… good for the Jews/not good for the Jews. This is definitely not good for the Jews.
Roger L. Simon
Blacklisting Myself Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in the Age of Terror
BUY HERE IN HARDCOVER- BUY HERE ON KINDLE! New radio: Fred Thompson Show, Hugh Hewitt on PJTV (first of five-parter). YouTube version of Roger on BookTV (After Words) with Armstrong Williams - here. Video: Roger on Greg Gutfeld's Red Eye. Reviews so far: Lloyd Billingsley @ FrontPage, Ron Radosh in the National Review, Sonny Bunch in the Washington Times, Andrew Klavan in City Journal, Marty Dodge in Blogcritics, Tod Goldberg in LV City Life, John Hinderaker in Powerline. Lone Star Times, Mark Coffey at Informed Speculation, John Ruberry at Marathon Pundit, Dan Blatt at Gay Patriot. First syndication Commentary. Advance comments from Michael Barone, John Podhoretz and Ron Silver. Podcasts: Milt Rosenberg Show, John J. Miller - National Review, Ed Driscoll - Sirius Radio. Video review by Bernard Chapin. FrontPage Interview w/ Jamie Glazov. Join the Facebook group. BUY HARDCOVER! - BUY KINDLE!
PJM HomeRoger L Simon
The blog of the mystery writer, screenwriter and CEO of Pajamas Media
Just Published
 With gratitude to the readers of this blog without whom my new -- and first non-fiction -- book would likely never have been written.
Simon's first non-fiction book - Blacklisting Myself: Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in an Age of Terror - Pub. date: February 5, 2009 |
Books
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
127 Comments
1. Solomon:Absolutely horrible, if true. Nobody needs this.
Aug 27, 2004 - 5:26 pm 2. Mike_Nargizian:Let’s Add It Up -
1) Israeli spy
2) Department of Defense
3) Linked to AIPAC
I don’t know is it possible it could be any worse than that?
My first reaction is this -
The Israelis are morons. They’re overdoing it and sloppy. This and New Zealand.
There’s no need for this? Can’t we assume that the Bush Admin is more open with Israel than any other administration?
Second -
Could this be a setup or just be an overreactive timed release compared to the real story? Another words the release in and of itself will do all the damage necessary?
Ie… could State or CIA be doing this because of a power struggle with DoD and take AIPAC and Israel down a notch on the hill as well?
Normally, I would think this is nuts and crazy.
But with the recent releases of just how partisanly opposed the Dept’s are and listening to Loftus talk about how the US Gov’t supposedly let Pollars (an idiot but not what they made him out to be) take the fall for for the fact we were in bed with the Saudis for one?
Aug 27, 2004 - 5:51 pm 3. Roger:All of the above are possible. The timing is v. interesting.
Aug 27, 2004 - 5:53 pm 4. Kevin P:Roger:
I am a dedicated supporter of the state of Israel. I am not Jewish but I see that country as a oasis of Democracy in a sea of backwardness and totalitarian governments. But if this story is true I hope that people who share my view on the state of Israel will not try to rationalize this type of behavior away. This does not mean I will support the disinvestment schemes of the Radical Left or suddenly become a supporter of that facist thug Arafat. I view any American citizen that spies for another country as a traitor, no matter how much I may support the cause that he or she is spying for.
I know that countries, even allies , have always spied on each other. But if this story is true, and I hope it is not, then the spies must be punished to the full extent of the law. The people who support Israel like I do must not try to make excuses for this behavior just because it is Israel. All that will do is feed into the ugly and viscous hate that the Protocol of Zion nutbags breed upon. They use their anti-semitism to spread this garbage, they don’t need any more amunition.
Aug 27, 2004 - 6:06 pm 5. Roger:Kevin P., I absolutely agree. Let’s find out what’s happening.
Aug 27, 2004 - 6:11 pm 6. lindenen:Every anti-Semitic Zog monster in the world is going ape-shit right about now because they’ve just had their entire world view confirmed. Lovely.
Aug 27, 2004 - 6:14 pm 7. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Kevin, I agree. If this is truly what it is presented as. Just as I continue to support the life sentence of Jonathan Pollard, I would support appropriate prosecution here too. Espionage is not right.
I would hope, however, that this doesn’t reflect back on Jews.
The embarrassing thing is that Israel has never caught an American spy. It means we aren’t spying hard enough (but then we know that now).
Aug 27, 2004 - 6:19 pm 8. foreign devil:…and this is bad because….?
Oh, I know, it’s a spy but aren’t Israel and the US friends? So what’s the big deal? Apologize and move on (sorry!). There are worse things, you know? And if I had to have a mole, I guess I’d sooner it was an Israeli mole, than, say, a French mole. All in all it would be better not to have any moles but why go into toxic shock when outrage is everywhere these days and one has to discriminate…there are only so many outrages for me to effectively be outraged about and I have to conserve my ‘outrage’.
Aug 27, 2004 - 6:29 pm 9. M. Simon:Friendly countries spy on each other. This is normal. When it is uncovered or becomes too blatant the spies are usually quietly told to go elsewhere (back home, get another job etc.)
The Pollard case is unusual in that he has served 2X to 3X the amount of time that a citizen/double agent of another friendly country would serve for the same crime.
There is still a lot of Jew hatred in the upper reaches of our society. I think Pollard is a manifestations of that, and the current case may be manifestations of that.
And its not like Israel has anything to worry about when it comes to Iran and American policy towards Iran. Right…..
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:19 pm 10. M. Simon:JM,
Please explain why you support a life sentence for Pollard when the usual sentence for such a crime by friendly nations is 5 to 8 years?
Israel a special case?
======
Is some one trying to strain our special relationship just when we both need it the most? Is this an indirect atack on Mofaz’ policies re Iran? (he is an Persian Jew).
I may change my mind later when more details come out. But today for me – this stinks.
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:34 pm 11. M. Simon:Wen Ho Lee,
Just when we need a China spy.
And now with Israel and America cooperating on the Iran problem we get this.
In addition Iran is working hard against the Turkish/Israeli military cooperation.
I smell Iran behind this move.
To publicly release this has to have had an OK from Bush.
What does it mean? Unless it is a ruse: nothing good.
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:40 pm 12. M. Simon:Did you notice “the Iraq war was for the Jews and instigated by them” meme in the article?
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:44 pm 13. Coisty:“Friendly countries spy on each other. This is normal.”
Have their been similar cases to this one and the Pollard case of Americans being caught spying on Israel or, say, Britain?
“And its not like Israel has anything to worry about when it comes to Iran and American policy towards Iran. Right…..”
So it is OK for the Israelis to covertly influence US policy towards Iran?
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:52 pm 14. Coisty:“Their” should be “there” in my above post!
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:53 pm 15. Jay Rice:Two questions?
1. How come CBS knows about it?
2. Why is the FBI investigating and not, say, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), military intelligence agencies, or the CIA?
Sounds like CBS has a mole in the FBI.
Frankly, am less concerned about Israeli intelligence gathering than CBS. I know which one I would trust with my life. And it isn’t Leslie Stahl.
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:53 pm 16. JeremyR:I don’t mind Israel spying on us. However, I don’t like how the info they steal from us often ends up in the hands of nations unfriendly to the US. China, most notably.
Israel would not exist without the US. I don’t think they own the US any grattitude, but at the same time, I think they should stop stabbing us in the back.
IMHO, Pollard should have been executed. And I would also note, he didn’t do it for Israel, he did it for the money. He was paid a whole lot by Israel.
He also divorced his wife while she was sick in the hospital. The guy is a scumbag, plain and simple.
Anyway, if this is true, it could very well destroy any hope Bush had of being re-elected.
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:59 pm 17. M. Simon:on Changes the FBI is Making to the Counterintelligence Program
=====
After the hearing, Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Dave Szady told me that he wants to establish task forces for foreign counterintelligence. He said federal agencies have been too “stovepiped” in their response to FCI.
Dave Szady – foreign counterintelligence
David Szady. from 1995.
Pakistan says
Aug 27, 2004 - 7:59 pm 18. M. Simon:Requires registration
ajc.com | News | Exodus of senior agents creates FBI ‘brain drain’
Aug 27, 2004 - 8:02 pm 19. Coisty:“Israel would not exist without the US”
They seemed to survive just fine without too much US support before the 1970s.
“IMHO, Pollard should have been executed. And I would also note, he didn’t do it for Israel, he did it for the money. He was paid a whole lot by Israel.”
Interesting. I hadn’t heard that.
“Anyway, if this is true, it could very well destroy any hope Bush had of being re-elected.”
Only if it turns out to be true that Israel played an important role in getting the US into the Iraq mess. But we’re a long way from such conclusions. Even if it turned out to be true I think it would have a greater impact on European allies than on the American electorate.
Aug 27, 2004 - 8:09 pm 20. dougf:Frankly —– Not Concerned.This type of thing is done all the time.ALL THE TIME.
Please let me in on the secret why this is such a BIG DEAL.
Aug 27, 2004 - 8:10 pm 21. M. Simon:JeremyR,
The reason you don’t hear about it is that normally such stuff is covered up.
And yes there have been friendly Brits spying on America – and not Russian moles either.
You know this may be the Al Queda attack we have all been waiting for. It is sure cause a rift already between countries that will need to cooperate in the next phase of the war.
Kill the Jew? Hanssen who was spying for Moscow and was responsible for the deaths of three agents only got life. Well fair is fair I always say.
BTW did you notice Feith and Wolfowitz are in the net? This ought to keep them busy for years or at least til Iran gets nukes.
I can’t wait til J. Raimondo shows up.
===========
Pollard’s sentence is considered by many to be disproportionate to the crime for which he was convicted ñ he is the only person in the history of the United States to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally. The median sentence for this particular offense is two to four years.
Pollards sentence
Aug 27, 2004 - 8:21 pm 22. M. Simon:Pakistan says
WASHINGTON: The FBI is stepping up efforts to catch foreign spies in the United States as agents from China, Russia and other countries are increasing intelligence activities here, according to the FBIís top counterspy.
Based on the above it looks like we have an own goal.
The FBI having no luck catching enemy spies is focusing its efforts on spies from friendly countries. Makes sense to me.
Aug 27, 2004 - 8:32 pm 23. Coisty:“The FBI having no luck catching enemy [China, Russia] spies is focusing its efforts on spies from friendly countries”
But if Israel was willing to pass on info to China including providing them with technology transfers against US wishes, then maybe Israel isn’t as friendly as you think.
Aug 27, 2004 - 8:40 pm 24. marek:The sources declined to identify the suspect and said no arrests had been made and no charges brought. “No one has been charged,” one government official said.
A rather strange case – resembles the ’successful’ antrax investigation by FBI.
But there is hope – CBS already knows about it and is very worried that Israel influenced american policies.
Aug 27, 2004 - 8:49 pm 25. Mike_Nargizian:Kevin P
This will already feed into the ugly ZOG freek’s mentality no matter what. They are having erotic canniptions right now. I don’t know if you’ve ever spent any time at indy or wrh ever but they still use as recent news item run downs reviews of the Liberty and of the Mossad operation in Egypt in 1950’s…. Anything Israel does is the cause for demonization forever.
Also, I haven’t read Loftus’s book on Pollard but he swears to me that Pollard was sent out to dry because of our embarrassing links at that time to the Saudis that he then knew about.
Loftus says the info he passed was basic low level stuff and that he was nothing but a low level baffoon.
John Moore
Israel is like the US’s little picked on brother.
Everything in certain and growing circles reflects on the Jews. Little by little it gets out and you start to notice more and more comments.
Also, if you’ve never spent any time on left-wing lunatic and socialist European boards, then take some valium and then go to indymedia and wrh.
foreign devil
Listen, to an extent I agree. I think bcs its Israel its front page interesting copy and some people do like it while others find it ’sellable copy’. However, I understand also that bcs its Israel it doesn’t mean it should be ignored either. However, I tend to agree with the former assessment more than the latter in my initial judgement.
I’m no expert. However, from what I thought when friendly countries spy on each other they are quietly detained and usually traded and returned, with an embarrassment to the foreign country. Britain and even the Soviets at times I believe, where they returned traded spies with us.
Agreed.
M. Simon
Agreed on all except Israel does have to worry about everything having to do with Iran especially when it comes to dealing with their Nucleur Reactors, which poses the greatest external threat to Israel, bar none.
Is it possible this is a result of behind the scenese Saudi pressure? A low level guy they already knew about was thrown as a bone to the Saudis for an under the table undeclared concessions from the Saudis? The Saudis hold Bush’s election in their hands, oil prices, help under the scenes in the Middle East, etc..
Simon what does Mofaz have to do directly with this? I agree Iran and the US/Israel are definitely in a war mode right now on the scale of the hot years of the Cold War, no doubt about that. Batchelor covered the upcoming showdown he thinks to come in the Straits of Hormuz.
