T Nation

Here We Go Again

Expect more flowers…

War-Gaming the Mullahs
The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike
By John Barry and Dan Ephron

Sept. 27 issue - Unprepared as anyone is for a showdown with Iran, the threat seems to keep growing. Many defense experts in Israel, the United States and elsewhere believe that Tehran has been taking advantage of loopholes in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is now within a year of mastering key weapons-production technology. They can’t prove it, of course, and Iran’s leaders deny any intention of developing the bomb. Nevertheless, last week U.S. and Israeli officials were talking of possible military action even though some believe it’s already too late to keep Iran from going nuclear (if it chooses). “We have to start accepting that Iran will probably have the bomb,” says one senior Israeli source. There’s only one solution, he says: “Look at ways to make sure it’s not the mullahs who have their finger on the trigger.”

The Iran crisis is more immediate in the eyes of the Bush administration, in part because Iran is among the president’s “Axis of Evil.” Israel, which has long regarded Iran as a more dire threat than Iraq, is making thinly veiled threats of a unilateral pre-emptive attack, like its 1981 airstrike against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. “If the state decides that a military solution is required, then the military has to provide a solution,” said Israel’s new Air Force chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, in a newspaper interview last week.

Instead, administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled “draft” or “working draft” to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration’s abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime’s promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there’s no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level.

Some members of President George W. Bush’s own party are throwing up their hands at such clumsy doings. “This administration’s nonproliferation strategy consists of flailing around with a two-by-four,” says one disgusted Republican elder statesman. And even the administration must realize that its Iran options are limited now by the chaos already overtaking Iraq.


I already posted this in another thread but it bears repeating in light of the above article.

Pollardites in the Pentagon
by Patrick J. Buchanan

"In 1987, Jonathan Pollard, U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, was imprisoned for life for selling a roomful of U.S. secret documents to Israel. Tel Aviv refused to return them. At the Clinton-Netanyahu summit at Wye River, Pollard became a subject of contention.

“Bibi” Netanyahu wanted to fly the American traitor back to Israel where he is a hero. Clinton balked. CIA’s George Tenet would resign, Clinton told Netanyahu, if he pardoned Pollard.

This history is recalled for a reason. Washington today is rife with reports the FBI has been investigating whether or not a nest of Pollardites inside the Pentagon has been funneling secrets, through the Israeli lobby AIPAC, to the Reno Road embassy and on to Sharon.

According to The Washington Post, the FBI is now interviewing present and ex-officials from Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as to whether Feith, Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Paul Wolfowitz might have leaked U.S. security secrets to Israel, AIPAC or Ahmed Chalabi.

AIPAC and the Israelis deny any spying. Cooperation between the Bush and Sharon governments is so close, they insist, there is no need to commit espionage or thieve U.S. documents. Perhaps, but the men about whom the FBI is inquiring have old, deep and questionable ties to Israel and the Likud Party of Ariel Sharon.

In 1970, Perle was picked up on an FBI wiretap discussing NSC secrets with the Israeli embassy. In 1981, as assistant secretary of defense, Perle got a top-secret security clearance for his chosen deputy Stephen Bryen, who is said to have narrowly eluded indictment for offering top-secret documents to Mossad’s man in Washington.

In 1982, Feith was the object of an inquiry as to whether he had given secret documents to the Israeli embassy. Fired from the NSC, he was hired by Perle. Feith left the Pentagon in 1986 to form a law firm - in Israel. Hired by Rumsfeld in 2001, Feith set up the Office of Special Plans, which cherry-picked the intelligence to the White House that turned out to be false, but facilitated the war on Iraq.

In 1996, Perle, Feith and Wurmser co-authored a paper for Netanyahu calling for ditching Oslo, reoccupying the West Bank and overthrowing Saddam as “an important Israeli strategic objective.”

In 1998, Wolfowitz and Perle signed an open letter from the neoconservative front group PNAC to Clinton, urging him to ditch diplomacy and wage war on Iraq, and pledging their full support.

On Jan. 1, 2001, eight months before 9-11, Wurmser, at AEI, called for joint U.S.-Israeli air strikes on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya.

According to White House anti-terror chief Richard Clarke, Wolfowitz, in April 2001, wanted Osama put on a back burner and for us to go after Iraq. In the first hours after 9-11, according to Bob Woodward and Clarke, Wolfowitz wanted Iraq invaded, not Afghanistan. For his role in steering us into war, Wolfowitz was named Man of the Year - by the Jerusalem Post.

“America needs a Middle East policy made in the USA, not in Tel Aviv, or at AIPAC or AEI.”

