middle East and the world”.
Mr Franklin, officials say, is suspected of providing Aipac with a draft national security presidential directive that proposed a tougher policy towards Iran.
In December 2001, Mr Franklin attended a meeting in Rome organised by Mr Ledeen with Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms dealer with ties to Israel, and Antonio Martino, Italy's defence minister, and Nicolo Pollari, head of Italian military intelligence.
Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/344aa23c-0103-11d9-9d96-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=.html?uuid=344aa23c-0103-11d9-9d96-00000e2511c8&ft_acl= | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