M Simon
My thoughts on this are this -
1) Could be a bone to the Saudis bcs of many other things they are doing to help Bush get re-elected.
2) Bush does not necessarily have control over all of the bureaucracies and their releases. Forces within could have threatened Bush if he didn’t release this publically. Or they could have leaked it to CBS to force him to allow release of it.
3) The guy could just be a moron who did something completely stupid and in-appropriate even for normal spying that goes on among allies?
Coisty
Similar cases among other allies where the sentence was much lighter even in much more serious cases among enemies or non allies.
No of course not. But I think the reaction to this is much greater than it would be if say Australia or Britain were caught, imho. I’d throw France in right now except that the French wouldn’t get caught imho, they’re intelligence is actually very good, and they don’t have as many enemies in the US as Israel has.
Also, all countries and allies normally do this in the regular course of business. Clinton and that nut (married to the republican) got Barak elected. Europe funds Yossi Beilin because in Israel he’s reviled by the mainstream.
Aug 27, 2004 - 8:49 pm 26. Kevin P:To Everyone:
When I said that that the spies, if this story is true, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law I was not saying that the possible Israeli spies should receive a higher sentence then is normally meted out. I also do not think they should given special treatment either.
All Americans should feel gratefull that the Israeli government took out the Iraqi nuclear site before that meglomaniac Saddam got the bomb. I also hope that the Israeli government will show the same guts again by taking out the Iranian sites before the jihadi Mullahs of Iran get the same weapons. I don’t think this country has fully realized the threat of Islamo-fascism and that Israel always has.But I don’t like to hear the “well everybody does it” defense of espionage. The fact that our Pentagon has spies in it should be upsetting to everyone, no matter what government they come from. It is a big deal.
I do not know if the story is true. I do think there is an arabist strain in some of our big agencies that would love to smear Israel and the groups that support her. I agree with Roger when he says that we should wait and see. But I think that to rationalize or excuse the behavior of any spy is wrong.They should get whatever the traditional punishment is. No more, no less.
Aug 27, 2004 - 9:07 pm 27. Occam's Beard:I think we need a reality check here.
Israel is not really our friend, as any survivor of the USS Liberty can tell you. Our interests often coincide – that’s as far as I would go. Israel falls somewhere between France and Britain in the extent to which our interests coincide. Assuming Israel really was spying, if they were doing something in our interest, they wouldn’t have had to do so covertly.
Palmerston was spot on. No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests – that should be our policy.
Aug 27, 2004 - 9:08 pm 28. M. Simon:Coisty,
Were they real secrets or fake secrets?
Did Israel and America get more in return than was given away?
The question is qui bono?
Iran, Saudi Aabia etc. i.e. the usual suspects
from lgf:
Mueller Meets American Muslim Council (terrorists aplenty)
Mueller Has Mandatory Muslim Sensitivity Training
Mueller Thanks Muslims
Wahhabi Lobby in FBI
Mueller Gives Terrorist Award
Mueller Promises Outreach to Muslim Community Leaders
go here for the links :
FBI sold out to Islamofascists?
Aug 27, 2004 - 9:16 pm 29. M. Simon:Mike N.
The bit you disagreed with was sarcasm.
Simon
Aug 27, 2004 - 9:38 pm 30. Sandy P:Well, to wade into the fray, a former schoolmate could have been yanking my chain, but he said he was on Pollard’s ship.
They didn’t know what he stole, they had people 24/7 going thru everything.
Aug 27, 2004 - 9:43 pm 31. Allah:We’re not going to start with this shit again, are we?
Aug 27, 2004 - 9:46 pm 32. lindenen:If the punishment given to Pollard was really disproportionate to his crimes, then it is possible he did a few things we are simply unaware of.
Aug 27, 2004 - 9:51 pm 33. Occam's Beard:I hadn’t realized that this incident was the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories. It was simply surmise on my part that Israel was sending us a message back then, as IIRC they had just before this expressed their unhappiness about our surveillance activities.
So…for the sake of argument, forget the Liberty. My point remains. Israel’s interests are not co-extensive with ours. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they conflict. And if they conflict, we need to watch out for ourselves.
Aug 27, 2004 - 10:10 pm 34. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Someone asked why I support the life sentence for Pollard.
It’s simple – he spied and turned over extremely sensitive information, and he did it for money. I would apply that standard to other spies (unless we could execute the bastards, depending on the harm they did). The fact that Pollard is a hero in Israel doesn’t help Israeli-American relations (fortunately, you have to do a lot to hurt them).
It’s also the case that Israel’s weapons industry sells systems to countries we’d rather they avoided.
Espionage isn’t a different crime because it is done by a friendly nation.
In the US security classification system, there is a modifier called NOFORN. That’s because we might grant a very high clearance to a foreigner from a friendly nation, but there are some things we kept myself.
I have trained foreign nationals in P-3 crew work. We had SECRET/NOFORN stuff we didn’t give them.
We are getting a bit ahead of things. Did these people know they were violating security regs? Why did they do it? What level of information did they give away? Is this even true?
I think pretty much everyone spies on the US. We are too important not to. Israel, in its precarious position, may be more willing to do so. But that doesn’t excuse the actions of those with the information.
Aug 27, 2004 - 10:21 pm 35. Kevin P:Beard:
None of our allies are friends if we use the USS Liberty incicdent as a barometer of friendship. Israel was in a life or death struggle when that tragic attack happened. The need for secrecy was paramount to success of the 67 war and The attack on the Liberty was not intentional, it was a unfortunate tragedy, a perfect example of the fog of war syndrome.
We don’t just share occasional interests with the state of Israel. We also share a common outlook on government and civilization. I don’t always agree with her and I think that Sharon is a ham handed pol. If you read my previous post’s you can tell that I am quite upset over the possibility of the truth of the original subject of this thread. But we have no greater friend in the middle east then Israel and if, God forbid, the hope of many arab and muslim governments that Israel and the Jews will be exterminated comes true you will learn what the loss of this friend will mean to our country.
Aug 27, 2004 - 10:21 pm 36. Joe Schmoe:Adam Yoshida has a really interesting post about this topic at his blog, adamyoshida.com
He’s ultra-conservative, the most conservative person I have ever encountered, and is widely regarded by leftists as an extremist lunatic. I think he is brilliant, however, and while he sometimes goes too far for me (for instance, Adam has argued that we should have invaded China during the Korean war and used nuclear weapons during the conflict), I agree with many of his positions and appreciate his first-rate mind.
He does a very through analysis of the news stories and basically concludes that this a politically motivated smear job, yet another inside-the-beltway power struggle that has spilled over onto the newspapers.
Aug 27, 2004 - 10:22 pm 37. Kevin P:John Moore:
As always, right on point!
Aug 27, 2004 - 10:25 pm 38. marek:Joe,
Thanks for the link – I liked adam’s analysis
Aug 27, 2004 - 11:04 pm 39. yadid:Hi Guys…
I guess most of you guys here are good citizens of the us os A. So, let me ask you this: Do you think that the us of A has ever been spying on Israel? Do you think that the us of A has a spy(ies) in Israel’s DoD?
What’s the big, really…in my humble opinion, both countries are spying each other, and for a good reason…So please…
Aug 28, 2004 - 12:12 am 40. Homer:This is CBS folks, given how they have handled major storys in the past, I would want a second source, and third before I believe them. That said, this is extremely serious. After Pollard, the US and Israel signed an agreement modeled on the US-UK agreement. If the story is true, then breaking the agreement could due untold damage to Israel. They need us, more than than we need them. But this is the FBI after all, and now that Bush has given the DCI new powers today, they may be sweating a bit. And taking out Rummy would please the beltway jackels no end. But this is wild guessing and speculation on my part. We’ll see.
Aug 28, 2004 - 12:59 am 41. David Thomson:ìOnly if it turns out to be true that Israel played an important role in getting the US into the Iraq mess. But we’re a long way from such conclusions. Even if it turned out to be true I think it would have a greater impact on European allies than on the American electorate.î
A long way from such a conclusion? The hard core American leftists already believe this to be the case. An increasingly larger number of our citizens blame Israel for our invasion of Iraq. This mindset pervades the John Kerry campaign, particularly those military officers supporting the Democrat candidate. Get this through your head immediately: the use of the term ìneoconservativeî in a pejorative sense almost always indicates an anti-Israeli attitude. A John Kerry presidency would be very bad news for Israel.
Aug 28, 2004 - 2:20 am 42. M. Simon:John Moore,
Qui bono? Our friends or our enemies?
BTW John do you favor life in prison for jay walking?
Not all crimes are equally serious. There are degrees of theft. Even of murder.
Have you lost your powers of discrimination?
Simon
JOHN LOFTUS, FMR. JUSTICE DEPT. PROSECUTOR: Well, originally the suspicion was that Pollard had given away the names of our spies behind the iron curtain in Russia. It turns out now that his accusers, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, were in fact the Russian spies. They were blaming Pollard for their own crimes.
Naval intelligence tells me that Pollard never even had a blue stripe security clearance to get into the file room. He couldn’t have betrayed this stuff. Pollard passed all of his polygraphs. He’s unquestionably guilty of minor offenses, but he should have been out of jail five years ago.
John Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the world, with special access to NATO Cosmic, CIA codeword, and Top Secret Nuclear files. As a private attorney, he works without charge to help hundreds of intelligence agents obtain lawful permission to declassify and publish the hidden secrets of our times.
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:05 am 43. M. Simon:John Moore,
When you say “espionage is not a different crime when it is done by a friendly nation” you are stating an opinion that is opposed to settled policy.
If we had always treated such infractions as you claim I’d say: no problem.
What I object to is Pollard’s “special treatment”.
In fact in the 18 years subsequent to Pollard’s conviction no other friendly nation spy has recieved such treatment.
Why?
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:12 am 44. M. Simon:John M.,
Here is a possible reason:
Classified Pollard file supports 9/11 coverup of Saudi ties to Usama bin Laden
Qui bono?
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:36 am 45. M. Simon:Sandy P.,
It was the Ames family that was aboard ship.
Your friend is making Pollard a scape goat for Ames.
Which in fact was already done by some one in government. It delayed the roll up of Hanssen and Ames.
The FBI has at minimum groups working against democratic interests. At worst it is controlled by the Islamofascists.
Qui bono?
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:44 am 46. M. Simon:Pollard’s file shows that, contrary to what Congress was told, US intelligence knew perfectly well that they were laundering money through Saudi Arabia to fund known terrorists in their drive to oust the Russians from Afghanistan. To protect themselves from charges of negligence, senior members of US intelligence covered up the Saudi-Al Qaeda connection right up to 9/11.
These revelations will add fuel to Senator Graham’s campaign to make public the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee on 9/11. Loftus’ article supplies many of the missing links that explain why we knew so much and did so little about Islamic terrorism.
Classified Pollard file supports 9/11 coverup of Saudi ties to Usama bin Laden
Kerry is on the intel committee. He is supported by the Arab governments. When he gets to the top it will all be open to him. Remember Carter? His ineptness may have been cover. Ramsey Clark? Communist apologist & Carter Att’ny. General
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 5:12 am 47. M. Simon:If the punishment given to Pollard was really disproportionate to his crimes, then it is possible he did a few things we are simply unaware of.
Posted by: lindenen
So says Caspar Weinberger. Now who are his friends? Who does Caspar carry water for?
In any case the Weinberger allegations were never even discussed at the trial yet Pollard was sentenced based on the allegations.
Interesting, no?
If this current flap was set to hurt Israel I predict is is actually going to hurt Islamic interests in the FBI and Defence Depts.
There is a lot rotten in th FBI and CIA. I do not think our friends are at the heart of the rot. But, that’s just me.
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 5:24 am 48. Rick Ballard:An FBI employee compromises an espionage investigation of an aide to an under-Secretary of Defense three days before the Republican Convention. No matter what is exposed, the DoJ needs a separate investigation to determine the source of the FBI leak. Someone in the FBI is putting political maneuvering above national interest and deserves at least dismissal.
In re Jews, neocons, Israel there will be an enormous hubbub among the spittle flecked denizens of DU and other similiarly predisposed groups such as the DNC/MSM but I fail to see this as causing more anti-semitism than is already extant. People with an IQ higher than the average eggplant understand that every country in the world tries to influence US policy. Some (such as Saudi Arabia and Israel) are more successful than others.
Are attempts at espionage (successful or not) admirable? Well, if they are not admirable they are at minimum necessary for survival. If it were not so, why would the US devote the resources that it does to espionage?
Let’s determine the import of the “secret” documents passed before making a decision concerning whether Israel “influenced” our decision making process. Secondarily, let’s not lose track that an FBI employee was willing to compromise investigation of a serious matter for political advantage. That weasel needs to be found and disposed of. Hopefully a law was broken by the disclosure so that the weasel and the spy might conceivably have an opportunity to spend some quality time together.
