neo-conned
August 29, 2004 9:05 PM   Subscribe

neo-conned
"FBI espionage probe goes beyond Israeli allegations, sources say ... The linkage, if any, between the two leak investigations, remains unclear. But they both center on the office of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's No. 3 official."

Juan Cole pulls back the curtains on the neo-cons and Franklin here ... if you have friends or family in the US military is this the guy(s) you want calling the shots??
posted by specialk420 (60 comments total)
 
oh noes!!!!11
posted by reklaw at 9:15 PM on August 29, 2004


Would have been a great post at Devoter.com, don'tcha think?
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:11 PM on August 29, 2004


It's a very important story. Thanks for the link.
posted by digaman at 10:31 PM on August 29, 2004


The linkage, if any, between the two leak investigations, remains unclear. But they both center on the office of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith

Righto. It's unclear if anyone beats his wife, but but they are looking at his building.
posted by semmi at 10:41 PM on August 29, 2004


Well, we *could* wait until more details actually become available... or we could find flimsy excuses to link to more of Juan Cole's claptrap. Guess which has occurred.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:53 PM on August 29, 2004


Uggabugga's graphic depiction of the cast of characters and their relationships may be handy reference as this story evolves.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:55 PM on August 29, 2004


Analyst at center of spy flap called naive, ardently pro-Israel

In conversations about Franklin with his colleagues, one of the words that comes up again and again is "naive." He is described as an ideologue who believes wholeheartedly in the neo-conservative approach. "Everything by him is black and white," said someone who has worked with Franklin in the Pentagon. "He is a very nice person, very conservative, not at all arrogant," said the colleague, adding that one of the reasons he was brought into the Near East and South Asia desk was his political beliefs.

Franklin's political opinions are similar to those of his bosses - Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense, and William Luti, the deputy undersecretary of defense responsible for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs. Like them, Franklin supports the policy of acting to bring democracy to Arab regimes and build up pro-American allies in the Middle East.

But those who have worked with Franklin also say he was a bit extreme in his work patterns, attitude and behavior. They occasionally referred to him as "Planet Larry" as a way of expressing the extent to which he "lives in a world of his own," colleagues said.

People who have worked with Franklin believe that it was his trademark naivete that got him in trouble, saying Franklin was not aware of the severity of his activities, and so did not try to hide or mask them. Franklin visited Israel eight times while he served in the U.S. Air Force and worked at the Pentagon. Most of his visits appear to have been related to his reserve duty service as an officer dealing with international contacts. According to his resume, Franklin served as a reserve air force colonel between 1997 and 2004, working with the U.S. military attache in Tel Aviv. Beforehand he was involved in analyzing counter-intelligence in the air force.

Had the current accusations not come to light, Franklin's job at the Pentagon would have depended on the presidential elections, his coworkers said. If Democratic candidate John Kerry wins the next election, colleagues said, it's doubtful that Franklin will move up, due to his well-known political views.



Israel, Iran Trade Threats As FBI Investigates Spying

In recent weeks, Israel and Iran have stepped up their rhetoric. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told al-Jazeera Arab television network this month that "Iran is not Iraq -- we will not sit by idly if our nuclear reactor's installations are attacked."

Israeli defense and intelligence officials have said Iran's nuclear weapons development program, coupled with its Shihab-3 missile, which is capable of striking Israel, represent the most significant threat to Israel.

In a simulated test last Friday off the Californian coast, Israel's Arrow anti-ballistic missile system, which is designed to destroy or intercept short- and medium-range missiles, failed to stop a Shihab-3 and a Syrian Scud D, according to Israeli defense officials.

Analysts also said that because of AIPAC's alleged involvement, the Franklin case, if proved, could have a more damaging impact on U.S.-Israeli relations than the case of Jonathan J. Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who admitted to spying for Israel in 1987. Analysts said the case could also have a major impact on AIPAC. The group has 65,000 members "at the forefront of the most vexing issues facing Israel today: stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace," according to its Web site.

"The insinuation that AIPAC, an American Jewish lobby, is engaged in espionage is in some ways worse than Pollard, who as a single individual could be described as off-balance," said Alpher, the former Mossad official.

Equally damaging could be the perception that Israeli and American Jews are wielding disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy, said Oren, the historian.


On a sidenote, here's some old news to add some context:

Israel's role in China's new warplane

Until it was canceled in 1987, much of Lavi technological development was paid for by the United States. Ironically, the potential capability of F-10 fighters was cited by both the US Navy and Air Force as one of the future threats justifying the expenditure of billions on new tactical aircraft, such as the F-22, F/A-18F, and Joint Strike Fighter. The fact that possibly US-derived technology provided by an ally might be contributing to that potential threat is a delicate subject.

However, this is not the first time accusations of illegal technology have been made. A March 1992 report by State Department inspector general Sherman Funk, "Report of Audit: Department of State Defense Trade Controls", states that alleged Israeli violations of US laws and regulations "cited and supported by reliable intelligence information show a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers ... dating back to about 1983".