Having promised him a cakewalk to Baghdad and a rose garden thereafter, neoconservatives misled President Bush. He should have fired the lot of them. Having failed to do so, he ought now, in his own interests, as well as our nation’s, name Patrick “Bulldog” Fitzgerald, now heading up the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak, to head up the investigation of Israeli espionage, and possible treason, against the United States."

OK a hypothetical

So Iran gets nuclear weapons and becomes a mortal threat to Israel.

Most likely Iran (in part?) is getting it nuclear technology from Russia. Civilian uses, does not make much of a difference.


Russia got its nuclear technology form spies such as the Rosenberg?s and co.

There is some irony to that don’t you think? A full circle that backfires?

bluey - In this case it isn’t about the technology itself, it has more to do with Israel directly influencing our policy and actions in the Middle East.

Israel happens to be itching for a war that is not in OUR best interests and the insinuation of “veiled threats” against Iran is scary. In other words: If Israel decides to start something on it’s own, guess who gets caught in the middle. (Or the front as the case may be.)

Isreal is a sovereign nation and has every right to do what is necessary to protect it’s citizens as it sees fit.

Sound familiar to anyone?

Good example of what I was trying to point out in another post. The first two of three articles are from two different New Zealand news sources. The last article is from a US Tenn. news source that never made national headlines:

Government demands Israel return any bogus passports

HERALD INVESTIGATION - The Government called in an Israeli diplomat over suspected Mossad spies arrested in New Zealand and demanded the Israeli Government return any bogus New Zealand passports it might have.

In a rare intervention, Acting Foreign Affairs Minister Jim Sutton summoned the Canberra-based Acting Israeli Ambassador Orna Sagiv a week ago over the case in which two Israeli men were arrested in Auckland after allegedly trying to obtain a false New Zealand passport.

Mr Sutton said the ambassador was called in to have the “riot act” read - “and for me to say on behalf of the New Zealand Government that we required a full accounting of what they were up to”.

“If there are any New Zealand passports, incorrectly and improperly in their hands, we want them all returned.”

Meanwhile, it has emerged that Australian spy-catchers have been investigating a suspected Israeli spy ring for a month.


Police fear al Qaeda terrorists using NZ passports following arrest of 2 men in Thailand and seizure of fake NZ passports
29 April 2004

There are fears al Qaeda terrorists may be roaming the world, passing themselves off as New Zealanders.

It follows the arrest of two men in Thailand, and the seizure of 11 fake New Zealand passports. Police picked up the Thai and his Pakistani accomplice in an undercover raid in Bangkok on Monday.

The forged New Zealand documents are among 23 fake passports found in their apartment. The arrests followed the arrest last month of another Pakistani suspect, found with 12 fake New Zealand passports.

The Bangkok Post newspaper says the passports might have been used by al Qaeda-linked terrorist suspects or human traffickers. The documents have serial numbers beginning with N379, which allows visa-free entry to several countries.

Thai police say terrorist suspects arrested in Europe have travelled to several nations carrying fake passports with such serial numbers.


Israeli men arrested after high-speed chase in Unicoi County

ERWIN, Tenn. (AP) - No bond was set Monday for two Israeli men who were arrested after leading the Unicoi County sheriff on a high-speed chase in a rented moving truck.

Shmuel Dahan and Almaliach Naor were in court Monday, but a bond hearing was not held because they were waiting for help from the Israeli consulate, according to Unicoi’s deputy court clerk, Sheri Lunceford.

Dahan, 23, is charged with reckless driving, littering, false identification and evading arrest. Naor, whose age was not given, faces charges of false identification and evading arrest.

William B. Lawson, one of the lawyers appointed to represent the Israeli men, said they rented a truck and planned to haul furniture, but accidentally got off the interstate and got lost.

The sheriff said he saw the men throw something from the truck while they were being pursued. Officers scouring the area later found a vial containing an unknown substance along the roadway, he said.

Lawson said the vial contained a “fuel source,” but he added that it hasn’t been identified and authorities were treating it with caution.

Once the men were apprehended, officers also found a “Learn to Fly” brochure in the truck, leading Harris and others to express concern about security at the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Erwin.

“I got a sick feeling when I saw it,” Harris said.


A “conservative” estimate…

The Real Cost of US Support for Israel: $3 Trillion
By Christopher Bollyn

While it is commonly reported that Israel officially receives some $3 billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S. government, this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many billions of dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the surface. A recently published economic analysis has concluded that U.S. support for the state of Israel has cost American taxpayers nearly $3 trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars.

The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion is a summary of economic research done by Thomas R. Stauffer. Stauffer’s summary of the research was published in the June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Stauffer is a Washington, D.C.-based engineer and economist who writes and teaches about the economics of energy and the Middle East. Stauffer has taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Stauffer’s findings were first presented at an October 2002 conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the University of Maine.