Finally, the agent in charge for the FBI, Mr. Szady, should come to an understanding that his career is now complete. Allowing an investigation to be compromised is sufficent cause for reassignment to the Fargo office as a wheat purity inspector.
Aug 28, 2004 - 6:18 am 49. Mike_Nargizian:M Simon I appreciate your posts and have read Loftus’s stuff before and I listen to him every night on the John Batchelor radio program from 10:30pm-11:00pm.
http://www.wabcradio.com/listenlive.asp
However, leaving that message at the end of every one of your posts makes the thread cumbersome.
Rick if we assume your theory is right and other’s as well, about the FBI, then noone and nothing is going to happen. That means there are some really powerful people influencing this, probably the Saudis again, and they have a lot over this government. If there is going to be a big shakeout at the FBI and CIA (NEVER HAPPEN) don’t you think that the Saudis covertly and pulling a shit load of strings on it to keep certain things in play and certain things out of play?
If Loftus is correct about most of his theories, it matters who’s in there determining and fixing policy, and it means there is A LOT OF DIRTY LAUNDRY IN THE UGLY MIX OF INTERANTIONAL POLITICS AND ESPIONAGE.
As the Islamists line up more and more power and demonize the “jews” “neo-cons” more and more they slowly but surely effect changes and power throughouth.
IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE POWER OF OIL.
Mike
Aug 28, 2004 - 6:50 am 50. Snowy:It’s a tempest in a teapot just like the “prison abuse” scandal. Not that spying and prison abuse are right, it’s just that hugely overreacting isn’t right.
If the story is true, thank God the agent was working for Israel (whose interests are allied with the U.S.) and Al Queda, Iran, North Korea or like that.
Israel is fighting for its existence in a way lots of us can barely comprehend. Therefore these actions, if true, are understandable. Heck, if the Israelis got any useful information out of it, maybe they’ll use it to take out Iran’s nukes and/or take its evil, oppressive, wretched regime (hanging sixteen year old girls) — and I don’t see that as any kind of security risk.
Aug 28, 2004 - 7:16 am 51. Snowy:Meant to say:
If the story is true, thank God the agent was working for Israel (whose interests are allied with the U.S.) and NOT Al Queda, Iran, North Korea or like that.
Aug 28, 2004 - 7:18 am 52. holdfast:“Israel is not really our friend, as any survivor of the USS Liberty can tell you.”
By that reasoning any friendly fire incident means that the US is “[someone]our friend”
-A lot of the recent anti-US sentiment in Canada feeds off the bombing of the PPCLI in Afghanistan. Of course, a lot of it is exploited and hyped by hypocritical **sholes who usually hate the military, but when the debate about Iraq came up it was hard to argue against the meme that “the last time we send troops to a US imperialist war the only KIAs were to an American 500lb bomb
-In both Gulf Wars, the US air force and army aviation were responsible for a significant percentage of the UK casulties. This still has repreucssions in England
-The USS Vincennes taking down an Iranian airbus in the gulf
There is no doubt that the attack on the Liberty was negligent in the extreme, but anti-Israel elements in the US have totally hyped it to force a wedge between the US and Israel. As the examples above demonstrate, bad things happen in war – people shoot first and ask questions later. When the Liberty was attacked Israel was involved in its first significant naval conflict, and they screwed up, nothing more.
On Pollard, I think that Israel has made a total PR mess of it, and somebody should be pimp-slapped for it. There is a constant whining in public that is unseemly, and only feeds the anti-Israel forces. Some of Israel’s allies here in the US are even worse about it.
Aug 28, 2004 - 7:27 am 53. M. Simon:JM,
Try this one on for size:
Pollard has repeatedly insisted that he did what he did out of profound love for Israel, not out of any venal financial motives. It is likely he was convinced that none of the information he handed Israel could damage American interests, but still, his motivation was his love of Israel.
Pollard
Now it is pretty well evident that our intel (CIA) and counter intel (FBI) are riddled with our Arab enemies. So who is the investigation centered on? Some one claimed to be an agent of our friends. Now there is a real surprise.
So who is smeared? Jews, Israel, AIPAC, supporters of the Iraq battle, supporters of the coming battle of Iran.
Hmmmmmmmm.
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 7:40 am 54. mrp:Jonathan Pollard was well-rewarded by the Israelis for his criminal acts. From the PBS Nova website:
A few days later, Sella and Pollard met in Washington. Pollard provided detailed information on chemical warfare manufacturing plants in Iraq. For this initial transaction Pollard was given a $10,000 diamond and sapphire ring for his fianc饬 Anne Henderson, and paid over $10,000 in cash. Sella also agreed to pay Pollard $1,500 a month for his espionage activities as long as they continued.
For about a year after the time Pollard met Avi Sella, he gathered computer printouts, satellite photographs, and classified documents from his department three times a week and brought them to various Washington apartments. There, they were copied and returned to Pollard, who restored them to the Navy the following day. In exchange for his services Pollard received, in addition to the agreed salary, a lavish collection of gifts for himself and his wife, including a honeymoon in a private compartment aboard the Orient Express.
There’s more at the link.
Last year, CNN reported on a Pollard appeal at a US District Court. The article presents both sides of the argument, with this interesting final paragraph:
Some U.S. intelligence officials say if Israel was willing to detail for the United States all the documents and intelligence Pollard stole, then officials in Washington might drop their strong opposition to letting him go.
So, as of Sept. 2, 2003 Israel still refused to release a full list of all of the classified documents they received from Jonathan Pollard? Now, why is that?
Aug 28, 2004 - 8:43 am 55. holdfast:Giving this more thought, this really is smelling like a set-up. I know that I am biased in favor of Israel, but why on earth would a real spy go through AIPAC. This is just so brutally blatant, drawing in all of the pro-Arab bete noires here.
I don’t know if this is (and really, it’s a pretty slim chance) the Dems answer to the Swift Vets, but if it is, Kerry might finally have found a way to help Bush break through with the Jewish vote.
Aug 28, 2004 - 9:09 am 56. geoffg:OT: a petition drive wrt Kerry’s record, addressed to Pres. of the Senate. 129K + signatures to date.
http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/
Aug 28, 2004 - 9:14 am 57. Ric Locke:You know, I knew I heard something in the dark last night. I thought it was just the wind blowing up more weather, but now I understand it was the sigh of relief emanating from editorial offices around the country.
The Kerry meltdown was just about to get to the point where the MSM would have to cover it, and the Republican convention is about to start. Disaster! The negative spin machine is running low on fuel!
Now all is well. Look, everybody, over yonder! Spies! Zionists! Nothin’ up our sleeves, honest! This Is Important! Nothing to see here, go over there and Pay Attention!
Coming up next: Arafat comments on Zionist activism driving Bushitler’s anti-Arab imperialism, as revealed by Mossad penetration of the decision-making process. You heard it here first.
Regards,
Ric Locke
Aug 28, 2004 - 9:16 am 58. Lawrence:This is from John Loftus who Simon previously cited. He just emailed me that he tried to post this but obviously got held up on the registration thing. Here are his thoughts.
My name is John Loftus, I am the author of “The Secret War Against the Jews.” You might want to read my article on Pollard, on my website, john-loftus.com.
I am Irish Catholic, but a strong supporter of Israel. I know some of these guys in DOD, and rather doubt the anonymous smear leaked by the FBI to CBS.
But, in the case of Israel, they are always guilty until proven innocent. Remember the so called “Mega” scandal?
Aug 28, 2004 - 9:51 am 59. Coisty:The reaction here to the spy story leads me to the conclusion that many of you will support any action Israel takes. Now I’m quite willing to cheer the Israelis on when it comes to their dealings with the Palestinians, but when it comes to spying on the US and passing on secret info to the Chinese and others I think it is appalling that so many Americans have no problem with it. According to B Netanyahu all Israelis stand as one in their support for Pollard. If that is true – a big “if” – then the friendship provided to Israel by the US is not being reciprocated.
BTW if all countries are doing it then how come there have been so many suspicious cases involving the Israelis? Every month or so there is another story in regional US newspapers about suspicious Israelis being questioned by authorities. Are the Russian spies just smarter and thus don’t get caught?
Aug 28, 2004 - 10:11 am 60. Occam's Beard:Several points have emerged above that deserve commentary.
First, espionage should be treated in similar fashion regardless of the beneficiary of it for two reasons. It is by definition an action against the interests of the United States in any case, and merits punishment. On a practical note, differentiating between the beneficiaries merely encourages more “false flag” operations by foreign intelligence services. Every foreign intelligence service would try to make itself out to potential spies as recruiting for Israel. Treating espionage for Israel as a lesser matter would make it easier to recruit such agents.
Second, yes, Israel is a democracy, but so is France. In either case we still need to look out for our own interests first, and the other’s second. It’s not hard to imagine instances where our interests conflict. In such situations pursuing a policy that advances their interests over ours, or puts our citizens at risk over theirs, betrays the American people.
Aug 28, 2004 - 10:28 am 61. Occam's Beard:One further point. Let’s temper accusations about news management until and unless some evidence of that emerges. Maybe this little nugget was revealed right now for partisan political purposes, but right now there is no substantive evidence for this.
To place it in perspective, we were all contemptuous of lefties’ assertions that the last terror alert was politically motivated, and in the absence of evidence I think that similar scepticism would serve us well now.
Aug 28, 2004 - 10:34 am 62. Godzilla:CBS’s use of the words mole and spy give this a darker connotation than I think is warranted. I’m sure that it is common for allies to pass information back and forth, even classified information. I’m sure this isn’t done via the USPS but by couriers. And what does the FBI know of such things? This will turn out to much less nefarious than how CBS presents it, in my opinion.
Aug 28, 2004 - 10:39 am 63. Syl:There are only two elements to this that are important. There is an investigation and that fact was leaked.
Just because the motivation for the leak is most likely political does NOT mean that the investigation itself is political.
If any of our agencies find any hint or evidence of spying they MUST investigate. Doesn’t matter who the perpetrator is or even what motivation there was to give these agencies evidence of spying.
Just as in the Plame business, the politics surrounding it have nothing to do with the fact that an investigation MUST occur.
Aug 28, 2004 - 10:43 am 64. M. Simon:Coisty,
Let me see if I can figure it out.
1. State is over run with Arabists
2. CIA is over run with Arabists
3. FBI is over run with Arabists
Defence is as far as I can tell the only dept not is over run with Arabists.
Now who is attacking Defence?
Given the choice would you rather put the Defence of America in the hands of Arabists or Israelis? Which side is closer to America’s interests?
The fighing tactics used in the guerilla war in Iraq were learned from the Israelis. (the DOD was supposed to have a secret mission to Israel last year to learn strategy and tactics. Evidently the Arabs do not have such expertise. Except for being on the other side).
Next we have to go after Iran. Notice the Iran connection in the story? And who are our goto guys for such an operation? Turkey? Pakistan? Yemen? Such a hard guessing game. Well it is a very difficult question.
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 11:08 am 65. M. Simon:Occam’s Beard,
All breaks in intel are not treated the same. That has been US policy. Why?
It is never wise to piss off allies.
What if they decide to throw out our spies? Are we better or worse off?
Reciprocity comes into play. And yes false flag operations are always possible. Kim Philby comes to mind. There was a false flag operation if ever there was one. Being Brit liason with the CIA he got everything. According to our agreement with the Brits.
We have different rules for enemy spies vs friendly spies. If you don’t like that aggitate for a policy change. Write yer Cong. Critter.
Since the policy has worked for 50+ years I’d say changes ought to be made very carefully. Let us not help our enemies and hurt our friends. It makes no sense. OTOH – qui bono?
BTW we won the cold war despite a State Dept and CIA over run with communists.
I expect we will manage against the jihadis.
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 11:24 am 66. M. Simon:Rooters News via YooHoo other wise Known as MSM:
“The Washington Post reported on its Web site that the official under suspicion specialized in Iranian affairs and was a veteran of the Defense Intelligence Agency who was nearing retirement. ”
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040828/pl_nm/security_usa_spy_dc
Iranian specialist. Fancy that.
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 11:52 am 67. michael ledeen:I do not believe this “story.” In fact, I think it is one of the silliest, stupidest, most ridiculous “stories” ever. Can we deconstruct it? It seems a Pentagon official is accused of passing classified documents on…the interagency debate over Iran policy.
But there is no Iran policy, even today. So it seems this guy is accused of passing secret information about…something that doesn’t exist.
Whazzup?
Second, you don’t need classified documents to know about the Iran debate among the various agencies of the executive branch. Everybody knows all about it. It’s public. Not secret.
Whazzup?
Third, this comes from the usual unnamed FBI “sources” who earlier accused Chalabi of being an Iranian spy, claiming that Chalabi gave the Iranians the information that the US had broken the Iranian code, whereupon the Iranian station chief in Baghdad sends a message–in that very same code–saying “our man Chalabi just told me that the Americans can read our messages in the very same code I am using to send you this message.” That was so laughable that it barely lasted 48 hours. Then the FBI and DIA “sources” said that Pentagon official were being polygraphed around the clock. But it turned out that note one person in the Pentagon was polygraphed.