In the summer of 2000, the Washington Times reported that a memo circulating inside the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency told analysts they no longer had to gain input from the Defense Intelligence Agency before deciding whether controlled technology should be transferred to Israel. The DIA had compiled evidence that Israel had violated US export regulations by transferring missile, laser and aircraft technology to China.

Subsequently, when Israel tried to sell the Phalcon to India, the US government demanded that Israel limit arms exports. Israel was told that it must inform the US of all weapons transfers to 27 nations regarded as "countries of concern" such as China, India and Yugoslavia.

"Israel ranks second only to Russia as a weapons-system provider to China and as a conduit for sophisticated military technology, followed by France and Germany," stated a report this year by the US-China Security Review Commission, a panel established by Congress to examine security and economic relations between the two countries. "Recent upgrades in target acquisition and fire control, probably provided by Israeli weapons specialists, have enhanced the capabilities of the older guided missile destroyers and frigates" in the Chinese navy's inventory, it said.


Sometimes it's not so black and white, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend and sometimes the friend of my enemy is my friend, too, depending upon one or another advantage in the short term. With what little wisdom the world is ruled.
posted by y2karl at 11:46 PM on August 29, 2004


Why any of this is a surprise to anyone I simply don't understand. Lots of government secrecy plus a really strong desire to do something will eventually lead to malfeasance. It's a surefire formula.
posted by moonbiter at 11:53 PM on August 29, 2004


oh noes!!!!11
posted by reklaw at 9:15 PM PST on August 29


Someone left his browser open with little kids in the room ... ;)
posted by aeschenkarnos at 12:54 AM on August 30, 2004


From Laura Rozen who has been tracking this story with Josh Marshall for a few months:

"Update VIII: Here's my latest thought on this: As I understand, Franklin wasn't motivated to pass the information to Aipac to give it to the Israelis. He wanted our own government to act. He wanted to get it to the NSC and the White House.

I'm not joking. From what I understand from my sources, Franklin was desperately trying to get the US government to act on this intelligence. Aipac was just a tool for getting influence in Washington and the White House. "


So it was less to do with Israeli spying and more to do with a Pentagon official, who was their top analyst on Iran, trying to get the US to do something, anything over Iran's nuclear build up.
posted by PenDevil at 1:52 AM on August 30, 2004


Well, we *could* wait until more details actually become available... or we could find flimsy excuses to link to more of Juan Cole's claptrap. Guess which has occurred.

Well, we could also investigate the matter outside of the notoriously feeble mainstream media... or we could click our ruby slippers together and whimper "there's no place like home, there's no place like home" until we are magically swept back to Kansas.

Guess which Krrrlson advocates.


Great link, Juan Cole has been giving amazing analysis on the Iraq quagmire and the Middle East since day one. Anybody who dismisses his work as "claptrap" should give examples of his claptrapiness or shut their own trap or risk being exposed as an apologist for certain rightwing elements in the US and Israel.
posted by sic at 3:09 AM on August 30, 2004


Y2Karl: could you please just link to the articles instead of pasting huge chunks of them into the thread. After awhile they chew up alot of blue real estate. (but thanks for the links).
posted by sic at 3:15 AM on August 30, 2004


Senior Israeli Diplomat Held Meetings With Pentagon Official
A senior Israeli diplomat in Washington has met with a Pentagon analyst being investigated by the FBI on suspicion he passed classified information to Israel, Israeli officials confirmed Monday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meetings were well within the norm of diplomacy and that no laws were broken. Israel has flatly denied it has a spy at the Pentagon.

The Israeli diplomat was identified as Naor Gilon, head of the political department at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and a specialist on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

posted by y2karl at 4:45 AM on August 30, 2004


Since - for some reason - his name didn't seem to pop up on Cole's piece as one of the major actors stumping for US invasions of Iran and Iraq, I'll throw it in here :

Jim Woolsey, eight year head of the CIA and now Minister of Information (what a black joke that is) for Iraq's new government.

On April 8, 2003, Jim Lobe wrote, for the Asia Times :

"- If you want to figure out whether the administration of President George W Bush intends a crusade to remake the Middle East in the wake of Washington's presumed military victory in Iraq, watch what happens with R James Woolsey. A former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Woolsey is being pushed hard by his fellow neoconservatives in the Pentagon to play a key role in the post-Saddam Hussein US occupation.

Less well-known than his long-time associates and close friends, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the former head of the Defense Policy Board (DPB) Richard Perle, Woolsey has long believed that Washington has a mission to use its overwhelming military power and its democratic ideals to transform the Arab world. And he has pushed for war with Iraq as hard as anyone, even before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

If he soon pops up in Baghdad, you can bet that the "clash of civilizations" is imminent, if it has not begun already. To Woolsey's mind, the US is already engaged in what he and many of his fellow neoconservatives call "World War IV", a struggle that pits the US and Britain against Islamist and Wahhabi extremists like al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden, Iranian theocrats, and Ba'ath Party "fascists" in Syria and Iraq. In their view, the Cold War was World War III......"