Stauffer’s analysis is an estimate of the total cost to the U.S. alone of instability and conflict in the region which emanates from the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion, Stauffer says. About 60 percent, well over half, of those costs about $1.7 trillion arose from the U.S. defense of Israel, where most of that amount has been incurred since 1973.

Support for Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts. In addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs some 275,000 American jobs each year. The trade-aid imbalance alone with Israel of between $6-10 billion costs about 125,000 American jobs every year, Stauffer says.

The largest single element in the costs has been the series of oil-supply crises that have accompanied the Israeli-Arab wars and the construction of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. To date these have cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion (2002 dollars), excluding the additional costs incurred since 2001, Stauffer wrote.

The cost of supporting Israel increased drastically after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war. U.S. support for Israel during that war resulted in additional costs for the American taxpayer of between $750 billion and $1 trillion, Stauffer says.

Stauffer’s $3 trillion figure is conservative as it does not include the increased costs incurred during the year-long buildup to the recent war against Iraq in which Israel played a significant, albeit covert, role. The higher oil prices that occurred as a result of the Anglo-American campaign against Iraq were absorbed by the consumers. The increase in oil prices provided a huge bonus for the leading oil companies such as British Petroleum and Shell, who are major oil producers as well as retailers. The major international oil companies recorded record profits for the first quarter of 2003.

The Washington Report seeks to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states. The monthly journal is known for keeping close tabs on the amount of U.S. taxpayer money that goes to Israel and how much pro-Israel money flows back to Members of Congress in the form of campaign aid.

The journal’s website, www.wrmea.com, has an up-to-date counter at the top that indicates how much official aid flows to Israel. While the counter currently stands at $88.2 billion, it only reflects the minimum, as it does not include the many hidden costs.

The distinction is important, because the indirect or consequential losses suffered by the U.S. as a result of its blind support for Israel exceed by many times the substantial amount of direct aid to Israel, Shirl McArthur wrote in the May 2003 issue of Washington Report.

McArthur’s article, A Conservative Tally of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $97.5 Billion and Counting tallies the hidden costs, such as interest lost due to the early disbursement of aid to Israel and funds hidden in other accounts. For example, Israel received $5.45 billion in Defense Department funding of Israeli weapons projects through 2002, McArthur says.

Loans made to Israel by the U.S. government, like the recently awarded $9 billion, invariably wind up being paid by the American taxpayer. A recent Congressional Research Service report indicates that Israel has received $42 billion in waived loans. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider all government loans to Israel the same as grants, McArthur says.

Support for Israel has cost America dearly well over than $10,000 per American however the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been extremely costly for the entire world. According to Stauffer, the total bill for supporting Israel is two to four times higher than that for the U.S. alone costing the global community an estimated $6 to $12 trillion.


Leaked from a reporter assigned to the White House press corps.

September 19, 2004: "This afternoon, while schmoozing a minor aide, I saw a copy of a Pentagon memo concerning the forthcoming draft. I could not copy this and it took me about twenty minutes, in brief segments, to read it through.

The White House and the Pentagon have worked out a plan to call up all reservists and National Guard units if and when Bush is reelected. The moment that the election results are poured in concrete, orders, now drawn up and waiting, will be issued throughout the United States. I am not speaking of a few units but all US Guard and Reserve units.

On the same subject, the pending Universal Draft is also a done deal. Everything is place awaiting the President’s signature. This is planned for June of 2005 and contains some real shockers.

Women will be called up as well as men. There will be absolutely no deferments of any kind permitted. Persons with medical problems such as diabetes, cardio-vascular disease, chronic asthma, physical deformities such as a club foot or hunch back, vision problems, etc. will be called up!

If a draftee has a medical problem but can move around, they are subject to the draft but will be assigned to non-military positions such as clerk-typists, maintenance positions and so on. There will be absolutely no deferments for someone with a family to support or who is enrolled in any kind of a school.

Students may be permitted to complete their semester and will then be compelled to report at once to their nearest enlistment center. For example, as I read it, an 18 year old girl with two children and no husband to support her will be subject to the draft. There was a discussion about what to do with the children and if the family cannot raise them during the draftee’s tour of duty, then some kind of Federal Child Care center will have to suffice.

The nominal ages covered are from 18 through 26 but a special exception is now in the orders for anyone with what the Army calls “technical skills” such as proficiency in computers, foreign language skills and so on. These poor jerks are subject to the draft until they are 35! Again, no deferments will be allowed unless the subject is already working for a government agency and is certified by his superiors as “vital” to whatever “war effort” the Army deems important.

These orders, note, came from the desk of George W. Bush to Rumsfeld but Bush will cite a vague “national crisis” to cover his useless ass. The top brass at the Pentagon are having fits about this. Why? Because for decades they have been downsizing, closing bases and so on.