So why should anyone believe this story?
Until and unless there is some real information, I’m a doubter.
Anyone wanna bet on the outcome? Have you checked Leslie Stahl’s track record?
Aug 28, 2004 - 12:00 pm 68. Swopa:It seems a Pentagon official is accused of passing classified documents on…the interagency debate over Iran policy.
Thanks for mentioning that, Michael. I was about to say that the comments here were missing the boat by focusing on the notion that Israel was spying on us. If anything, it appears that they were a passive recipient of the information.
But there is no Iran policy, even today. So it seems this guy is accused of passing secret information about…something that doesn’t exist.
Well, but that seems to be the point, Michael. If I’m reading this right, the administration was torn between different factions on Iran policy, and a member of a particularly passionate faction leaked a draft of something in hopes of getting Israel’s (or AIPAC’s, or who knows whose) help in backing their viewpoint.
It seems like sort of a parallel to Iran-Contra, in that when official channels blocked a particular policy, some elements in the administration decided to start freelancing in extra-governmental maneuvering to accomplish what they wanted. The ultimate question may be not who gave what to Israel, but what else they were doing secretly and/or illegally to influence U.S. policy toward Iran (or Iraq, for that matter).
But it should be very interesting to get your ongoing input regarding this maybe-scandal, Michael, since you appear to be somewhat in the middle of it all:
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity, said the FBI also is investigating the same official’s contacts with Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi and with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a controversial Iranian arms dealer. Chalabi was a source of much of the discredited pre-Iraq war intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida.
. . . The CIA has twice labeled Ghorbanifar, a figure in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal, untrustworthy. Nevertheless, two Pentagon officials, Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who worked on Iraq policy for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, met secretly with Ghorbanifar to discuss Iran.
I’ve read that you set up that meeting, Michael. So you may be in quite a good position to tell us about this possible rogue faction in our administration.
Aug 28, 2004 - 12:47 pm 69. michael ledeen:Thanks for asking, Swopa. I’ve written about the one meeting with which I was involved, which was anything but a “rogue” event, having been approved by the White House, the State Dept and the Pentagon. Whether or not there were other meetings, I have no knowledge, but I do believe that the people with whom we met–and who provided information that was judged by the US military to have saved American lives–had no further contact with anyone in the USG.
I have criticized the failure to followup on those contacts, but I am not a government official, and obviously–from the lack of results–have no standing on such things.
On the broader question, namely the role of other countries in shaping American policy decisions, that’s what the Italians call “the discovery of the umbrella.” Meaning we knew it all along. All our allies and many enemies do everything they can to influence policy. So what else is new? My point here is that there was no secret about the positions of the American agencies, and thus anyone who wanted to influence our Iran policy knew who advocated what. There was no need for secret documents. I’m positive that the Israelis, the British, the Italians, the Dutch, the UN, the EU, the Jordanians, the Saudis…all of them lobbied the White House, the State Dept, the CIA, the State Dept, on Iran policy, as they do on every other matter that concerns them.
Same old, same old.
The story seems to me to be highly implausible. And if you think I have special knowledge about these matters, I hope you’ll think along with me, as, indeed, you have thus far.
It makes no sense to me.
Aug 28, 2004 - 1:09 pm 70. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):I think there have been 10 messages directed at me regarding Pollard.
Here is my position: espionage is a very serious crime. Espionage of high classificaation information is a more serious crime. Pollard provided a lot of the latter, for money. Motivation might be a mitigating factor – money is not. I’m not going to dig it up again, but the definition of TOP SECRET is pretty extreme. It’s not stuff you turn loose.
Under the circumstances, Pollard is well deserving of a life sentence. If we look at others – say the Walkers – their crime was worse – much worse – but they had something to trade (spies usually do) so we couldn’t execute them. They deserved execution. The entire time I was in the Navy, the cipher keys we used were being fed to the Soviets by the Walkers.
If there is additional information that makes Pollard look less guilty, then perhaps an injustice was done. I’m have not and will not study that case in depth.
Now let’s look at the USS Liberty. A number of Americans were slaughtered by the Israeli Air Force and Navy in that event. For many years, I thought the attack was intentional (and notice: I am pro-Israel and have long been so), but I did carefully study the case not long ago. There are non-looney theories that the attack was intentional.
My conclusion is that the Israeli jet pilots are guilty of manslaughter, the Navy boat skippers are innocent. I arrive at this from descriptions of the incident and my own extensive experience of identifying ships at sea from the air (it was part of my job in the Navy – the P-3 radioman was also the forward port observer).
There is no way a responsible fly-by (and they spent awhile before attacking) could have missed that American flag unless they were highly negligent. None. Nada. Zip. Those Americans died because those pilots failed to identify a ship that had a large American flag displayed, a ship that was in international waters that could not threaten Israeli forces without moving much closer.
Maybe Pollard’s life sentence is payback for those multiple negligent homicides. If so, my heart does not go out to him, because of his offenses.
Based on available information, I was in favor of prosecution of the US pilots who attacked the Canadians in Afghanistan. The incomplete information, tied to what I know about fighter pilots, led to that conclusion. But I don’t have a lot of information on that.
The current spy scandal is still a mystery to me. We shall see what happens.
Aug 28, 2004 - 1:33 pm 71. M. Simon:JM,
So you mean if a spy takes money for his efforts his only motivation is money?
That is a very narrow reading of human nature. I suppose where Jews are concerened you have a point.
BTW for the sarcasm impaired (and you know who you are) the last sentence was meant with the utmost of dripping sarcasm.
Actually John I’m Jewish. I didn’t get my Zionist Conspiracy Check this month. Probably the poor quality of the intel I submitted. Putz. (BTW that is French for what a nice guy and clear thinker you are. It is amazing how much one little French word can convey.) And my condolences to your other brain cell.
To think I was once of the opinion you had your head screwed on straight.
And BTW I’m honored to have a real Iran expert follow my post. Michael Ledeen.
Honored to even be on the same page.
Simon
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 1:53 pm 72. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Here’s another possibility. Someone just decided to provide this information out of the goodness of their heart. So they pick AIPAC as the most obvious place to find an Israeli. So they give someone some information who may have no idea what to do with it.
Many years ago, in a place far away, I found myself in the middle of one of these – unintended courier. I’m sure the KGB got totally confused (they were not involved but were watching) – do they have an FOIA so I can see the picture they took?
But if Michael says there’s nothing that isn’t common knowledge, then it doesn’t make any sense. And even if Mossad was spying on the US (they claim they gave it up after Pollard, but who knows what that means), AIPAC seems like a very lousy cover. Because of its reputation, people imagine that Mossad is some huge spy operation, but actually it is very small (it’s also not the only external intelligence organization in Israel – or it didn’t used to be).
Aug 28, 2004 - 1:59 pm 73. Swopa:Thanks for your response, Michael.
Just for the record, then, in addition to “Whether or not there were other meetings” besides the one in Rome in December 2001, you wouldn’t have any knowledge of other actions beyond lobbying that those parties took to influence U.S. policy?
Because if I remember the timeline right, it was just after then that the forged documents about Iraq intending to purchase uranium from Niger turned up in Rome, and there’s been some ugly whispering about a possible connection.
Aug 28, 2004 - 2:13 pm 74. Terrye:I smell a rat.
Considering the fact that the mullahs have promised to “vomit Zionist Entity” from the region as soon as they obtain the means to do so it is not surprising the Israelis would want information. As for the socalled analyst and the investigation I think we should wait for details. This may have more to do with covering Mr. Kerry’s ass than espionage.
And Coisty when you consider that the French told the Brits about Saddam trying to purchase illegal materials, [knowing full well we also would receive that information] and that the Germans said that Saddam was on the way to producing a nuclear device and that the Russians said Saddam was planning terrorist attacks in the US I would say that plenty of people were more than willing to influence our policies.
And btw from everything I have seen of late if we had to chose between the Canadian government and Israeli gpvernment for an ally, I would pick Israel. Pity really considering how many nice Canadians there are.
Aug 28, 2004 - 2:50 pm 75. M. Simon:JM,
I used to have discussions over at LGF with a virtual shipmate (same Navy) Ranbutan. In fact he and I were nukes. Same Navy different ships different times.
You can read some of his and my more inflamatory stuff here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4507
However, like you Jews tended to unhinge him a bit. As far as I can tell other than honoring me as a “shipmate” he never got over his Jew craziness.
I used to give him hell about it the same as I’m giving you.
If you follow history (and America is no different) Jews pretty much can expect nothing from the world except at best indiffernce and at worst murder. It has been this way for a very long time and I’m not bitchin about it. Sorry to say the goyim have been culling the weak and stupid and those without courage from our herd for a very long time. And despite the suffering we are better for it.
But at heart we are no different than any other humans. What makes us different is that the world has forced us to look out for ourselves. So we do. Because your attitude is just the first step on the way to the ovens, or the gallows, or the beheadings or whatever.
The world has made us what we are and I for one am proud of Moshe Dyan, Mickey Marcus, Albert Einstein, Hyman Rickover , Jonas Salk, Friedman (the WW2 Naval code breaker), etc.
But like the Brits of Empire days, the Jews do not have the power to control the world. Survival then is dependant on information. From inside and outside the halls of power.
Now my understanding is that since Pollard no Israeli spies in America are Jewish. Too dangerous. Politically, socially, etc. So if the Mossad wants to know what is going on it buys a non-Jew. As is well known they are quite often for sale.
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 28, 2004 - 2:52 pm 76. michael ledeen:Thanks Swopa,
Please keep in mind that I have a day job at AEI, that just now consists mainly in writing a book about Naples, and for the past few months I’ve been working on a screen play with the keeper of this blogging flame. I don’t have time or inclination to follow all the lobbying efforts, and I think even if I did, I’d need a supercomputer to keep track of it all.
I’m sure there’s been lots of it; there always is.
I’ve had a fairly narrow focus on terrorism, as you know: I’ve been mainly concerned about Iran, because I agree with the State Dept that Iran is the major sponsor of terrorism nowadays, and because I believe that America should be supporting democratic revolution in Iran, terrorism or no terrorism, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb. So I’ve been one of the lobbyists, right? I’ve been writing advocacy pieces, imploring the govt to be more aggressive and to support the Iranian people.
In the course of these past few years of writing about Iran, I’ve met lots of Iranians, and they’ve told me lots of stories. Most of them turned out to be false (surprise!), and I’ve discussed a lot of the claims with people in town, both in and out of govt. Those discussions often turn toward the policy question, and so I’ve learned a lot about who thinks what.
But, just as when I was in the govt and reading lots of classified information, I find that most of the important information is publicly available. It is rare that “secret” information changes the picture of the world. Which in a way is disappointing–I was very excited at the beginning because I thought I’d finally learn the real truth about the world, only to find that it was already out there–but is quite encouraging to those who believe in democracy. If you work hard enough, you can find out the important things.
with that in mind, let me try gently to correct one misconception that I think you’ve bought: the story of Iran-Contra is NOT the story of “rogue” operations; it’s the story of people doing very stupid things. I wrote a book about it that I wanted to call “Worse Than a Crime,” from Talleyrand’s wonderful description of one of Napoleon’s idiocies: “it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.” Notice that nobody ever was prosecuted for any “criminal” activity save for cheating on income tax (one person), failing to declare a security fence as income (one other person, O. North) and “making false statements to Congress,” which had never been used against govt officials before and which, if applied even-handedly, would probably put every public official behind bars.
North’s operations were known to anyone, in the executive branch, in congress, in the media, who wanted to know about them. They were approved by most of the leaders, and those who didn’t approve, didn’t fight very hard to stop them.
Government isn’t as interesting as the movies make it out to be. Most of what happens is slow, boring, grinding debate in interagency meetings, then transferred to collective memos, and finally resolved by the president.
The very idea that information about the endless policy debate is so sensitive, that putting it in the hands of some foreign government somehow compromises national security, is so fanciful that it makes me wonder–really–how bigtime journalists have the nerve to write it without challenging it.
Finally, in my experience, when the FBI has a real case against somebody, they don’t send press releases about it. They arrest the guy and prosecute him. Nine times out of ten, these leaks come from people who have struck out, who don’t have a case, who have no grounds to make an arrest, and who can’t indict that particular ham sandwich.