posted by troutfishing at 4:47 AM on August 30, 2004


To sum up the history of the recent war of rhetoric over possible US and/or Israeli strikes on Iran (and Iranian counterthreats) - WorldNet, July 18, 2004 : "Israel has conducted military exercises for a pre-emptive strike against several of Iran's nuclear power facilities and is ready to attack if Russia supplies Iran with rods for enriching uranium, Israeli officials told reporters.....The paper quoted a classified document on the Iranian threat which was presented to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon earlier this year and which the paper claims to have seen. The document, entitled "The Strategic Future of Israel," was first reported by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, a premium, online intelligence newsletter published by WorldNetDaily.....[ the ] report also called on Israel to develop a multilayered ballistic missile defense system and described Iran as a "suicide nation," recommending "targeted killings" of members of the country's elite, including its leading nuclear scientists. "

Jerusalem Post, July 18, 2004 : "Israel has completed military rehearsals for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear power facility at Bushehr, Israeli officials told the London-based Sunday Times.

Such a strike is likely if Russia supplies Iran with fuel rods for enriching uranium. The rods, currently stored at a Russian port, are expected to be delivered late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved. "

July 30, 2004 : "A report by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations urged the Bush administration to stop any Israeli attempt to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. The council warned that such an Israeli attack would be blamed on the United States and hurt its interests in the region."

Al Jazeera, August 19, 2004 : " "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Muhammad Baqir Zolqadr warned. "

While the Christian Science Monitor, August 18, 2004, downplays the possibility of an Israeli strike : [ "Two decades later, the Osirak precedent endures. As the Bush administration steps up its rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of Israel following through on veiled threats to hit Iranian sites remains a wildcard....But several Israeli experts say that the Osirak experience bears little relevance in the case of Iran and that the chances of a repeat strike are very low." ] others strongly disagree : "A prominent Jordanian journalist on Monday expected the United States or Israel to launch a "pre-emptive strike" against Iran in September or October with a view to enhancing President George Bush's re-election chances.

"A pre-emptive strike is coming 99% either in September or October before the US presidential elections early in November," said Fahd Fanek in an article in the daily Al-Rai. [ August 30, 2004. News24.com ]

"If the United States decides to carry out the strike, the timing will be before the elections so as Bush guarantees his re-election. If Israel launches the attack, it will do that for the avowed aim of ensuring Bush will be the next president," added Fanek, an economics expert and respected newspaper columnist. "

Meanwhile, the war of words continues : "TEHRAN, Aug. 29 (Xinhuanet) -- An Iranian officer Sunday reiterated Iran's "deterrent policy", saying it has enabled the country to impose its position on the enemies under any condition, the official IRNA news agency reported."

Much may hinge on the upcoming 2004 US Presidential Election, writes Danial Schneider for the San Jose Mercury News, August 29, 2004 : "Will policy change in a second term? I found two views on this.

One is that reality will continue to trump rhetoric. A second Bush administration will be ``defiant and not chastened but still unable to do a lot of things they would want to do,'' says RAND national security expert Gregory Treverton. Even if they want to ``bump off another rogue state,'' he says, they don't have the allies or the resources to do it. He foresees reconciliation with Iran, though North Korea may be more difficult to manage.

The other view is that a fresh mandate could change those calculations. A central theme of the president's campaign is his image as a decisive leader, one who is prepared to make the difficult decision to send men and women into combat.

With an election victory, ``the inclination would be to feel vindicated, that their policy of peace through strength is the way to go,'' says Brookings Institution expert Ivo Daalder, the co-author of ``America Unbound,'' a study of Bush foreign policy.

The administration will be ``more likely, rather than less likely, to rely on the use of force,'' predicts Coit Blacker, the director of Stanford's Institute of International Studies and a former Clinton national security adviser...."
posted by troutfishing at 5:35 AM on August 30, 2004


For all we know, this entire story is disinformation to confuse Iraq, or whomever.

Seperately, I suspect Israel knowns more about Iran than the US does.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:39 AM on August 30, 2004


This presentation brought to you by Confuse-I-Raq LTD.
Incorporating
Amaze-I-Ran LTD.
Stun-A-Syrian LTD.
Puzzle-A-Palestine LTD.
etc
etc
posted by mr.marx at 5:54 AM on August 30, 2004


Since this story has a long way to go before anything is truly made clear--if that somehow happens--I will not address the case but rather the comment about having a son serving in the military. I had thought it was the President who would or would not decide to go to war or bomb Iran. I would not like to have a son in the military when we invaded Iraq for reasons that now seem questionable but were based, we are told, on CIA info etc...As for Iran, it remains, says Bush, a seriouos member of his Axis of Evil, and is well on the way to developing nuclear capability. Now, what is to be done about Iran? Iran and Israel seem both to be vying for friendship with the US, and the US has consistently raised serious concern about Iran. Either the Israelis might nuke Iran's bomb sites (as they did to Iraq years ago), or the US might...same thing, though...Serving in the military? I would encourage my child to move out of a country that is doing away with its democratic rights; encourage him to flee a regime that has lost all respect world-wide; encourage him not to fight a war for the wealthy and for oil...no. with or without Israeli connections the Supreme Court)put in place the guy who asked for war. When was the last war that America fought that was both moral and honorable and necessary?
posted by Postroad at 6:10 AM on August 30, 2004


"For all we know, this entire story is disinformation to confuse Iraq, or whomever."

Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa! (I can't believe it! Paris Paparas made me laugh!) Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!
posted by acrobat at 6:18 AM on August 30, 2004


Well, we could also investigate the matter outside of the notoriously feeble mainstream media...

Investigate... ha... ha. That's a good one. Yep, the neocons would have gotten away with this one, if it weren't for you meddlesome kids! I think the term you're looking for is "shoot off your mouth before you know where your ass is."


Anybody who dismisses his work as "claptrap" should give examples of his claptrapiness...

Do you mean the alarmist, hysterical conspiracy theories?

Franklin's movements reveal the contours of a rightwing conspiracy of warmongering and aggression, an orgy of destruction...

Or idiotic suggestions such that the American response to 9/11 should have been to crack down on Israel?

If I had been in power on September 11, I'd have called up Sharon and told him he was just going to have to withdraw to 1967 borders, or face the full fury of the United States.

...or shut their own trap or risk being exposed as an apologist for certain rightwing elements in the US and Israel.

Yep, waiting for information before adopting a stance on an issue is clearly a mark of a diehard apologist.

...Iraq quagmire...

Whereas someone who spits out cliches of the hard left, however, is not at all likely to be an apologist for extremist viewpoints.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:48 AM on August 30, 2004


Cliche? Is it your contention then that Iraq is NOT a quagmire? In your opinion are things in Iraq going well in terms of human, economic, cultural and political costs?

Do you see a clear exit strategy, or is this a war that is going to drag on and on, leading to even greater costs on every imaginable level (you know, like Vietnam)?

Do you deny that the Bush administration has implemented a strategy to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East through the use of armed conflict (you know, warmongering and aggression, an orgy of destruction)? Keep in mind that many of the members of the neocon faction of the Bush administration have signed their names to articles and books espousing exactly that point of view.

Do you deny that the aggresive policies of the Likud party have quite a bit to do with the problems between the Islamic world and the West (including terrorism such as that of Al Qaeda)? In your point of view, is a Middle East peace process possible without reining in BOTH sides of the problem? (By the way, you forgot to mention the part where Cole says that the US should have gone after Bin Laden in Afghanistan with everything it has.)

What sources are valid sources of information for you? CNN, NYtimes, FOX news? Or are you just waiting for someone to say what you want to hear?
posted by sic at 8:33 AM on August 30, 2004


Neocon-gate
posted by y2karl at 8:34 AM on August 30, 2004


so krrrlson, paris et. alia are saying they are perfectly comfortable with feith running the show over at the pentagon ? despite his list of colossal failures and now this one?
posted by specialk420 at 8:52 AM on August 30, 2004


Cliche? Is it your contention then that Iraq is NOT a quagmire?

It is my contention that those who croak quagmire at every opportunity are very often part of the ANSWER-esque crowd that wears Che t-shirts and is strangely fond of terms like "bu$hitler." And if you don't see a problem with that crowd, then we have nothing to discuss.

Do you deny that the aggresive policies of the Likud party have quite a bit to do with the problems between the Islamic world and the West (including terrorism such as that of Al Qaeda)?

Do you wish to blame the bulk of those problems on the Likud?

In your point of view, is a Middle East peace process possible without reining in BOTH sides of the problem?

No; my problem is precisely with those who would focus overwhelmingly and unfairly on one particular side, subjecting it to impossible double standards, and then claiming to be impartial.

Funny how you ignore my main point - the one you attacked me for - concerning the dearth of information on the alleged espionage case at this point in time, and chose instead to go point by point on the Iraq and Likud tangents.


so krrrlson, paris et. alia are saying they are perfectly comfortable with feith running the show over at the pentagon ?

No, that's you dishonestly misrepresenting what I'm saying, as always.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:14 AM on August 30, 2004


Feith, far as I've read (which is a good deal), is a smart, adept strategist. THen again, so many of you think Iraq is a failure, when it's, perhaps, one of the greatest military and geopolitical successes in history.

I suspect this is the all BS, perhaps initiated by an anti-Bush person in Washington. How about waiting a few days or weeks to find out if it's more than rumor.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:20 AM on August 30, 2004


It is my contention that those who croak quagmire at every opportunity are very often part of the ANSWER-esque crowd that wears Che t-shirts and is strangely fond of terms like "bu$hitler."

So next time I want to attend a MeFi meetup I know to look for people in Che T shirts, yelling "free Mumia" and writing Naziesque graffiti? Thanks for the tips you unbiased, level-headed, straight shooting cowboy. [retch]

Paris,
You should go into comedy, really dark comedy. What planet are you from?
posted by nofundy at 10:40 AM on August 30, 2004


THen again, so many of you think Iraq is a failure, when it's, perhaps, one of the greatest military and geopolitical successes in history.