I have been told by Pentagon people that they would have no place to put the anticipated great flood of draftees if and when the draft is activated. One said to me, “Where the fuck do these dimbulbs expect us to house them? In local hotels?”

Comment: Because the subject of a universal draft is Bush’s political Achilles Heel, the Administration and various governmental agencies have gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal it from the public. Nevertheless, anyone with a computer and basic skills can locate information on the upcoming draft by looking at dozens of official government sites. Admittedly, these sites are so buried in the official underbrush as to be difficult to locate, nevertheless, they are there.



this is one of the dumbest posts i have read in a long time. THERE IS NO DRAFT. Get off the scare tactics. I am sick of scared shitless parents and teenagers writing to me because the ‘government is going to pull one over on them’ and have a draft without them knowing. It must be the evil administrations secret plan…MWAAHAHAHAHAHAH…or in reality is a crackhead scheme by a waste of space congressman from NYC to try nad pin on the President when no one on the republican side of the aisle from the admin through congress supports the idea of a draft.

Stop trying to scare people with blatant lies.

Of course they wouldn’t say anything about the draft right before the election, they aren’t stupid.

If Bush gets elected, we WILL go into Iran. Where do you think the troops will come from?

For more than a year EVERY military analyst and advisor, including John McCain, has said we need more troops just to contain Iraq. The only people NOT talking about a draft is this administration. If you don’t think the draft is coming your a complete fool.

Here’s the plan, right on the Selective Services website, just waiting for that “EMERGENCY”

Beware Attempts to Revive Military Draft
By Bob Keeler
Monday 22 December 2003

It has been 30 years since the last time an American entered the armed forces through the not-so-tender mercies of the draft, on June 30, 1973. The next time could be just around the corner, if President George W. Bush is re-elected.

No, no, no, a thousand times no, say the White House, the Pentagon and Congress. They insist they have no plans for a draft. In any case, take this to the bank: It will not happen before Nov. 2, 2004. Still, the rumors refuse to die, and it was the Pentagon itself that started the buzz.

Last month, on its anti-terrorism Web site, the Pentagon posted a plea for volunteers to serve on the draft boards and appeals boards that will decide whether men (current draft law does not affect women) can get deferments or exemptions. The law created the boards as an insurance policy, in case of an emergency need for more troops.

But in recent weeks, she has heard of rumblings, from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress, about a draft after the election.

In a perfect world, the Pentagon would reject a draft. It likes its soldiers willing and malleable, not angry and cynical. But the current situation is far from perfect. Despite the capture of Saddam Hussein, young Americans are likely to keep dying in Iraq. Reserve and National Guard troops have been deployed far longer than they expected. This may soon start to erode enlistment and re-enlistment rates. At the same time, Bush’s reckless preventive-war strategy could commit further troops to battles in other countries.

If Bush’s policy keeps demanding more and more troops, and the supply of volunteers dwindles, it only takes a simple act of Congress to start the draft. That would be a profoundly bad idea.


And Iraq has only gotten worse…just keep telling yourself it won’t happen.

Wow dude, you are way out there. I’ve never paid any attention to your posts before, and now I see why. Your references are quite comical.

Funny stuff man. Does anyone else see the jest in this person calling him/herself “JustTheFacts”. LOL!

Republican senator: Bring back the draft
Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel says ‘all of our citizens’ should ‘pay some price’ for U.S. Iraqi operation
April 20, 2004

A Republican U.S. senator is calling for a return of the military draft so the cost of the Iraq operation could be borne by people of all economic strata.

Speaking at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said, “There’s not an American … that doesn’t understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future.”

Hagel, a member of the committee, says all Americans should be involved in the effort.

“Why shouldn’t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?” Hagel said, arguing that restoring the draft would force “our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face.”

The senator also argued re-instituting the draft, which ended in the early '70s, would cause the burden of military service to be spread among all economic classes of people.

“Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class,” he claimed.

Hagel’s call comes just days after the Pentagon moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, noted a report from Agence France-Presse. The Bush administration has been criticized for not using enough troops as the coalition works to keep order in Iraqi cities.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a pair of bills was introduced in Congress last year that would bring back the military draft.

S. 89, the Senate version of the legislation, indicates its purpose is “to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.”

The bill was introduced Jan. 7, 2003, by Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C.

Says the text of the bill: “It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.”

Enough “Likud”-Bashing, Already!
It’s time to focus on policy, not its proponents.
By Lee Smith
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004, at 11:28 AM PT

A couple of weeks ago, CBS first reported that the FBI was investigating whether midlevel Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an employee of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who in turn gave it to an Israeli official. According to CBS, law enforcement figures were unsure whether the investigation, under way for a year, would eventually lead to “charges of unlawful disclose [sic] of classified material or espionage.” So far, no arrests or indictments have been made, but some observers believe that the affair is far from over.