Aug 28, 2004 - 3:39 pm 77. John¬©:Hope I haven’t missed a comment that makes mine redundant, but let me note that State/FBI/CIA, et al aren’t exactly friendly to the Bush administration. In my experience (and especially my dealing with State and Pentagon in Islamic states during this election cycle) I’d say this ‘leak’ is deliberately designed and intended to hurt Bush. It’s politics. For those who weren’t paying attention, the Clintons spent the final years of that administration stuffing the bureaucracy–especially Pentagon, State and the spook services– with their people and given Fed regulations, these people are often difficult to dislodge without a strongly partisan push. Bush made a decision early in his administration to be bipartisan and not fire–or move aside–the Democrats appointed and promoted by Bill. Now Bush is paying a terrific price for this poor decision.
I’ve talked to local US officials in the ME, Pakistan and Afghanistan over the last three years and I’m continually shocked by the overwhelming proportion of Dems in these services (including reps of the Army War College.) This is highly unusual. When I worked for State in Afghanistan/Pakistan under Reagan, the Carter people were cashiered…quickly and cleanly. There were no mixed messages coming from US folks in these countries…everyone was on target, on topic and ready to support fully the Reagan doctrine. Loyalists. Not so under Bush; not in Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan. Big mistake.
This ‘outing’ of an Israeli mole strikes me as a well-timed and cynical effort to discredit Bush by Democrats in the spook establishment to take the public’s mind of the current Kerry controversy. It’s not only ‘bad for the Jews,’ it’s bad for Bush, Israel and the US. This is the kind of news only Terry McC, Kerry, Iran and Al Q’aeda could love.
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:14 pm 78. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Michael Ledeen
I share your goals. What I don’t know, and no doubt you have better information on this, and what it would take to overthrow that government. In general, that tends to be very difficult. Totalitarian states (which does not perfectly yet describe Iran) get that way to avoid overthrow. The Iranian government appears to be happily executing or imprisoning threats as they appear.
So here’s the question: can that government be overthrown before it acquires nuclear capability (which I suspect it already has in the form of HEU – from a bunch of HEU to a bomb is a trivial effort of machining)?
Can we wait until after Iran reaches a state of having a few nukes and a working production line to attempt an overthrow?
Iranian exiles, of course, all have their own perceptions, but one wonders how many people who would be involved have experience with such actions.
M. Simon says
However, like you Jews tended to unhinge him a bit. As far as I can tell other than honoring me as a “shipmate” he never got over his Jew craziness.
Would you care to explain that? I’ve got no problem with Jews – quite the opposite. Or do you mean I unhinge your virtual shipmate? And I have long admired Israel for its pluckiness and miraculous victories?
I let things fall where they fall. I’m not sure what set you off on this tangent, so I can hardly discuss why I disagree with you.
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:15 pm 79. lindenen:“North’s operations were known to anyone, in the executive branch, in congress, in the media, who wanted to know about them. They were approved by most of the leaders, and those who didn’t approve, didn’t fight very hard to stop them.”
S did Reagan know? Iirc, Reagan claimed to not know. So did Reagan just not want to know?
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:41 pm 80. Terrye:I am all for bipartisanship, but maybe Bush should fire some people. This is one leak too many and serves no purpose other than the political.
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:41 pm 81. Samuel:Roger
I became physically ill when I first heard about and then received partial affirmation to this story. While I agree that we must wait for all the details, I’m going to be damn honest about this. Another American Jew showing greater allegiances to Israel than our very own country is the last damn thing this American Jew (me) needs to deal with, (and I would hope any Jew for that matter), and if he is tied to “neo-conservatives”, then all the worse for sure. America is Israel’s greatest ally and hope , this is STUPID!
What will make me even sicker will be if I hear one word of justification coming from another American, especially if Jewish, somehow condoning this as justifiable, good, or that it is a small thing and does not really matter. Egads Roger, heaven bear me up if this turns worse!
Aug 28, 2004 - 4:57 pm 82. Lawrence:I posted a message from John Loftus (he emailed me and asked me to post it for him) after I spoke to him this morning. In bold above.
I emailed him the posts below to review.
Yglesias, Josh Marshall, Rozen and company have been formulating a story about the “Niger forgeries” and Ledeen, Perle, Feith and co. for months and they state that this “Israeli spy” story is directly related to it, via Iranian policy. To be published shortly in the The Washington Monthly.
I’d appreciate it if Michael Ledeen could check out these links as well and give us his feedback.
Here they are with some brief excerpts included.
FIRST POST below is most important and comprehensive –
War and Peace Weblog -
Laura Rozen
The FBI investigation.
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001067.html
Matt Yglesias
Spies in the Pentagon
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/08/spies_in_the_pe.html
The Israeli Spy Story Why is it Breaking Now?
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2004/08/the_israeli_spy_in_the_pentagon_why_is_the_story_breaking_now.php
Talking Points Memo
Josh Micah Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_22.php#003364
Aug 28, 2004 - 5:01 pm 83. Lawrence:Professor Juan Cole is a complete Arabist leftist to the extreme with anything having to do with the Arab world and Israel. However, his post on this is interesting and notably measured.
He’s anti-Likud not surprisingly but careful in approaching this topic.
He undoubtedly has some friends and respected peers on the left who are Jewish and while he wants to dismantle Israel and blame it for all ills, he appears to draw the line at forming grand conspiracies about Jews.
Israeli Spy in Pentagon Linked to AIPAC
http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109368172121878771
Aug 28, 2004 - 5:18 pm 84. Rick Ballard:Samuel,
According to Haaretz Franklin is not Jewish.
The Jerusalem Post has a bit more on the story.
Nice to see Joshy and Matty working together on a six points of separation story. I wonder if they’ve tied in John Paul II and the Dalai Lama yet.
Aug 28, 2004 - 5:28 pm 85. Samuel:Michael Ledeen
I sure hope that what you are saying is true and there is very little to this story other than flames being fanned for the sake of politics. As a newly branded “neo-conservative” (by my own very liberal brother), and a world full of angry ABB crazies, in truth nobody needs this and certainly I don’t.
While I appreciate your respectful response to Swopa, I wouldn’t assume him to be here to learn truth from you or anybody if I were you.
M. Simon
First, I respect everyone who posts here, but I did not know you were Jewish and always feel good when I receive knowledge of other Jews with conservative inclinations (very rare in my world).
Rich Ballard
Samuel… According to Haaretz Franklin is not Jewish.
Well hopefully Michael Ledeen is right and there is little to this story. That being said it is still about Neo-conservatives, Jews, and cynical espionage by a friendly nation that greatly needs our friendship and to whatever degree it is true self inflicted wounds is the last thing Jews need in this world. It gets wearisome to be honest with you.
Aug 28, 2004 - 5:48 pm 86. Rick Ballard:Samuel,
The story is about schmucks posing as faux journalists weaving a “tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Read through the links Lawrence so thoughtfully provided and play “find the verifiable facts” or search for named sources if you really want a giggle.
Watch the DNC/MSM leap on this like a cat on a Junebug while ignoring something that could be verified with a minimum of legwork like, oh, let’s see, how many iterations of Kerry’s Silver Star citation are there? Why are they each different from the other? How did the changes occur and who authorized them? Why is each iteration more complimentary of the illustrious senator?
I’d definitely put the FBI story on 48 hour watch before commenting further.
Aug 28, 2004 - 6:10 pm 87. michael ledeen:Thanks to John Moore, I’m flattered and grateful.
To Laurence, I agree with Rick Ballard that it’s smart to wait a coupla days and see if any real information comes out. There isn’t any in the links you sent me to, just theories by unnamed people. That isn’t good enough. I did think it was clever of the Rozen woman to lament on how unfair it would (might?) be to slime Larry Franklin, right after she had laid out all the theories on his alleged malefactions.
As for Marshall, well he slimed my daughter, accused her of having been named to a mid-level post in beautiful Baghdad where she could risk her life for six months because, although she had no qualifications for the job, she had influential parents. Did he ever talk to her? No. Did he bother to mention that she had an MBA and years of experience working in finance? No. So I can’t take seriously anything he says.
Final point, when a guy from the Washington Monthly called to talk to me last week, my assistant told him that I would talk to the Washington Monthly only after they publicly apologized to my daughter. So whatever they publish on this matter had no input from me.
Aug 28, 2004 - 6:31 pm 88. julie:Are we a cult?
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/231
Aug 28, 2004 - 7:24 pm 89. Raincoast:Wow, comments from the same neocon orientalist connected to the alleged spy’s meeting with an Iranian arms dealer on some irrelevant (politically, not intellectually) weblog — proof if any were needed that he, no doubt, cannot be connected to this latest scandal.
What’s very telling, however, is detractors of this story immediately assuming that (a) this story must be false; and (b) we can’t be dealing with very important information that got passed along. If (a), then who do we know (b)? But if (b) were true, isn’t this still a very serious crime? It wouldn’t matter if he passed along classified information to the Israelis without authorization about UFOs, it’s a breach of the intelligence community’s integrity and should be treated as such if national intelligence is to have any integrity.
Also interesting is that no reporters seem to care much about the fact that the FBI just “leaks” stories like this to the Washington press all teh time. I wonder what the motivation for the leak was — to embarrass the RNC, to prevent this getting covered up, to warn certain people to get out of the country or lay low, to make the point that some people in the intelligence community think we’re just a little bit too close to Israel, to smear someone someone doesn’t like, to get this out when everyone’s preoccupied with the Olympics and RNC? All sorts of possibilities, but the way no one seems to care that someone in the FBI leaked something that could potentially hamper an investigation is a bit disturbing. Anyhow, knowledge of the fact that the FBI has been doing wiretaps and hidden-camera spying on AIPEC should be making some people in Washington very nervous.
Aug 28, 2004 - 7:29 pm 90. DougR:It appears from the information (or at least the perception that there IS information) available so far that there is an unacceptable lack of systemic coherence in policy and in the policy process.
Who’s in control of the process? Is it just anybody who, on any particular day, can rally a modicum of weight to throw around in a random environment?
These questions apply to a number of US policy situations, not just this one.
It is not too difficult to understand that strength of leadership is an absolute necessity at this point in American, and world history.
So far the only resolute direction throughout the current “democracy in the Middle East” experiment has been that of undermining dissenting opinions and stifling any intelligent debate outside of narrow ideology. It’s been a waste of time and effort to do that unless the objective is to create an environment of NO POLICY.
Michael Ledeen, above, flat out states that there is NO US policy toward Iran right now.
Who benefits from that and where is leadership in this country going to come from in this administration if, for the last 3 years, it hasn’t shown up in sufficient measure to actually HAVE an Iran policy, or a Korean policy, or a job creation policy that’s longer than 2 words, etc, etc by now?
Aug 28, 2004 - 10:05 pm 91. Mike_Nargizian:Michael Ledeen
Do you know John Loftus?
Josh Marshal and the former Calpundit both write for Washington Monthly as well as other publications and have been working on this story for a while now. They were hot on the trail since the Niger “forgery”.
Raincoat
“all the time”? I’m more worried that the FBI and CIA seem more concerned about their own power and being PC by appeasing Islamists influences like the AMC, than catching terrorists.
This is the real exact question.
State/Pentagon power struggle in general and over Iran?
Payback for the Plame leak or Berger fiasco? (I doubt this)
Anti neo-con and Israeli forces on the Hill in FBI/State and CIA.
Noone knows if it was released at a point that could hamper the investigation? It could have been (likely) purposely released and timed.
The FBI’s approach appears to be to want people to come in and cooperate, (which they are so far) which says to me that they don’t have a smoking gun or anything high level worthy and hoping to use this to dig further. Barking loudly (the leak) but not having any bite behind them.
WHO are you referring to?
Aug 28, 2004 - 11:19 pm 92. Roberts:I’m having difficulty believing that AIPAC would allow itself to be compromised this way. Story still doesn’t make sense to me. Mr. Ledeen’s contributions are always much appreciated.
Aug 28, 2004 - 11:21 pm 93. Dan Darling:Apologies in advance to Roger et al. for the length of this one.
Lawrence:
Juan Cole believes that Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin desire the current Iranian regime ended not out of any legitimate security concerns (their nuclear program or that the surviving al-Qaeda brass is living it up at resort towns along the Caspian) or the Islamic “Republic’s” draconian stance on human rights, but rather because they want Iran out of the way so that Israel can reoccupy southern Lebanon.
If that isn’t a Jewish conspiracy theory, like Cole’s still-unrepudiated belief that there *must* be an Israeli connection to what happened at Abu Gharib or his hopes that revelations over pre-war US intelligence on Iraq will bring down AIPAC and his repeated denunciations of the very good work that comes out of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the American Enterprise Institute as little more than Likud propaganda, I’m not sure what the hell is. And don’t even me started on his pet belief than accounts of foreign fighters inside Iraq are nothing more than an elaborate ruse to lay the groundwork for future US wars against Syria and Iran …
I’ve always regarded Cole as being a more benign incarnation of Saad al-Faqih (for those unfamiliar with him, Google his name and then Google “embassy bombing” next to it): somebody who provides reasonably good information as far as hard news go (if you want to know the ins and outs of Saudi jihadi circles, al-Faqih’s your man and is in many cases more reliable than the Saudi press) but is completely unable to view the world outside his own repugnant little ideological box.