Paris PalQuedaramus!
posted by y2karl at 11:02 AM on August 30, 2004


Actually Krrlson, my post was responding to your dismissal of Juan Cole's analysis as "claptrap". Cole has been closely following the events in the Middle East for quite some time and is an expert on the subject. My main question to you (and the one you didn't respond to) is just where are you waiting for more information to come from (so that you can form an opinion)? What source of information and or analysis do YOU accept on the Middle East as valid, since you totally reject Cole's?

I take it that you do agree that Iraq is a quagmire, but that we shouldn't say so often or we will be equated with people who say Bu$hitler (funny, I've never met ANYBODY who uses that term, where do they hang out?).

Do you wish to blame the bulk of those problems on the Likud?


No, just the part of those problems that they have contributed to.

By the way, my response to your post may have seemed like an "attack" as you say, but in reality I was only using the exact same tone that you used in your original post. If you would have disagreed with the FPP without being snarky, I'm sure that the tone of our conversation would have started off more civilly.
posted by sic at 11:11 AM on August 30, 2004


one of the greatest military and geopolitical successes in history.

do you think any of the over 10,000 innocent civilians killed in iraq during george bush's snipe hunt for wmd would agree? in fact - any iraqi (excluding saddams former thug now running the country) in general would agree?

is a smart, adept strategist

netanyahu might agree with you - but likely would throw in the term "putty" as well.
posted by specialk420 at 11:13 AM on August 30, 2004


THen again, so many of you think Iraq is a failure, when it's, perhaps, one of the greatest military and geopolitical successes in history. [emphasis mine]

Ha ha. Now that is funny.
posted by moonbiter at 11:35 AM on August 30, 2004


It is my contention that those who croak quagmire at every opportunity are very often part of the ANSWER-esque crowd that wears Che t-shirts and is strangely fond of terms like "bu$hitler."

PP, may I offer myself as the ultimate counterexample to that fatuous contention.
posted by jonmc at 12:04 PM on August 30, 2004


one of the greatest military and geopolitical successes in history.

in precisely the same manner the ford pinto is one of the greatest transportation and automotive safety successes in history.
posted by quonsar at 12:09 PM on August 30, 2004


jonmc: that's not my quote!
posted by ParisParamus at 12:12 PM on August 30, 2004


Quonsar: it's obvious you don't want Iraq to be a success because it would create too much cognative dissonance for you.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:15 PM on August 30, 2004


Quonsar: it's obvious you don't want Iraq to be a success because it would create too much cognitive dissonance for you.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:15 PM on August 30, 2004


Cognitive dissonance.
posted by homunculus at 12:26 PM on August 30, 2004


Paris: it's obvious that you'll never want a non-Neo-Con foreign policy to be a success because it would create too much cognitive dissonance for you. And I don't have to say it twice.
posted by wendell at 1:47 PM on August 30, 2004


Iran != Iraq .. it is bigger. Much bigger. Much much bigger. The Pentagon knows this. Read the CIA Factbooks. We will not be attacking Iran any time soon.
posted by stbalbach at 2:14 PM on August 30, 2004


one of the greatest military and geopolitical successes in history.
You forgot: "and so was Vietnam. So there."
posted by bashos_frog at 3:01 PM on August 30, 2004


Well, the articles and a couple of the subsequent links posted in this thread give us a couple of concrete "performance metrics," if you will, to judge the veracity of the claims by:

1. Robert Woolsey in a power position in Iraq? Apparently that has happened.

2. Air strike, by either US military or Israeli Air Force on Iranian nuclear facility to happen in September or October. This one, we'll see.

And there's always the possibility of the momentous Capture of Bin Laden, I suppose.

Clearly, we'll have some definite indications if all this news is correct, so we'll know soon enough one way or the other.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:10 PM on August 30, 2004


Actually Krrlson, my post was responding to your dismissal of Juan Cole's analysis as "claptrap".

Actually, your post distinctly began: Well, we could also investigate the matter outside of the notoriously feeble mainstream media... or we could click our ruby slippers together and whimper "there's no place like home, there's no place like home" until we are magically swept back to Kansas. Guess which Krrrlson advocates. Only then was Juan Cole mentioned.

My main question to you (and the one you didn't respond to) is just where are you waiting for more information to come from (so that you can form an opinion)?

Just like Juan Cole, who is not a journalist, I receive my facts from various news sources. I do not need Juan Cole to digest them into an opinion for me, however. I reject most "analyses" of this sort as biased and partisan, though I may read them to learn how people of varying political association perceive current events.

I take it that you do agree that Iraq is a quagmire, but that we shouldn't say so often or we will be equated with people who say Bu$hitler (funny, I've never met ANYBODY who uses that term, where do they hang out?).

I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, but one that may ultimately fail due to poor execution, though I still hope it ultimately succeeds. "Quagmire" is a cliche I often see used so often by axe-grinding wingnuts; when you used it, without support, to justify Juan Cole's hysteria, I grew suspicious. I'm sure you'll forgive me. Oh, and try ANSWER rallies or DU forums... if you insist.

By the way, my response to your post may have seemed like an "attack" as you say, but in reality I was only using the exact same tone that you used in your original post. If you would have disagreed with the FPP without being snarky, I'm sure that the tone of our conversation would have started off more civilly.