As many journalists have noted, it is almost certain that, despite official denials, Israel spies on the United States?just as U.S. clandestine services in turn spy on Israel and other allies. However, it is improbable that AIPAC would knowingly entangle itself in espionage. AIPAC is one of the most powerful, and most scrutinized, lobbies in Washington, and it is unlikely to risk its reputation and access to U.S. decision-makers for a document that has been described as a “glorified Op-Ed.”

What Franklin allegedly passed to AIPAC sometime last year was an unfinished draft of a National Presidential Security Directive on Iran. The information was sensitive enough that a June 15, 2003, Washington Post story on the NPSD said, “Senior administration officials refused to talk about the status of the Bush policy directive on Iran, on the grounds that it is classified.” Apparently, however, the information was not so sensitive that officials refrained from sketching for the Post some of the directive’s main topics and noting that competing parties in the administration disagree over the direction of Iran policy.

In short, the U.S. government views with serious concern both Iran’s nuclear program and its support of terrorist groups, including al-Qaida. Much of the State Department favors dialogue with the regime’s reformers (even though it has been clear for some time now that President Khatami’s reform wing has little, if any, power) while the Pentagon leans instead toward talking directly to student leaders and other democratic activists outside the government. No one is currently pressing for military action against Iran, if only because our commitments in Iraq make it impossible.

Nonetheless, Iran is still a very big problem for the United States, and perhaps a much larger one for Israel, but in the long run, the Franklin affair doesn’t have much to do with Iran. Rather, it’s a plot point in an ongoing story about U.S. foreign policy since Sept. 11, a story in which Franklin’s role is pretty negligible. He’s of interest largely because he works in an office at the Pentagon that is associated with the group of Bush administration ideologues known as the neoconservatives, who have so far mostly distinguished themselves as leading proponents of the war in Iraq. Israel is a significant part of the story insofar as a number of commentators are claiming that some of the Jewish neocons (Franklin is not Jewish) are disloyal to the United States.

Fueling the conspiracy theories is the fact that a few Bush administration officials, including the No. 3 man in the Pentagon, Douglas Feith, wrote a paper in 1996 for then newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “A Clean Break,” which described, among other ideas, the desirability of regime change in Iraq. Nowhere, however, does it say that Israel should get American soldiers to do it. Indeed, “A Clean Break” also argued for ending Israel’s dependence on U.S. aid.

Regardless, while the research into the neocons’ ideas about the region and their connections to Israel might have begun as a partisan exercise in aggressive political journalism and speculative intellectual history, it has now come to resemble an old narrative in Western culture that engenders rumors of a “cabal,” a secret government within the government, run by people whose loyalty to the state that harbors them is dubious. The word “Jew” isn’t used, but “Likud” is tossed around with an alarming facility.

For example, in a recent interview with a Turkish news source, former Pentagon desk officer Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski elaborated on some of the opinions she’s been articulating in both her own writing and in other interviews, including one with a Lyndon LaRouche publication. “I think for [sic] many of these guys truly believe that what is good for Likud is good for America,” she said. “This is wrong factually, and wrong philosophically, and is probably very close to being treason.” On his Weblog, University of Michigan professor Juan Cole wrote, “I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party. ? And I also think that if he has to choose, he will put the interests of the Likud above the interests of the Republican Party. ? I frankly don’t trust him to put America first.”

Do Kwiatkowski and Cole have any factual evidence to draw on besides their own convictions and prejudices? Of course not. Their charges might not seem particularly sensationalist if they appeared exclusively on blogs, but mainstream press outfits like UPI, Knight Ridder, and Newsweek, among others, have used Kwiatkowski as a source for stories about the neocons; others, like PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, NPR, and the Washington Post have called on Cole to discuss his views on Iraq. (His opinions have also been cited in several Slate stories.) It’s unclear whether these media outlets recognize what kind of larger worldview their experts’ opinions issue from, but media consumers deserve to know that some of the talking heads they’re hearing are advancing conspiracy theories and accusing U.S. government officials of dual loyalty verging on treason.

The fundamental issue is that had it not been for Sept. 11, the neocons’ ideas that wound up winning the day?among them, regime change in Iraq, and perhaps elsewhere, and the push for democracy in the Middle East?would have remained fodder for policy papers. Up until 9/11, the premise of U.S. Middle East policy was to maintain stability in the region in order to secure our national interests. The attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center showed that those interests, including the welfare of U.S. citizens, were not secure; perhaps the region was by its very nature unstable. If so, the assumptions underlying our policies were flawed.