DougR:
I’m not Michael Ledeen, though I admire him greatly, but I hope I can at least help answer this last one concerning an Iran policy:
“Who benefits from that and where is leadership in this country going to come from in this administration if, for the last 3 years, it hasn’t shown up in sufficient measure to actually HAVE an Iran policy, or a Korean policy, or a job creation policy that’s longer than 2 words, etc, etc by now?”
Well, to be fair, the Kerry administration does appear to have some kind of an Iran policy that appears to mirror that of the Europeans, i.e. one of appeasement.
Back in 1997 when Khatami was “elected,” all the talking heads hailed it as a triumph for moderation inside Iran and we started trying to “engage” them. If any of that worked, there appears to be no recognizeable sign of it, as according to the vaunted 9/11 commission Iran had an open-door immigration policy with respect to al-Qaeda fighters going to and fro from Afghanistan. 8-10 of those fighters were “the muscle” on 9/11. But you’ve probably heard all this before.
After 9/11, the US stomps the Taliban and half the al-Qaeda leadership flees to Pakistan, the other half to Iran. From there, they start masterminding all manner of nasty things against us, which is one of the things that Ledeen and people like him have been instrumental in bringing to the attention of the general public. Now obviously, if Iran (or the real folks running the show inside of it) are in cahoots with al-Qaeda that would require a change in the 1997 “engagement” policy, yes? Oh, and did I mention that they brutalize their own populace and are building nukes?
Perchance you don’t believe me on the al-Qaeda stuff and consider Ledeen too “neocon” for your liking, you might want to consult the statements of top Spanish anti-terrorism Judge Garzon, who has said quite plainly that the al-Qaeda leadership is currently being run out of Iran. He also opposed the war in Iraq, which should make him sufficiently “clean” as a foreign source in anti-war circles.
Now Bush, as I understand it, is personally very supportive of changing US policy towards Iran and I believe that there’s a bill currently making its way through the corridors of power that would send a definite message to the mad mullahs on this score. The problem is that not everybody in government (State, for example) sees the error of the previous policy or worse wants to go the way of the Europeans, who have this idiotic idea that further economic engagement with Iran is going serve as a deterrence against Iran using terrorism, at least against Europeans. In Europe, that is, as there have yet to be any apparent consequences for Iran’s backing of terrorist groups in attacks against European nationals in Iraq. And Spain, seeing how the two masterminds behind 3/11, Amer Azizi and Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, are said to be shacking it up in Iran these days.
There are also a disturbing number of useful fools out there who don’t view Iran’s nuclear program or ties to terrorism as a real threat. Now add all those sources of resistance to the burning desire in certain quarters to conduct a Soviet-style purge against anyone within anything resembling neocon sympathies in or out of government these days if they could (and if I were the conspiracist sort I’d say that this whole Franklin stuff is the latest effort on that score) and you get a pretty good idea of why we don’t have an Iran policy. There are people who would very much like for us to have one, Ledeen IMO being one of them, but as you can see there is still a lot of resistance for them to overcome in order to get us on that track.
Mike_Nargizian:
“I’m more worried that the FBI and CIA seem more concerned about their own power and being PC by appeasing Islamists influences like the AMC, than catching terrorists.”
Hehehe. If Bush does lose in November and the neocons are purged, one wonders what the government agencies that have spent the better part of the last 3 years fighting one another are going to end up doing. Maybe then they can focus on the reals threats facing the country, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Aug 29, 2004 - 12:03 am 94. M. Simon:What’s very telling, however, is detractors of this story immediately assuming that (a) this story must be false;
I don’t assume it is false. I say the idea that the MOSSAD was using AIPAC as a courrier doesn’t pass the laugh test.
and (b) we can’t be dealing with very important information that got passed along.
According to reports it was classified as Confidential.
Above that are Secret. Top Secret. and code word.
According to the US classification system confidential material is not very important. Not of no importance. Just not much.
If (a), then who do we know (b)?
Qui bono?
But if (b) were true, isn’t this still a very serious crime? It wouldn’t matter if he passed along classified information to the Israelis without authorization about UFOs, it’s a breach of the intelligence community’s integrity and should be treated as such if national intelligence is to have any integrity.
By that measure jay walking ought to merit the death penalty. Its a crime isn’t it? Some people get the death penalty for crimes. Letting jay walkers go free impacts people’s adherence to the laws of our great nation. So jaywalkers ought to be put to death.
Is this kind of logic the best you can do?
Where were you on Sandy Berger? I thought he ought to be prosecuted for known serious breeches of security.
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 29, 2004 - 6:56 am 95. Mike_Nargizian:Regarding Juan Cole -
For the best fisking of the Arabist Mentality of Juan Cole, MEast “intellectuals” of Islamist/Pan Arabist and Leftist “Dragonman” mentality in the West (provide filtered Intellect Cover) read
“Across the Bay” by Tony Badran a US Lebanese National getting his Doctorate in MEast Studies -
COLE NIDRE
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/06/cole-nidre_21.html
BURNING COLE – Mentality on Iraq
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/07/burning-cole.html
PORTRAIT OF THE DRAGONMAN (Intellects Who Provide Filtered Cover to the West)
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/07/portrait-of-dragoman.html
DARFUR IN ARABIST MENTALITY
Arabist Mind – Deir Yassin to Darfur
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/08/arabist-mind.html
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/08/when-silence-is-golden.html
Trifecta from Hell – UN, Arab League, Colon Powell
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/07/trifecta-from-hell.html
SACRILICIOUS (Cole on Grads wearing Hamas unis at UCI Grad Ceremony)
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_beirut2bayside_archive.html
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/07/end-of-islam.html
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_beirut2bayside_archive.html
Tony is supposed to do a post on Cole’s posts on Abu Ghraib which IMO were disgusting and notably IMMEDIATE, casting the aspersion at Israel, but cleverly quoting others for his reader’s fyi, notably Al Jazeera. This led me to get into a tiff with Josh Marshall over this on how he could still recommend Juan based on this disgusting / obvious libel?
Marshall’s Jewish and a far leftist but this was beyond the pale.
Here are Cole’s posts with dates on Abu Ghraib -
Media Backspin – Blaming Israel for Abu Ghraib
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2004/05/blaming_israel_.html
Aug 29, 2004 - 7:33 am 96. Mike_Nargizian:Dan Darling
Also Cole believes Sharon wants a weak Middle East so Israel can keep 50% of the West Bank, I don’t know about Lebanon? Typical attitude of the Leftist mantra.
However, there is no doubt that getting Syria and Hezballah out of Lebanon is a goal of neo-cons like Ajami and others.
Aug 29, 2004 - 7:38 am 97. M. Simon:John Moore,
I see a double standard at work. i.e. Pollard ought to be punished more severely than others who committed the same crime. Why?
Pollard had repeatedly said that money was not his motive. Yet you think that he did what ever he did for money alone (as if paying me to design computers is proof that I’m not in love with my job). You keep repeating that in the face of Pollard’s own statements of his motivation. That is a typical anti-jew stereotype.
Your logic seems to go out the door where Jews are concerned. My buddy Ran was of the same mind set. “Jews – wonderful people. Smart, good generals. Now tell me why they will do anything for money? Any way they are too powerful. ”
Nothing new. Rickover (who doesn’t discuss it much) had a lot of problems with the Naval Officer Corps because of his religion.
Do Jews have power all out of proportion to their numbers? Sure. But we got it the old fashioned way. We earned it.
Jews are about .1% of the world’s population yet they got well over 10% of the science and economics Nobels. I don’t think Nobels for science and economics are for sale. That means that Jews are around 100 times more effective than average. That is a pretty big advantage. How did it come about?
I think our secret is that the world keeps killing off our dummies, en mass. A pretty high price for the accomplishment don’t you think? Doesn’t say much for the world either. Monkeys.
Let me tell you about Jews in America.
Around 1900 it was said that for a Jew to get a job he had to be twice as good as a “white man”. Trouble is the Jews of that era were not content to be twice as good. They became 5, 10, 20 times as good.
Guess what? Now when a Jew shows up for an interview there is a presumption of quality. Unfair? You bet. But it was earned. And still is. By hard work.
–==–
Steal this sig:
There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
The Ads: Video links
Aug 29, 2004 - 8:06 am 98. Mike_Nargizian:Good post Simon.
Btw, if only Jews could break the limit on them in the NBA!!
What’s up with that?
And how the hell did so many Italians own baseball’s glory in the 50’s and 60’s?
And how the hell did the Latins break up the blacks and Italians dominance there?
And who the hell is favoring the Asians getting into top Northwestern Universities?
Aug 29, 2004 - 8:45 am 99. Dan Darling:Mike_Narzgizian:
Wanting Syrian to end its colonial project in Lebanon is one thing and is completely consistent with neocon beliefs (whatever one may think of them) about spreading democracy in the Middle East. Wanting them out so that Israel can take over (or at least gobble up the south) is another matter entirely.
But claiming that the only reason that Ledeen or Rubin could possibly desire a change towards a more open government in Iran so that Israel can reconquer southern Lebanon is nothing short of patently absurd.
Aug 29, 2004 - 8:54 am 100. Mike_Nargizian:DAN DARLING -
Has Cole actually said that the neo-cons want them out so Israel can gobble it up?
My guess is despite his pathology towards Israel he was likely smart enough not to state that?
However, he likely said that the Likudnicks want a more dominant Christian presence there, or a “puppet government” of neo-cons, Israel and the US. I wonder has he EVER referred to this government as a Syrian puppet government?
SIMON -
Let me clarify though. I personally think Pollard (and I’m no expert on the topic) was a 2nd rate crazy who was looking for some glory and got overzealous in doing what he thought was right for Israel. He got to be a big shot and make some dough, but the dough was likely much less important as you state, and I agree, other than it fed into his image of being a bigtime important “James Bond” and doing some good for Israel and what he thought was right.
However, your post on the stereotypes nonetheless is a good one.
Aug 29, 2004 - 9:05 am 101. Raincoast:M. Simon wrote:
“I don’t assume it is false. I say the idea that the MOSSAD was using AIPAC as a courrier doesn’t pass the laugh test.”
Could it be that Franklin was using AIPAC to advance his own political agenda, that AIPAC was interested in information to develop lobbying strategies, or that Israel was using Franklin as a double-checking mechanism to make sure that what they were getting from the top was indeed based on all the things the Pentagon knew? I’d think any of thsee are possible.
“‘and (b) we can’t be dealing with very important information that got passed along.
According to reports it was classified as Confidential.
Above that are Secret. Top Secret. and code word.
According to the US classification system confidential material is not very important. Not of no importance. Just not much.”
Some reports say confidential, some secret, some top secret. This is probably a case of sloppy journalism or confusing thrid-hand sources. However, I have seen reports that stated the matter at hand was a “National Security Presidential Directive” that was top secret.
Why are you so interested in dismissing this as not very important?
“‘If (a), then who [sic] do we know (b)?’
Qui bono?”
“who” was a typo and should be “how”, as I think you guessed. Who benefitted? Who knows, it could be one of a number of sources. How is that relevant to my question?
“‘But if (b) were true, isn’t this still a very serious crime? It wouldn’t matter if he passed along classified information to the Israelis without authorization about UFOs, it’s a breach of the intelligence community’s integrity and should be treated as such if national intelligence is to have any integrity.’
By that measure jay walking ought to merit the death penalty. Its a crime isn’t it? Some people get the death penalty for crimes. Letting jay walkers go free impacts people’s adherence to the laws of our great nation. So jaywalkers ought to be put to death.
Is this kind of logic the best you can do?”
Here you are being ridiculous. Purposely providing classified (or perhaps top secret) information to a thrid party is an inexcuseable crime. This is why there are small fines for jaywalking and big prison terms for spying.
“Where were you on Sandy Berger? I thought he ought to be prosecuted for known serious breeches of security.”
So did I.
Aug 29, 2004 - 9:55 am 102. Raincoast:Mike wrote:
“‘all the time’? I’m more worried that the FBI and CIA seem more concerned about their own power and being PC by appeasing Islamists influences like the AMC, than catching terrorists.”
People leaking classified information for political purposes is not to be tolerated. People leaking it for the political or strategic purposes of other governments all the more so.
“‘All sorts of possibilities, but the way no one seems to care that someone in the FBI leaked something that could potentially hamper an investigation is a bit disturbing.’
Noone knows if it was released at a point that could hamper the investigation?”
And, should this be true, it would make teh leaker(s) hypocrits guilty perhaps of something similar to the target(s) of this investigation.
“It could have been (likely) purposely released and timed.
The FBI’s approach appears to be to want people to come in and cooperate, (which they are so far) which says to me that they don’t have a smoking gun or anything high level worthy and hoping to use this to dig further. Barking loudly (the leak) but not having any bite behind them.”