My snarkiness was directed at the poster, who has done more than enough to earn it.

PP, may I offer myself as the ultimate counterexample to that fatuous contention.

Hence "very often" rather than "always." Though I am not, of course, PP.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:20 PM on August 30, 2004


Going to School on Doug Feith
posted by homunculus at 9:28 PM on August 30, 2004


"Just like Juan Cole, who is not a journalist, I receive my facts from various news sources. I do not need Juan Cole to digest them into an opinion for me, however. I reject most "analyses" of this sort as biased and partisan" - Oh, so you're an established academic who specializes in the Mideast and Mideastern religions? Well then, carry on!

Chucking rhetorical dung at Juan Cole is easy, but addressing his points is a bit more challenging, and probably beyond the mettle of some. Cole comments from within his academic specialization.

" "Quagmire" is a cliche I often see used so often by axe-grinding wingnuts; when you used it, without support, to justify Juan Cole's hysteria, I grew suspicious. " - A rhetorical style of bulletproof logic and surgical discrimination.

______________

"across town in Congress even those instinctively sympathetic to the US military cause in Iraq were warning that America was facing a strategic disaster.

"I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss," General Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief of US central command, told the Senate foreign relations committee.

The apocalyptic language is becoming increasingly common here among normally moderate and cautious politicians and observers.

Larry Diamond, an analyst at the conservative Hoover Institution, said: "I think it's clear that the United States now faces a perilous situation in Iraq.

"We have failed to come anywhere near meeting the post-war expectations of Iraqis for security and post-war reconstruction.

"There is only one word for a situation in which you cannot win and you cannot withdraw - quagmire." "


Indeed, George W. Bush's father warned that Iraq could become a quagmire :

""We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq," Bush wrote. "The coalition would have instantly collapsed. ... Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.

"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."
"

posted by troutfishing at 9:54 PM on August 30, 2004


Juan Cole's hysteria

huh? if there is one person on the planet who has been for the most part reliable, truthful and unhysterical with his analysis of what is going on in iraq - its Professor Cole - perhaps krrrlson can provide us a better source for informed opinions and information on iraq and the middle east? ... ... ahem. krrrlson?
posted by specialk420 at 10:07 PM on August 30, 2004


Well, you still haven't identified what sources of information you accept as non-hysterical. I really am interested in knowing what you deem as valid, how you shape your opinions.

Anyway, I don't think you are going to convince many people who have actually read Juan Cole that he is a "hysterical conspiracy theorist" despite the fact that he uses the term "rightwing conspiracy" in the FPP post to describe a known right wing conspiracy. The neocon faction (a right wing element) has conspired to bring war to Iraq using "faulty" intelligence and outright lies and is conspiring to bring war to Iran and possibly Syria using the same techniques. You could call this a "hysterical theory", I suppose, but since the members of the conspiracy are so forthright about their conspiracy, writing letters to the President, articles and books on the subject, your rejection of the conspiracy is a bit uninformed.
posted by sic at 2:32 AM on August 31, 2004


FBI Interviews Senior Defense Officials in Probe of Analyst

U.S. government officials familiar with the Pentagon interviews, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the case, characterized them as an attempt by FBI investigators to determine whether Franklin received authorization from any superior to engage in the actions that investigators are probing. The FBI has been forced to accelerate its investigation since the case broke into public view through media reports Friday.

Spy probe goes beyond Israeli claim

The probe, which has been going on for more than two years, also has focused on other civilians in the secretary of defense's office, said the sources, who spoke on condition that they not be identified.

In addition, one said, FBI investigators in recent weeks have conducted interviews to determine whether Pentagon officials gave highly classified U.S. intelligence to a leading Iraqi exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, which may in turn have passed it on to Iran. INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has denied that his group was involved in any wrongdoing.



Israel's Albatross: U.S. Neocons

So far, these are only unproved accusations. It is disturbing that some well-placed officials in the Bush administration have leaked to the media allegations of spying against the Pentagon official and a respected ally. As demonstrated in the phony, Clinton-era China spy case, in which Los Alamos nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee was smeared, such lurid charges may not stick. But the charges now circulating do call attention to the regime-change ideologues in the Pentagon, whose antics have left Israel more vulnerable than at any time in recent memory.

First, the Bush administration abandoned the Israel-Palestinian peace process and the United States' historical role as a good-faith broker between the two sides. Then, after 9/11, the tight band of so-called neoconservatives who had championed the invasion of Iraq for years, both in Israel and in the U.S., successfully completed their hijacking of U.S. foreign policy by landing us in the Iraq quagmire.

This has only served to inflame passions across the region, increasing the threat to Israel. Many Israelis concerned for their country are alarmed by President Bush's substitution of militarism for diplomacy, which they believe only benefits those who profit from fear and hate — such as arms brokers and political and religious extremists.