It might seem obvious to casual observers that our Middle East policy needed serious re-evaluation after Sept. 11, but we should remember the number of policy-makers, politicians, military and intelligence officers, and academic experts who have continued to argue for the status quo. Are these people stupid? Don’t they know there is a large hole in lower Manhattan where the cities’ two tallest buildings used to be? Are they conspiring in treason? Do they want to preserve policies that did not protect Americans where they work and live? No, they are neither stupid nor treasonous. Like the neocons themselves, the policy elite that they challenged, both Democrats and Republicans, have careers and reputations invested in their ideas?like the peace process, constructive engagement with Syria, and overlooking the various transgressions of our Saudi friends. Moreover, these principles have become a habit of mind, not just for Middle East experts, but also for the press corps with whom they have naturally built up a close relationship over the years.

If you’re a reporter who’s been told for 30 years that the key to Middle East peace is a just and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli crisis, and one of your government sources tells you that this is not a high priority for the Bush White House, then it seems that something has gone terribly wrong. How did a previously accepted notion change? The chances are the source is not going to explain that the real problem is that his side is losing a round of brutal bureaucratic infighting because he might not even recognize it as such. Besides, very few people ever believe that they are wrong, and in Washington it is dangerous to admit you are wrong. So, the explanation must be that something else is going on?in this case, that there has been a palace coup waged by power-drunk policy intellectuals.

One of the peculiar aspects of the secret cabal narrative is that it tends to flatter the people who tell it?after all, this is a case of one group of journalists and academics describing how other journalists and academics wield the awesome power that drives Washington politics. Policy experts no doubt supply an administration with much of its intellectual ?lan, but in the end they do not decide to send men to war. Outside of office, millionaire CEOs like Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld do not regularly solicit advice from college professors on how best to use money and personnel; why would the secretary of defense take orders from his subordinates during wartime?

It was Sept. 11 that won the argument about U.S. Middle East policy?not the neocons. The belief that they steamrolled the president into war has dovetailed all too conveniently with a very vicious notion about the untrustworthiness of Jews. It’s shameful for many reasons, not least because the debate over Middle East policy is still of vital importance, and the neocons were “right” only insofar as they revisited a number of ideas that were due to be revised. But Sept. 11 is not the final word in Middle East policy; it merely forced us to re-examine some accepted notions, and we should assume we will need to do so again. However, right now much of the policy community and the media are in no position to shape a real debate about policy. We deserve that argument, without conspiracy theories and “Likud”-baiting.

Heres a nice link debunking the whole draft idea and explaining where the idea comes from…follow the link. As I said, Stop trying to scare people.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
it has more to do with Israel directly influencing our policy and actions in the Middle East.

As a Jew, I hate to say it… but Israel’s military and foreign policy decisions make me sick. Almost as sick as the “anything for Israel” crowd among American Jews. This is probably how Islamic terrorists get away with their shit – all the otherwise sensible Muslims saying “we believe in the same God, let’s leave them alone”.

[quote]CDarklock wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
it has more to do with Israel directly influencing our policy and actions in the Middle East.

As a Jew, I hate to say it… but Israel’s military and foreign policy decisions make me sick. Almost as sick as the “anything for Israel” crowd among American Jews. This is probably how Islamic terrorists get away with their shit – all the otherwise sensible Muslims saying “we believe in the same God, let’s leave them alone”.

Great to hear your opinion CDarklock, especially coming from a Jewish perspective. I have a number of Jewish friends who feel the same way, as I think most peace loving Jews do. Glad you chimed in, I know it’s even harder for you to talk about in mixed company.

As you know, contrary to popular belief, this has nothing to do with anti-Semitism but everything to do with a radical government and it’s “war-at-all-costs” policies, they just use anti-Semitism as a way to deflect any serious criticism.

As far as I can tell I’ve been the only person on this board to even mention Israel. You can’t possibly have a serious discussion about what’s going on without bring it up.

Most of the terrorism directed at the US is directly related to our relationship with Israel. As of right now almost every Muslim country considers Israel and the US as one in the same, and almost every foreign policy analyst has stated as such.

It’s doubtful even 99% of our population wants what they have in mind, but the more people start to give it some serious thought and discussion, the better off we’ll become.

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Wow dude, you are way out there. I’ve never paid any attention to your posts before, and now I see why. Your references are quite comical.

Funny stuff man. Does anyone else see the jest in this person calling him/herself “JustTheFacts”. LOL![/quote]

Sorry dude, didn’t mean to scare ya.

If it makes you feel any better, there won’t be a draft if we invade Iran (especially with Iraq now under control) and there is no country called Israel and BTW, they won’t be using nuclear weapons either.

Israel to US: Now for Iran
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Sunday 29 August 2004

Having succeeded in getting the United States to invade and occupy Iraq, Israel is now making efforts to instigate the Bush administration to deal with the “Iranian threat”.