This is a good point — it’s possible that this leak was tactical and not un-authorized.
“‘Anyhow, knowledge of the fact that the FBI has been doing wiretaps and hidden-camera spying on AIPEC should be making some people in Washington very nervous.
WHO are you referring to?’”
Specifially, those interested in or already using leaked Chalabiesque intelligence to lobby a case for war that those in power and may not fully see, but may be more inclined to see with a public and press clamoring for action. More generally, everyone in the IC who thinks it’s fine to leak classified information to lobbyists to advance a political agenda.
Aug 29, 2004 - 10:16 am 103. Dan Darling:Mike_Nargizian:
Here’s one of Cole’s quotes on the subject:
http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040721Cole.shtml
“The Likud lobby in Washington, especially Michael Ledeen, Michael Rubin and other warmongers. They want the Tehran regime overthrown in part because it stands in the way of an Israeli annexation of southern Lebanon, with the Litani river as the long-sought prize.”
So there you have it.
Aug 29, 2004 - 10:55 am 104. DougR:Dan,
Thanks for trying to answer just one of my questions. My overarching concern though, is that of the absence of real leadership from those specifically charged with exhibiting it.
Your initial point, “…as according to the vaunted 9/11 commission Iran had an open-door immigration policy with respect to al-Qaeda fighters going to and fro from Afghanistan. 8-10 of those fighters were “the muscle” on 9/11″, is interesting taken in the context that ALL the fighters were also HERE in this country at a time when the administration was receiving and failing to address quite explicit warnings.
I hardly see how shifting to Iran as a facilitator addresses the lack of leadership evidenced on this end.
Next you assert that the Taliban were “stomped”. The current state of Taliban activity in Afghanistan suggests that your version of “stomped” is more a relative term. Again, there was no real leadership evidenced in the US efforts in Afghanistan. “Stomped” as a rhetorical device is not a demonstration of leadership. After the attacks on 9/11, a 10 year-old would have been eqaully as decisive in “stomping” the Taliban. Veering off to Iraq without ALSO having a clear course of completion in Afghanistan was a next result of a vacuum in leadership.
For the rest of your attempt to answer just one of my questions I can only wonder if you’ve adopted the so-called Chewbacca defense as concerns the fact that after 3 years there is still a glaring, entire lack of leadership on policy and the policy process. The fate of policy has been thrown to the wind and has been left up to opportunists to blow it in narrow-minded gusts of shallow and short-term fits resembling only the desire to start “stomping” on things. If we were to decide to “stomp” on Iran, any Al Qaeda leadership there can flit right back to Afghanistan or into Iraq since one of those doors has been left wide open for them and the other was newly created as a result of poor leadership. Then we’ll have directly inflamed another LARGE population for zero positive result.
Of course there will be those who have their ideology to hang on to who would claim “progress” was made but that bubble would be very thin indeed.
A change in policy on Iran is all well and good but the problem there is that there is NO policy to change from. The lack of leadership is the core problem.
Aug 29, 2004 - 11:16 am 105. Dan Darling:DougR:
Well, I tried. Do I get any points for that?
On a more substative note …
The administration, as I am given to understand it, wasn’t receiving explicit warnings concerning the hijackers who were here in-country or what they were intending to do. Various government agencies were, but that was prevented from reaching the senior levels due to a variety of reasons. The famed August 2001 PDB certainly doesn’t contain anything resembling a warning of 9/11, rather it deals with scenario resembling that which Pakistani terrorists did attempt in 1999 in a successful effort to free leaders imprisoned in India suggests that al-Qaeda might attempt a similar operation with the intention of trying to rescue Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman or other imprisoned ultras.
I brought up the issue of Iran’s role as a facilitator of 9/11 here because it represents the utter and complete failure of the previous “engagement” policy. So the fact that a number of people, including the good folks at the Council on Foreign Relations, are still clamoring for a re-implementation of that policy should tell you a thing or to. Far too much of the foreign policy establishment in Washington is wedded to this idea that we can “make a deal” with the mad mullahs, while at least part of the US government appears to understand that we have to live in the real world.
Current Taliban activity in Afghanistan is a direct consequence of their safe haven in northern Pakistan, a situation that exists for a number of reasons, *not* the situation inside Afghanistan according to most polls of the general populace. The Afghan people certainly don’t appear to be clamoring for the return of Mullah Omar (or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar) anytime soon. The US defeated the Taliban as a standing military and political force inside Afghanistan, destroyed al-Qaeda’s training infrastructure, and killed or captured a sizeable number of Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders. You may not regard these actions as demonstrating leadership, in which case we have a difference of opinions on the subject.
Concerning US Afghan policy, I would argue that we have a far better policy there through the gradual strengthening of the Afghan government, expanding Karzai’s authority, and reining in the warlords. It’ll take time, but I think it’s fair to say that we’re moving gradually in that direction.
Your claims that the entire policy-making arena in Washington has been ceded to the warmongers is, I would argue, demonstrably untrue if one takes the time to examine the people now making or advising on policy issues, even those icky neoconservatives. Who knows, you might be surprised with what you might find there. I would also point out that I don’t favor military action against Iran right now for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it isn’t logistically feasible. As for the al-Qaeda leadership, if they flee to Iraq or Afghanistan they will be regarded as bandits and fugitives. Inside Iran, by contrast, they are honored guests. Where would you like to be if you were a prospective terrorist mastermind?
One could also just as easily argue that it takes a great deal of adherence to ideology to argue that nothing has been definitively accomplished and no leadership demonstrated over the last 3 years.
Actually, I would consider the current lack of an Iran policy as a sign of progress, as, if nothing else, it represents a move away from the misguided policy of “engagement” that has been all the rage ever since Khatami’s “election.”
Aug 29, 2004 - 12:01 pm 106. Swopa:(NOTE: For Michael Ledeen, if he’s still reading this far)
Michael,
Thanks again for your in-depth responses. I’ve now had a chance to read the new Washington Monthly article that people are talking about, as well as some of the earlier writings on this subject, and I’m a bit confused about a few things.
First, in an earlier comment in this thread, you said, “I’ve written about the one meeting with which I was involved, which was anything but a ‘rogue’ event, having been approved by the White House, the State Dept and the Pentagon.”
In an NRO column last August, though, you wrote about press reports of the initial meeting, “These talks were “unauthorized,” which apparently means that Colin Powell and George Tenet weren’t asked for permission beforehand” — a dismissive reference to claims that the State Dept. and CIA had complained about the contacts. If the WH and (especially) State had in fact both authorized the meeting, is there a reason you didn’t say so then?
The CIA, I guess, wouldn’t have approved in any event, since (as widely reported) it had issued “burn notices” forbidding contact with him. But if, as you say, the WH, State, and DoD are all in effect overruling the CIA’s advice, that’s an interesting, if minor story.
Second, in your comment, you add, “Whether or not there were other meetings, I have no knowledge,” but in your NRO column, you talk casually of “the Pentagon officials’ conversations” in the plural — and given your apparently frequent contact with both sides, as well as your acknowledged interest in the subject, is it really plausible that neither has ever mentioned to you if they met again? If the conversations were as honorable and praiseworthy as you contend, I’m perplexed about why they wouldn’t tell you.
In fact, I also see that Ghorbanifar has told both the Washington Monthly and Newsweek that there were extensive, continuing contacts. Was Ghorbanifar (whom Newsday has quoted you as calling honest and honorable) lying to both magazines?
Third, I guess the new and possibly controversial element introduced by the Washington Monthly piece is that the December 2001 meeting wasn’t just you, the DoD folks (Franklin and Rhode), Ghorbanifar, and his Iranian contacts — also taking part were the head of Italy’s military intelligence agency (SISMI) and the Italian defense minister, (The CIA is supposed to be in charge of any U.S. government contact with foreign intelligence agencies, and apparently didn’t know about this meeting. SISMI is also at the center of the controversy regarding the forged Iraq-Niger uranium documents.) Were the Italian officials really
Although he’s not explicitly named as a source, the Wash. Monthly appears to have gotten this information from the U.S. ambassador to Italy, Mel Sembler, since it describes Sembler having dinner with you and the Italian defense minister just days later, followed by events, conversations, and reactions that would be known only by Sembler — in short, the bulk of the article is told from his point of view. If anything indirectly attributed to him is false — such as the involvement of the Italian officials — did Sembler (described as a longtime friend of yours) lie to the Monthly’s reporters, or are they just fabricating what he apparently told them?
As you can see, there are a lot of tangled threads that make these “conversations” seem far less straightforward than you present them as being. Obviously, you’re under no obligation to submit to a rubber-hose interrogation on Roger’s blog just because you comment here — but if you could shed any light on any of these subjects, I would find it interesting, and I think others would as well. Thanks for any help you can give us.
Aug 29, 2004 - 12:49 pm 107. Swopa:A correction — the sentence above about “Were the Italian officials really…” should read, “Were the Italian officials really there?”
Aug 29, 2004 - 12:52 pm 108. DougR:Dan, I suspect that “explicit” for you would mean that an engraved invitation would be necessary.
The warnings did, in fact, point to efforts ongoing and in-country.
Other intelligence pointed to the use of aircraft as weapons.
I shouldn’t have to cover ground that is already well established that shows the level of threat that was ignored.
Should the facile nature of your assertions be taken as an insult to intelligence or just taken as the product of knee-jerk denial?
The lack of priority given to the well established threat from bin laden and al qaeda was a clear indication of the administration’s lack of leadership.
As far as stomping on Iran and watching al qaeda move into Iraq and back into Afghanistan, your view tends to leave out any concern for the aftermath of stomping on Iran….while Iraq and Afghanistan would still be left as failed, lawless states.
I hope you’re not going to come back and try to paint a rosey picture of the current situation in Afghanistan. On the one hand you raise the bar for “explicit” to the absurd while lowering the bar for progress in Afghanistan to a vague “gradual”. The facts on the ground are that Afghanistan is closer to being a failed state than one in which a theater production election will change the facts on the ground.
The question is not whether they would like to invite the return of Mullah Omar or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That is again a facile point…not even an argument.
I’d have to say that it’s quite a bit of mental contortion to think that no policy on Iran after 3 years is progress. As I said, a very thin bubble.
As far as engagement being a failed policy, it only became operationally so after the current administration prompted Iran to disengage through rash decisions that have been admitted to be based on “miscalculation”. Avenues to work along within a framework of engagement were automatically closed directly as a result of miscalculation.
Engagement with Pakistan seems to be acceptable to the administration while the same arguments could be made against it as you have made against Iran.
There’s also the very important aspect that the world community does not seem to enter into your argument. I’ve seen it said that we shouldn’t care what the rest of the world would think if we decided to just stomp on Iran. The last time a military power started stomping around without regard to world concensus, it did not work out too well for the stomper.
Aug 29, 2004 - 1:13 pm 109. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):M Simon Insults…
I see a double standard at work. i.e. Pollard ought to be punished more severely than others who committed the same crime. Why?
Do the crime, do the time. I don’t care if Pollard or a WASP – he gave away highly sensitive information to a foreign government. It was so eggregious that the head of the CIA threatened to quite of Pollard was released. Where have I advocated that Pollard be punished more severely [implied because he was Jewish].
Pollard had repeatedly said that money was not his motive. Yet you think that he did what ever he did for money alone (as if paying me to design computers is proof that I’m not in love with my job). You keep repeating that in the face of Pollard’s own statements of his motivation. That is a typical anti-jew stereotype. Geez, that’s both offensive and remarkably silly. It’s a typical modern spy stereotype. Pollard took the money. That he claims a different motivation is worth nothing. That he had a bizarre fantasy life argues that maybe he is right, but as I said, I had not studied Pollard. Doesn’t make any difference – give away SCI information that reveals informtion about intelligence gathering, along with operational US codes, and the only reason not to execute the guy is either he had something to trade or he was nuts enough not to fully understand his actions. I hold to both.
Your logic seems to go out the door where Jews are concerned. My buddy Ran was of the same mind set. “Jews – wonderful people. Smart, good generals. Now tell me why they will do anything for money? Any way they are too powerful. “
Care to tell me about my anti-Semitic logic.
And do you have any idea how highly offensive I consider your charges, especially since you have so little evidence to support them. I have gone through my life trying to treat people as they come – not as a part of a group with stereotypical characteristics or anything else. And for that I get called (indirectly) an anti-Semite.
Why do you do that? Are you one of those hyper-sensitive identity types who is just looking for the hint of a whif of a politically incorrect remark? Are you a Jewish Jesse Jackson?
Nothing new. Rickover (who doesn’t discuss it much) had a lot of problems with the Naval Officer Corps because of his religion.
Your point? What religion was Rickover?
Do Jews have power all out of proportion to their numbers? Sure. But we got it the old fashioned way. We earned it.
Your point?
Jews are about .1% of the world’s population yet they got well over 10% of the science and economics Nobels. I don’t think Nobels for science and economics are for sale. That means that Jews are around 100 times more effective than average. That is a pretty big advantage. How did it come about? The reasons of that success are pretty obvious. Why are you mentioning this? Do you brag a lot? Did you get one of the Nobels?
>i?I think our secret is that the world keeps killing off our dummies, en mass. A pretty high price for the accomplishment don’t you think? Doesn’t say much for the world either. Monkeys.
Monkeys? What the hell are you talking about – the rest of the world?
Let me tell you about Jews in America.
What for?
What I want to hear from you is an apology, not a bunch of bragging.
It is insulting that you think I am unaware of Jewish accomplishments.
What I want to hear from you is an apology, not a bunch of bragging.
I should not have to defend myself against charges of anti-Semitism – especially from someone new enough to this board to be unaware of my views, and who jumps to extremely offensive conclusions based on no evidence at all.
I come to this board because it is possible to discuss with people of diverse opinions in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
You have shattered that atmosphere.
Aug 29, 2004 - 2:19 pm 110. Mike_Nargizian:M Simon I agree with John Moore regarding your charges and rhetoric are way over the top. I don’t think anyone, or I didn’t, take his explanation as having anything to do with his being Jewish.
Also, if you leave a lot of messages, your continual message at the bottom of your posts makes the string very cumbersome and hard for people to follow constantly having to past it.
Mike
Aug 29, 2004 - 2:40 pm 111. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Thanks you, Mike
And by the way, I missed a number of his posts especially the short ones, which might have added to this misunderstanding.
Aug 29, 2004 - 3:03 pm 112. Mike_Nargizian:READ THIS LINK GONNA TURN OUT TO BE MUCH ADO ABOUT NADDDDDA
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/The_Spy_Allegations_-_Damage_Done.asp
Aug 29, 2004 - 5:53 pm 113. Roberts:M. Simon, I have often agreed with your postings here. However, I think these two paragraphs of yours are problematic:
—
“Pollard had repeatedly said that money was not his motive. Yet you think that he did what ever he did for money alone (as if paying me to design computers is proof that I’m not in love with my job). You keep repeating that in the face of Pollard’s own statements of his motivation. That is a typical anti-jew stereotype.
Your logic seems to go out the door where Jews are concerned. My buddy Ran was of the same mind set. “Jews – wonderful people. Smart, good generals. Now tell me why they will do anything for money? Any way they are too powerful. ”
—
Perhaps you think there has been an injustice in Pollard’s case. That’s within the rational positions in the subject. It is also rational that someone could believe that Pollard’s own statements of his motivation were not credible without having to involve his ethnicity. One could believe that Pollard was motivated by money – as so many criminals are motivated by money – without invoking his ethnicity. I do not see where Moore has even approached an anti-semitic line here.
Aug 29, 2004 - 6:37 pm 114. michael ledeen:Swopa,
i see you are bragging about your brilliance on your own web site. enjoy! but it doesn’t do much for your gravitas.
to take your little quibbles first: i referred to “conversations” in Rome because there were more than one. there. then. as i said, i don’t know about other meetings, although, like you, i’ve read about them.
you’re quite right, i should have mentioned state department approval of the meetings i attended in rome. thanks for pointing it out.
regarding the washington monthly article, the guy from the magazine who called my office, perhaps two days before the article was posted, that i would not talk to anyone from that magazine until they apologized for Marshall’s slander of my daughter.
i have no idea of their sources, and don’t care to speculate about them. the article itself is wildly inaccurate, but as they promise to have more to say, i’m going to wait a bit before commenting.
Aug 30, 2004 - 5:00 pm 115. Lawrence:Where is Swopa’s own website?
Ledeen is a pretty avid reader of weblog/internet sites apparently. I think that’s great and hopefully people in the present government are too.
Lawrence
Aug 30, 2004 - 10:55 pm 116. Lawrence:Found it. Here is a small taste of the real Swopa fully unleashed.
First, he reposts his post here to Ledeen.
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/235
He seemed more intelligent and measured on this weblog prior to me.
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/246?PHPSESSID=0c67306cd0f0eedc4659e2ca8e354c2b
And here is his post where he says 400,000 (LOL!) attended the protest rallies “peacefully” in NYC.
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/236
Maybe you guys should watch this video “When Anarchists Attack”
http://blindpig.blogs.com/outside_the_perimeter/2004/08/when_anarchists.html
Aug 30, 2004 - 11:20 pm 117. Lawrence:Here is his 1rst post http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/231 on him and Ledeen here.
Read the whole thing but here are a few excerpts below.
You getting an idea of the venom flowing out of him?
You can read the rest yourself.
Lawrence
Aug 30, 2004 - 11:33 pm 118. Lawrence:Swopa provided a link in 1 of those posts to a description of Ledeen.
He tells his readers –
Note that its written by –
Go ye and read how the head of Middle East studies at Brown describes Ledeen, with his crescendo at the end -
Aug 31, 2004 - 12:11 am 119. Swopa:Lawrence,
Your research effort is commendable, but it appears to have escaped your eagle eye that I’m not the only person who posts at that site. (A couple of the posts you quote were written by my co-bloggers — in fact, you even copied and pasted the attribution for one.)
And lest you criticize me for the company I keep (since I see guilt-by-association is a favorite tactic of yours), I’ll note that they’re the ones who set up the site, so it’s not like I can “fire” them.
I’m amused, by the way, that you find the quotes of mine which you highlighted in bold to constitute “venom.” Just imagine if I’d accused Roger or Michael of loving Saddam, or celebrating people’s deaths — the kind of accusations I receive regularly from the peanut gallery here.
How can you tolerate posting on such a hate-filled site?
Aug 31, 2004 - 7:38 am 120. Swopa:Michael,
Thanks for checking out our site. I had hoped that the site name and logo would be enough to advertise to all that gravitas would likely be found elsewhere, but perhaps not.
(Besides, gravitas is overrated, if you ask me — I’ve seen too many people in this world who have cultivated the appearance of gravitas to the exclusion of all else … no wit, no kindness, no competence, merely gravitas. Since some of them appear to occupy high governmental offices, you may have firsthand experience with these types.)
Anyway, to the matter at hand … you wish to defer comment on the Washington Monthly piece, and that’s certainly understandable. But you’ve remarked twice now about Joshua Marshall (and his cowriters) “sliming” or “slandering” your daughter, and that leaves me a little perplexed. Not that anyone can blame a parent for being protective of his children, but here’s the entire text of the article in question, as it pertains to your daughter:
Simone Ledeen is serving her country. She is the daughter of Michael Ledeen, the Iran-Contra luminary, AEI scholar, and all-around capo in the neocon mafia. She’s 29, a freshly-minted M.B.A., with little to no experience in war-torn countries. But as an advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad, she is, in essence, helping shape one quarter of that nation’s economy.
The reference to you is not especially objective, but the description of Simone seems rather tame. More generally, there’s also this:
By making partisan loyalty their primary criteria, the administration ruled out most of the people with experience in the field and restricted themselves to politically trustworthy Republicans, many of whom, though often well-meaning and admirably willing to serve their country in a very dangerous place, had little to no experience to prepare them for the challenges they’d encounter in Iraq.
So, for the record, the story does mention her MBA (contrary to your contention), as well as the risk and sacrifice involved in her service. Some ten paragraphs (1,100 words) and nine specifically named CPA employees after your daughter’s name is mentioned, there’s a general discussion of how some anonymous CPA staffers think “the younger Republicans in Iraq” were highly partisan and in over their heads — it’s a bit of a leap, but perhaps this is the basis for your objection.
In comparison, the Washington Post did a similar article a few months later — told largely from the perspective of your daughter, who is quoted extensively. She confirms that she was hired with few visible background checks after posting her resume at a right-wing think tank (the Heritage Foundation), and that she was underqualified for the work she was doing (“The young budget advisers are the first to admit that they weren’t the most qualified to be managing Iraq’s finances. ‘We knew we were overwhelmed. We wanted help,’ Ledeen said.”).
And instead of anonymous quotes, the critiques of partisanship and inexperience are on-the-record statements from named CPA sources — including a couple of specific harsh remarks about the budget office where your daughter worked.
So, although a parent’s overprotectiveness is virtually a divine right, I can see how the Washington Monthly would have a hard time understanding what they should apologize for. What did they say that wasn’t later confirmed by the Post (and even in some cases by your daughter herself)?
Aug 31, 2004 - 7:42 am 121. Lawrence:Thanks for the patronizing complement. And I realize fully that you’re not the only one.
Only 1 actually and I figured that it was your site though.
A ‘favorite tactic of mine’…. you deduced this from 1 posting? Do you use the same standards of evidence for your other theories? or just when you want to fight a strawman?
I haven’t noticed you receiving such commentary but I don’t get involved with this type of juvenile tit for tat.
That being said I liked your testing Ledeen in a respectful way which is why I was surprised to see how much more vituperative and over the top the site was.
And the USS Liberty post was not only virulent and vituperative, but weak.
And I find the post on “slow mo ethnic cleansing” was not only virulent but especially weak.
Further, its notable that the PLO has openly declared that the purpose of this war was to -
“bleed Israel to its knees, ruin its economy, discourage tourists (hurting Israelis & Palestinians), and causing Israelis to emigrate to other countries.”
I think that would qualify directly as “ethnic cleansing” much more so than building a few hundred apartments in an existing city of 30,000? EH?
Further, isn’t it notable that when Israel fights against the goals of terrorists with declared irredentist goals the only way you can by getting “dirty” yourself – fighting against a guerilla war – killing and defeating these ideals and terrorists all the time being checked by free newspapers, free political systema and an active Supreme Court -
Its not the Real Monsters that are the monsters, no, its the Israelis who are really monsters, because the monsters are actually ‘defending’ themselves from the Israelis irredentist goals, and we nor the Israelis realize this due to the “Zionist controlled World Media” which means we don’t really have a free media but the Arabs that actually do….
Remember, black is white and white is black…
“George do you understand truth now?”
Lawrence
Aug 31, 2004 - 8:27 am 122. Swopa:A ‘favorite tactic of mine’…. you deduced this from 1 posting?
Well, maybe 2 posts now, since you spend most of the last one discussing an item about the USS Liberty that I didn’t write.
I recommend that you address your complaints to the person who wrote it. (I can’t guarantee the civility of his replies, though.)
Aug 31, 2004 - 10:18 am 123. Howard Beale:http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/yellow-cake-and-black-shirts.html
For more on Michael Ledeen, above is a nice post on his work for SISMI.
Mr. Ledeen, you are a pathological liar and equivocator. You apparently believe in nothing but an empty void. Your Machiavellian beliefs are an affront to Judaism, Israel, America and any decent concept of home and country. By no means do you have everyone fooled.
You should really get some help. Perhaps your backers can pay for a team of top psychiatrists or maybe a monastary where you can devote your energies to finding meaning in your own life and not destroying it in others.
It’s not too late for you.
Aug 31, 2004 - 10:28 am 124. Swopa:Uhhh, thanks, Howard. Hope that was therapeutic for you.
Somehow, though, I doubt Mr. Ledeen will read that and think, “My gosh, he’s right! What has become of me?!”
I mean, how reflective would you be if someone addressed you like that? Wouldn’t you just likely think, “Geez, what a creep” and move on to something else?
Aug 31, 2004 - 10:36 am 125. Mike_Nargizian:Just mentioning Ledeen’s daughter was a clever swipe mixed in with direct nasty swipes at Ledeen. Your parse is just a typically lefty cute moral gamesmanship. You understand exactly what the story is you’re just interested in playing games, which I supposed lowers your ‘gravitas’ somewhat to people who aren’t completely partisan and otherwise interested in listening to your points.
Just the fact that you sought to argue the point about his daughter is pretty stupid and shows a propensity of nitpicking…. looking over at needlenose, makes me believe you’ve been making a good attempt at appearing truly moderate and measured here.
Mike
Aug 31, 2004 - 4:35 pm 126. Swopa:looking over at needlenose, makes me believe you’ve been making a good attempt at appearing truly moderate and measured here.
You insult me like that again, buddy, and there’s gonna be trouble.
Aug 31, 2004 - 5:26 pm 127. DougR:dougf
“Please let me in on the secret why this is such a BIG DEAL.
I think it gets to be a big deal when one considers the likelihood that it’s related to the killing of the MEK for Al Qaeda trade with Iran and/or the forged Niger documents.
I can see hesitation at wanting to hand over MEK folks to the mullahs even for some terrorists very much wanted in the US…woulda been nasty.
But the Niger forgeries are of great interest to…oh…millions of people.
One thing I’ve been wondering is, were the forgeries intentionally so sloppy or could it have been such a rush job that proper care was not given in their creation?
If intentional, a whole new set of questions arises.
Aug 31, 2004 - 6:15 pm