In addition, moderates across the Muslim world have seen their position eroded by popular anger over the U.S. occupation and Washington's uncritical support for Ariel Sharon. Al Qaeda and allied terror groups have seized on the chaos and fury to recruit a new generation of fighters. Extremists are now in control of crucial parts of Iraq and disrupting the rest, while rogue Iran is more politically influential among their co-religionists in the Shiite majority in Iraq than is the U.S. with its 120,000 troops on the ground.

posted by y2karl at 4:53 AM on August 31, 2004




huh? if there is one person on the planet who has been for the most part reliable, truthful and unhysterical with his analysis of what is going on in iraq - its Professor Cole - perhaps krrrlson can provide us a better source for informed opinions and information on iraq and the middle east?

Reliable, truthful and unhysterical according to whom? As I've already stated above, I know of no ideal non-partisan analyst. Does that excuse linking to a partisan opinion piece? It does if you abandon all claims of being objective.


Well, you still haven't identified what sources of information you accept as non-hysterical.

Go and actually read my post above, where I answer your question.

Anyway, I don't think you are going to convince many people who have actually read Juan Cole that he is a "hysterical conspiracy theorist" despite the fact that he uses the term "rightwing conspiracy" in the FPP post to describe a known right wing conspiracy.

Nor do I have any interest in convincing anyone who goes on about "known right wing conspiracies" of anything. In fact, I am inclined to discontinue my discussion with such a person.

...the members of the conspiracy are so forthright about their conspiracy, writing letters to the President, articles and books on the subject, your rejection of the conspiracy is a bit uninformed.

Yep. That's exactly what they say. "We are members of an evil right-wing conspiracy." I was getting drunk on infant blood with Wolfowitz the other day at the Secret Zionist Cabal meeting, and those are the exact words he used. How did you know?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:27 AM on August 31, 2004


Juan Cole:

Note that over 80% of American Jews vote Democrat, that the majority of American Jews opposed the Iraq war (more were against it than in the general population), and that American Jews have been enormously important in securing civil liberties for all Americans. Moreover, Israel has been a faithful ally of the US and deserves our support in ensuring its security. The Likudniks like to pretend that they represent American Jewry, but they do not. And they like to suggest that objecting to their policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism, which is sort of like suggesting that if you don't like Chile's former dictator Pinochet, you are bigotted against Latinos.

>Moreover, Israel has been a faithful ally of the US and deserves our support in ensuring its security.

Yep, that's cetainly a hysterical left winger talking there....

objecting to their policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism--now where have I heard that before?
posted by y2karl at 11:14 AM on August 31, 2004


You haven't identified any sources of information that you deem credible in any of your posts. Just vague talk of varying sources. I would appreciate concrete examples.

The PNAC did promote during the Clinton administration a military takeover of Iraq, at that time it would have been an illegal takeover under International Law, just as the current violent takeover of Iraq is in violation of international law, illegal, and promoted by members of the PNAC (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.) who now don't have to write letters to the White House as they are residents. They conspired to achieve the military takeover of Iraq for over a decade, ergo it is a conspiracy. They are right wingers, therefore it is a right-wing conspiracy. This is known. Are you inclined to discontinue this conversation because you don't like how the truth, the obvious, is stated?

"Drinking infant blood with Wolfowitz", is that really your response? Who is being hysterical now?
posted by sic at 11:56 AM on August 31, 2004


now where have I heard that before?

It's the straw man you like to use to ignore dissenting opinion.


You haven't identified any sources of information that you deem credible in any of your posts. Just vague talk of varying sources. I would appreciate concrete examples.

Let me say it slowly: my... point... was... that... I... am... receptive... to... facts... not... analysts... If Juan Cole was a journalist out in the field, I would be listening to what he had to say about the alleged Israeli spy. Otherwise, if you insist, I read anything from Al-Jazeera to Fox News. Each will present their own version of events, and I will try and decide what I think happened. Happy?

The PNAC did promote during the Clinton administration a military takeover of Iraq, at that time it would have been an illegal takeover under International Law...

The same international law that's, say, stopping the slaughter in Sudan right now? The one that's preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? The one that forced Saddam to comply with weapons inspectors? International law is a joke.

They conspired to achieve the military takeover of Iraq for over a decade, ergo it is a conspiracy. They are right wingers, therefore it is a right-wing conspiracy. This is known.

Funny, I thought they advocated it. Thank heavens this isn't an argument over semantics... wait, I forgot I have to state things extremely clearly for you. IT IS AN ARGUMENT OVER SEMANTICS. It is the fact that you use alarmist, paranoid terms to state your argument that devalues it.

Are you inclined to discontinue this conversation because you don't like how the truth, the obvious, is stated?

Actually, I'm disinclined to continue this conversation because you are humorlessly regurgitating cliched arguments. But I don't like your spin on the "truth" either.

"Drinking infant blood with Wolfowitz", is that really your response? Who is being hysterical now?

Different meanings of hysterical, dear. Now look up "facetious."
posted by Krrrlson at 4:52 PM on August 31, 2004


It's the straw man you like to use to ignore dissenting opinion.

Gee, I guess I was thinking of....

As for the purpose of this post, I guess I wanted to see if you loud-mouthed, violently prejudiced morons on Mefi had it left in you to try and rationally adress a troubling issue that doesn't jive with your incredibly narrow viewpoints.

or, say,

You mean the dissenting opinion about how the Zionist neocon pigs are ruining America?