This week, a high-ranking Israeli official urged the US “and the rest of the free world” to deal with the “Iranian threat before it is too late”.

The remarks - reminiscent of the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion of the Arab country last year - coincided with the publication of an article by a leading Israeli military historian Martin Van-Creveld, suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants.

Writing in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune on 21 August, Creveld opined an Israeli or American (or a joint Israeli-American) attack on Iranian nuclear plants might be carried out before the US November elections.

Israel reportedly possess a big arsenal of nuclear weapons - estimates range from 100 to 400 weapons and bombs - along with efficient delivery systems, including a fleet of long-range American-supplied F-15 fighter bombers as well as the medium range ballistic missile Yeriho.

However, according to Abd Al-Sattar Qasim, Professor of Political Science at the Najah University in Nablus, these are only “pretexts”.

“I believe that Israel is the most dangerous state in the world today. Imagine what state the stability and security of the world would be in if the messianic Jewish extremists of Gush Euminim reached power in Israel and suddenly found themselves in control of Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal.”

This, coupled with US brazen support of Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank, would likely bring American credibility in this part of the world to an all-time low. [ie: more terrorists]

In that light, Israel’s most workable approach would be to leave it to the Americans, according to Ira Sharkansky, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

“I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it,” he told Aljazeera.net.

And Israel, directly and through its powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been making strenuous efforts to get Washington to “do something” about Iran.


Man that’s funny stuff, I laugh everytime I read that.
Especially the part where he says, “I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it.” HA HA

I mean, how could that even be possible, we don’t even have enough troops for Iraq…

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Sorry dude, didn’t mean to scare ya.


You’re a regular comedian. Nice links, real reputable.

Keep diggin’…

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

Sorry dude, didn’t mean to scare ya.

You’re a regular comedian. Nice links, real reputable.

Keep diggin’…[/quote]

Talk about my sources…what the!? I knew before the Iraqi invasion we weren’t likely to find WMD’s because of MY sources of info.

I watched that whole thing play out. At the time I wasn’t sure who to believe, but in the end I saw that our media outright lied and lead everyone by the nose into Iraq while these other sources and the REST OF THE WORLD were saying “hey, wait a minute”.

Why do you think the UN or rest of the world didn’t want to support us? The war with Iraq started on Mar 19, 2003, 5 days later Michael Moore went on the Oscars, on national TV, and called the war a sham and everyone booed him, including ME.

Michael Moore booed as he slams Iraq war at Oscars
March 24 2003

Famed US documentary maker Michael Moore was booed and cheered today when he used his Oscar win to attack President Bush for his “fictitious” war in Iraq.

“We live in a time with fictitious election results that elect fictitious presidents. We live in a time when we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.”


Turns out he was completely right.

Ever since then “your sources” have told us lie, after lie, after lie, and I watched it happen. While I may have been duped the first time along with the rest of you, I’ve learned a great deal about where to find “the real news”.

Unfortunately, never once did I ever think Iraq was under control or that anything was going well. While most of you guys were on here going “Good News from Iraq”, there were only a few of us saying no way, and at no point was it EVER “good”.

Below is a perfect example of the way everyone gets duped in this whole mess…THIS SHIT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME! Maybe someday people will open their friggin’ eyes and mind for once and see how they’re actually getting PLAYED.

Running scared

[i]Jonathan Raban on how the White House’s obsession with secrecy has turned America into a nation of conspiracy theorists

Wednesday July 21, 2004
The Guardian[/i]

The latest theory comes hot from the mouths of anonymous agents in the Pakistan security service: the White House is putting immense pressure on the Musharraf regime to deliver “high-value targets”, in the shape of Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, on July 26, 27, or 28, to spectacularly eclipse the opening of the Democratic party convention in Boston. Or, if that’s too tall an order, they must be caught before polling day.

Conspiracy theorising is coming out of the internet closet and going mainstream. Or, to put it another way, conspiracy theorising is fast becoming a legitimate means of reporting on a government so secretive that unnamed Pakistani security types may well be the best informed sources on the Bush administration’s domestic policies and strategems.

Even before September 11, secrecy was this administration’s hallmark, as when it invoked the principle of executive privilege to conceal from public view the proceedings of vice-president Cheney’s energy taskforce. After 9/11, secrecy was advanced, proudly, as a guiding principle for a nation at war.

November 2 looms as a date of dreadful consequence. A bumper sticker, popular among the sort of people I hang out with, reads: Bush-Cheney '04 - The Last Vote You’ll Ever Have To Cast. That’s funny, but it belongs to the genre of humour in which the laugh is likely to die in your throat - and none of the people who sport the sticker on their cars are smiling. They are too busy airing conspiracy theories, which may or may not turn out to be theories.


Of course, the morning after John Kerry’s speech at the DNC…[b]SURPRISE!!!

Pakistan Holds Top Al Qaeda Suspect Key Figure in 1998 Embassy Bombings Arrested After 10-Hour Shootout[/b]

By Kamran Khan
Special to The Washington Post
Friday, July 30, 2004

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 30 - Pakistan has captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who is sought by the United States as a suspect in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, officials said Friday.

Ghailani, a Tanzanian citizen said to be in his early thirties, was seized early Sunday, along with his wife and five other African or Pakistani al Qaeda suspects, following a joint Pakistani-U.S. intelligence operation, senior Pakistani police and intelligence officials said. The capture followed a 10-hour shootout in the industrial city of Gujrat, 125 miles south of Islamabad.

“This is a big success,” Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said in an unusual late-night announcement on Pakistan’s Geo television network. “More importantly, we are certain of gathering some latest intelligence on al Qaeda from him,” Hayat said in an interview later.

Pakistani officials have rejected allegations that they delayed the announcement for four days to obtain maximum publicity. Hayat said the delay was a result of “double checks and even triple checks in such cases.”

But in the arrests of other high-profile al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, including Abu Zubayida, Khalid Sheik Mohammad and Ramzi Bin al Shibh, the news media received word almost immediately.

“What difference will it make if we do not rush to make a hasty unconfirmed claim?” Hayat said. He said he saw no connection between the late announcement of Ghailani’s arrest and the Democratic National Convention in the United States, where Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts was about to accept his party’s nomination for president.


Three Cities On Terror Alert
NEW YORK, Aug. 2, 2004

(CBS/AP) - Federal authorities had prominent financial institutions in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J., under heavy scrutiny Monday after unusually detailed information on a purported al Qaeda plot forced them to raise the government’s terror alert.

“What was very unique about this information is the explicit nature, the detail, the thoroughness (and) the sophistication,” Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told CBS News Early Show co-anchor Julie Chen in an interview broadcast Monday. “That was what’s very unusual.”

It is impossible to shut down access to any potential target, Ridge acknowledged Monday. “We’re the most open society in the world. People walk down our streets and through our neighborhoods,” he said. “We don’t always know who they are… That is one of the great strengths of our country but it also is one of the great vulnerabilities.” (that’s right, it could be anybody)

But then…ohhh nooooo.

Unmasking of Qaeda Mole a US Security Blunder: Experts

By Peter Graff
August 7, 2004

The revelation that a mole within al Qaeda was exposed after Washington launched its “orange alert” this month has shocked security experts, who say the outing of the source may have set back the war on terror.

Reuters learned from Pakistani intelligence sources on Friday that computer expert Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, arrested secretly in July, was working under cover to help the authorities track down al Qaeda militants in Britain and the United States when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.


Security experts contacted by Reuters said they were shocked by the revelations that the source whose information led to the alert was identified within days, and that U.S. officials had confirmed his name.

“The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse,” said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane’s Defense publications. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it’s so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?

“It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It’s not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it’s on the front pages every time there’s a development, is it?”

A source such as Khan – cooperating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents – would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said. “Running agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover.”

Rolf Tophoven, head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy in Essen, Germany, said allowing Khan’s name to become public was “very unclever.”

“If it is correct, then I would say its another debacle of the American intelligence community. Maybe other serious sources could have been detected or guys could have been captured in the future” if Khan’s identity had been protected, he said.


So the whole “orange terror alert” in NYC, the military style police presence everywhere, the (real) traffic jams while security personnel inspected every single truck coming into the city, the screenings of people going into buildings…ALL COMPLETELY SET-UP!!!

So if you don’t mind I’ll stick with MY own sources thank you very much.

I have an idea though, why don’t you guys just get together and make-up your own news…meanwhile, MY sources say, here comes the DRAFT…


Have you ever considered that YOU are also going to lose if we lose in Iraq?

Your initial, “see I told you so” horseshit will eventually wear off.

What if we listen to your gloom and doom, decide we can’t win?

Then what? Pull out?

Is that what you want?

Do you hope we lose the will to wage this war?

This is what it is boiling down to now.

You know, of course, that both contenders for the White House have pledged to stay the course.

I believe in the spirit of our invasion of Iraq. I believe in the reasons. If you are hung up on WMD, remember we’ve found hundreds of thousands of TONS of WMD in Libya. This is a 100% cause and effect from our invasion of Iraq.

The other reasons for invasion of Iraq cannot be logically ignored. Things like shooting at our planes on a daily basis, Saddam supporting terrorists both Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists, his history of brutually attacking his neighbors (and our allies in the region), his use of oil to try and bribe the rest of the world, his attempted assassination of our 41st President, and his murder and torture of millions of his own people.

Do us all a favor and shitcan the “I told you so crap.” If America loses, so do you.