A drum you bang often by passive-aggressive insinuation, as here above:

I was getting drunk on infant blood with Wolfowitz the other day at the Secret Zionist Cabal meeting, and those are the exact words he used.

You like to slip in those zingers all the time....
posted by y2karl at 6:04 PM on August 31, 2004


I know of no ideal non-partisan analyst

thanks for clearing that one up krrrlson - i didn't expect you to offer any sources on the situation in iraq or the middle east that would merit mention in the same thread as professor cole.
posted by specialk420 at 7:23 PM on August 31, 2004


Feith, far as I've read (which is a good deal), is a smart, adept strategist.

Try this.

THen again, so many of you think Iraq is a failure, when it's, perhaps, one of the greatest military and geopolitical successes in history.

That's what I love about Paris, he doesn't half-step. He goes all the way up his own ass.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:36 PM on August 31, 2004


You like to slip in those zingers all the time....

I find it a refreshing alternative to compensating for one's lack of opinion by posting pages after pages of someone else's while avoiding calls for your own, and for one's lack of ability to form an argument by repeatedly linking to unrelated comments, misrepresenting what others say, and occasionally bursting out in impotent rage.


thanks for clearing that one up krrrlson - i didn't expect you to offer any sources on the situation in iraq or the middle east that would merit mention in the same thread as professor cole.

Yeah yeah. Try not to chafe your lips on Cole's ass.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:08 PM on August 31, 2004


Yeah, actually I regret taking your posts seriously Krrrlson. For some reason I had you pegged as a rightwinger closer to Steve@Linwood and Midas Mulligan, people you can have a (heated) conversation with. But actually you are much closer to ParisParamus: your only goal is to derail threads. Dissenting opinion is not the same as simply calling the author hysterical and insinuating that he is a fraud. Dissenting opinion is formulating an opinion on the topic that is different than that one that is stated (and defending it). Have you done that? All you have done is insult, snark, ridicule and distract. Nothing of real substance. As a result we have spent more time talking about you instead of about Cole's article. Fell for it hook line and sinker. Well done, really.

Won't happen again.
posted by sic at 2:46 AM on September 1, 2004


It's the straw man you like to use to ignore dissenting opinion.

That's not a straw man, Krrrlson. That's what you did right here in this thread:

I was getting drunk on infant blood with Wolfowitz the other day at the Secret Zionist Cabal meeting, and those are the exact words he used..

You link criticism of the neocons with anti-semitism right here. Those words are not out of context. That's a cheap little way of doing exactly what Juan Cole described:

And they like to suggest that objecting to their policies is tantamount to anti-Semitism, which is sort of like suggesting that if you don't like Chile's former dictator Pinochet, you are bigotted against Latinos.

You make an innuendo about the blood libel and then claim foul when called on it. That's the Krrrlson way. Cowardly and dishonest, running away from your own words.
posted by y2karl at 4:44 AM on September 1, 2004


You make an innuendo about the blood libel and then claim foul when called on it.

The only things I claim foul are your "contributions" here. In my time here, you've done nothing but shit copiously on the front page, address only those questions you wish, and dishonestly lash out when called on it. I've steered clear of your threads and comments because I have no desire to converse with a deceptive hypocrite. I do not take you seriously, and I do not intend to humor you. You're welcome to keep ranting but I'm done with you.

Dissenting opinion is formulating an opinion on the topic that is different than that one that is stated (and defending it).

My only observation here was that the accusations the poster chose to throw around regarding the alleged Israeli spying (you know, the *topic* of the thread) were worthless without more information. Rather than address that point, you resorted to tangential attacks, most having to do with Juan Cole's credibility. Now you claim *I* have been derailing? Well done indeed. I hope you never have to enage in a real debate.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:45 AM on September 1, 2004


accusations the poster chose to throw around regarding the alleged Israeli spying

huh?

You're welcome to keep ranting but I'm done with you.

it must be frustrating being stuck on the wrong side of this and nearly every other issue krrrlson ... but take it ez.

Yeah yeah. Try not to chafe your lips on Cole's ass.

and please let us know if you ever find a more informed source on the on iraq than cole, that passes the laugh test ... until then a chill pill might not be a bad idea.
posted by specialk420 at 5:47 PM on September 1, 2004


More details now are now available:

Leak Probe More Than 2 Years Old

For more than two years, the FBI has been investigating whether classified intelligence has been passed to Israel by the American Israel Political Action Committee, an influential U.S. lobbying group, in a probe that extends beyond the case of Pentagon employee Lawrence A. Franklin, according to senior U.S. officials and other sources.

The counterintelligence probe, which is different from a criminal investigation, focuses on a possible transfer of intelligence more extensive than whether Franklin passed on a draft presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran, the sources said. The FBI is examining whether highly classified material from the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic intercepts of communications, were also forwarded to Israel, they said.


So, Franklin is a mere sidebar to the real story. Hmm. Developing....
posted by y2karl at 9:26 PM on September 1, 2004


« Older Polygyny   |   The Magic 7 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments