Dual Loyalties

My opinion on the people who shape our world

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Forward Newspaper Online

Forward Newspaper Online: "




Home > NewsNews
Neocons Blast Bush's Inaction On 'Spy' Affair
By MARC PERELMAN
September 10, 2004

In an indication of their growing estrangement with the Bush administration, neoconservatives are slamming the White House for failing to stop what they describe as an antisemitic campaign to marginalize them being conducted by the CIA and the State Department.

This view was outlined in a memo circulating among neoconservative foreign policy analysts in Washington. Obtained by the Forward, the memo criticizes the White House for not refuting press reports on the FBI's investigation of Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin that suggest wrongdoing on the part of Jewish officials at the Defense Department.

"If there is any truth to any of the accusations, why doesn't the White House demand that they bring on the evidence? On the record," the

memo stated. "There's an increasing antisemitic witch hunt."

A source who has seen the memo said it was written by Michael Rubin, a former member of the Pentagon's policy planning staff who dealt with Iran policy. Rubin, now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, declined to comment for this story.

"I feel like I'm in Paris, not Washington," the author of the memo wrote. He added: "I'm disappointed at the lack of leadership that let things get where they are, and which is allowing these bureaucratics (sic) to spin out of control."

The memo comes as the FBI is investigating the possibility that Franklin passed classified information on Iran policy to officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who in turn provided the documents to Israel. Israel and Aipac have denied any wrongdoing. Media reports suggest that several other Pentagon officials have been questioned in connection to the probe.

Some Washington insiders claim that the White House silence over the Franklin affair reflects a growing view within the administration that the neoconservatives — widely seen as leading proponents of the Iraq war — represent a mounting political burden, given the continuing chaos in Iraq.

While President Bush and his closest advisers openly shared the neoconservatives' belief that American military action was needed to remove Saddam Hussein, the two sides seem to have parted ways over Iran. Neoconservative analysts in and out of government are calling on the United States to attempt to secure regime change in Tehran. The administration has increasingly suggested that it has no plans to take such forceful steps against Iran.

The recent controversy surrounding the FBI investigations also can be traced to renewed concerns in some quarters of the intelligence and security communities that Washington's close relationship with Jerusalem ññ centered, in the critics' view, in the neoconservative group at the Pentagon ññ is hurting American national interests.

While they generally refuse to speak on the record, some former intelligence and law-enforcement officials have alleged that Israel operates an aggressive spying operation in America. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Sharon, have vehemently denied such claims, insisting that their country does not conduct espionage operations against the United States.

Some observers point to the harsh treatment of accused spy Jonathan Pollard as evidence of the intelligence community's strong feelings on the issue. Pollard, a former Navy civilian analyst, is serving a life sentence for providing Israel with classified documents about Soviet armament. Members of the security establishment have worked aggressively to block attempts by Jewish organizations to have Pollard's sentence commuted on humanitarian grounds.

This old resentment toward Israel and its supporters in the United States has found new echo with the growing criticism of the neoconservatives for their advocacy of war in Iraq. In recent months, several critics of the neoconservatives' influence on Middle Eastern policy have openly accused Israel of pushing a hawkish agenda.

Retired general Anthony Zinni, a former chief of the U.S. Central Command and presidential Middle East envoy, told CBS in May that "the worst-kept secret in Washington" was that the neoconservatives pushed the war in Iraq for Israel's benefit. Similar criticism of Israel and Jewish groups appeared in the recent book "Imperial Hubris," by Anonymous, who was later identified as Michael Scheuer, a serving senior CIA official.

"Objectively, al Qaeda does not seem off the mark when it describes the U.S.-Israel relationship as a detriment to America," wrote Scheuer, a former head of the CIA analytical team focusing on Al Qaeda. "One can only react to this stunning reality by giving all praise to Israel's diplomats, politicians, intelligence services, U.S.-citizen spies, and the retired senior U.S. officials and wealthy Jewish-American organizations who lobby an always amenable Congress on Israel's behalf."

In recent months, signs of alienation from the neoconservatives have come as well from the Bush administration. American officials, for example, have accused longtime Pentagon favorite Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, of warning Iranian intelligence officials that the United States had broken Iran's secret communications codes. The FBI's investigation to determine who in government had told Chalabi about the secret code-breaking operation has focused on Defense Department officials, sources said.

American officials, speaking anonimously, have given conflicting comments on whether the Franklin and Chalabi probes are linked.

The barrage of news reports on the allegations of improper conduct on the part of Aipac and Pentagon officials has fueled a suspicion among neo-conservatives that they are the victims of a smear campaign quietly endorsed by the White House. The recent memo being circulated in neoconservative circles points a finger at several State Department officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and at members of the National Security Council, including Robert Blackwill, who took over Iraq policy recently and is said to be behind the Chalabi crackdown.

The memo, in an apparent reference to a June 2003 article in The Washington Post describing administration infighting over U.S. policy toward Tehran, asserted that media leaks from the State Department sank an effort by Pentagon officials to call for more aggressive action against Iran in a key policy document called the national security presidential directive, or NSPD.

"It was bad enough that the White House rewarded the June 15, 2003 leak by canceling consideration of the NSPD," the memo stated. "It showed the State Department that leaks could supplant real debate. But while Armitage or Blackwell (sic) might be seeking to score points inside the beltway, they are feeding conspiracies in the Middle East that will sink the president's policies in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, etc."

To back up claims of antisemitism, the memo points to reports that the FBI has hired Stephen Green, a longtime critic of American-Israeli ties, as a consultant. A former United Nations official, Green has a long record of claiming that Israel uses Jewish Americans, some of them prominent, to spy on the United States. Green has said in interviews that FBI officials interviewed him at length in the past few weeks.

"Green has... been on a one-man mission to expose deep-cover Israeli agents for decades," the memo said.

Green stresssed that the bureau had sought him out "and not the other way around" and that its officials did not ask about Franklin but about leading neoconservative like Wolfowitz and Feith."

"Richard Perle is a traitor. There's no other way to put it."

Expatriate Richard Perle: "Expatriate Richard Perle
By Kurt Nimmo
3-10-3

"Richard Perle is a traitor. There's no other way to put it."

Seymour Hersh is a rarity in America these days -- an investigative journalist.

"Hersh is not a nice man in the Washington sense," writes Eric Alterman of Salon, "he does not know how to make small talk, flatter his bosses, spin his defeats and conceal his fierce competitiveness. He is simply the best investigative reporter alive and expects his work to speak for itself."

Because Hersh does what he does so well, the chicken hawk Richard Perle called him a terrorist on CNN the other day.

That's right. Perle equated Hersh with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. "Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist," Perle told Wolf Blitzer.

Perle slandered Hersh because the award winning journalist wrote in the March 17th issue of the New Yorker: "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."

I have not read the New Yorker article, so I can't comment on it. I don't know if Perle set up a company situated to profit from his boss' plan to mass murder possibly a half million Iraqis or not. But if Hersh said it, there must be something to it. Hersh is known for his meticulous research. He conducts interviews, double checks facts. Seymour Hersh does not make things up. Due to his professionalism Hersh has won more than a dozen major journalism prizes, including the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting and four George Polk Awards.

On the other hand, Perle and the neocons are liars.

One big lie is that Mohammed Atta met with Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an official at Baghdad's embassy in Prague. US intelligence agencies went over records of Atta,s travels and concluded that during the period in question he was in Virginia Beach, not in Prague. Perle knew this was a fabrication. He attempted to pass it off on the American people as truth. There are many other lies, as well, but I will not bother you with enumeration.

That's how the neocons make their case before the American people -- through deceit, half-truth, fabrications, and outright lies. It should be considered treason. It should be a crime. Maybe one day Richard Perle will be prosecuted for his crimes. For now he is allowed to bend the ear of George W. Bush and prod the half-wit dictator into destroying America.

When Perle was working for Senator Scoop Jackson, he was investigated by the Justice Department and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel.

"An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the Defense Department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm."

In other words, Richard Perle is an Israeli spy.

Perle should be expatriated immediately -- or made to share a cell with Jonathan Pollard, the spy who spent 18 months collecting and selling classified American intelligence to Israel from his position in U.S. Naval Intelligence. So pleased were the Israelis with the information passed on to them, two of the four government officials who had dealt with Pollard were promoted (Col. Aviem Sella, Pollard,s primary contact, was given full control of a major Israeli Air Force base). So arrogant are the Israelis that Sharon asked Bush to pardon and release Pollard.

If these are our friends, who needs enemies?

Okay, I'm going to use a word that will upset some of you -- Zionist. These days if you use the word Zionist you're going to be immediately accused of anti-Semitism. I receive hate email for using this word on occasion. You'd think I'm making excuses for the Holocaust (which is another subject that can get you in hot water, especially in France where you can go to prison for questioning the official verson of historical events). I'm not slandering Jews, I'm simply reporting the facts. Here's an indisputable fact:

Richard Perle is a Zionist.

Now what exactly does this mean? It means Richard Perle -- and Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and others in the Bush administration -- are Israeli nationalists. "Wolfowitz and fellow Jewish neo-cons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have emerged as the Pentagon's Paladins," writes Ann Pettifer, "their aim being to subdue the Islamic world through decisive, pre-emptive use of American military superiority."

"Only in Washington does one get a true sense of the obsession of these Pentagon civilians," writes Hugo Young, a Guardian columnist. "Conversationally, it is common talk that some of them, not including Rumsfeld, are as much Israeli as American nationalists. Behind nervous, confiding hands come sardonic whispers of an American outpost of Likud. Most striking of all, however, is how unmentionable this is in the liberal press."

Ain't that the truth.

But then the corporate press in America rarely criticizes the Zionists. Notice how Perle can jump from one TV news show to another and nobody mentions his spying for the Israelis or working for an Israeli arms manufacturer. Nobody mentions his "dual loyalties," which are common knowledge in Washington. Nobody calls him a traitor. Nobody in the corporate media dares -- that is if they want to keep their jobs.

Perle can insult the Germans and French at the same time and the corporate media looks the other way. In fact, he is allowed to denigrate the whole of Europe. "I think Europe has lost its moral compass. Many Europeans have become so obsessed by the prospect of violence they have failed to notice who we are dealing with," he told the Guardian.

Gee, Richard. Maybe the Germans remember the horror of American Flying Fortresses dumping gasoline bombs on Dresden in 1945, an act of barbarity that resulted in the murder of 100,000 people. Maybe the French recall the Nazi occupation. Maybe there's still thousands of Dutch, Italians, Poles, and other Europeans alive who remember none too fondly the systematic and engineered mass murder of the Second World War. No doubt, as well, there's plenty of Jews who remember the monstrosity of Hitler's concentration camps.

I bet if you asked them if Saddam Hussein is Hitler reborn they would laugh in your face.

Actually, Saddam is not a threat to a single person in the United States. Perle and the Zionist neocons know this, of course. They also know that Iraq is not a serious threat to Israel, especially after a decade of war and sanctions have reduced Iraq to one of the poorest countries in the world. "We don't lose sleep over Iraq's military threat to us," Lt Gen. Moshe Yaalon, Israel,s Chief of Staff, told the New York Times.

So why are the Zionists pushing for a US invasion of Iraq?

First, the Zionists believe that bad relations between the US and Arab nations is good for Israel. It's no mistake Iraq and Iran were specifically fingered as part of an "axis of evil," nations the Bushites have singled out for invasion and "democratization." Sharon told fellow Zionist and U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton last month he wants Syria and Libya attacked next. As if to make sure he received the correct marching orders, Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.

The Israeli Zionists don't care if perpetual war destroys the American economy. It does not bother them if Americans will die in the thousands.

Second, the Zionists are itching to "transfer" -- i.e., to ethnically cleanse -- as many Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza as possible. Israel will do this while the US is busy slaughtering Iraqis. "Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories," Netanyahu told students at Bar-Ilan University in 1989. Americans may be clueless about the intentions of Zionists toward the Palestinians, but in Israel ethnic cleansing is a popular subject of discussion. Fifty percent or more of Israelis think ethnic cleansing is a good idea. This from a nation that supposedly remembers the Holocaust.

"The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century," remarks Israeli historian Benny Morris. Moreover, the Palestinian "demographic threat" was something that "once left Golda Meir sleepless at night and now serves as the subject of obsession for Israeli conferences and nervous policy analysts," notes Will Youmans.

Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and their fellow travelers from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Hudson Institute -- as well as defense contractors and conservative foundations bankrolled by far-right American Zionists -- are calling the shots on Bush's invasion of Iraq.

It has nothing to do with the security of the American people. It has everything to do with Israel and the Likudites.

The Zionists in the Bush administration are pulling a fast one on the American people. It's criminal behavior. It should not be tolerated. The Zionist plan to bomb and kill Arabs across the Middle East will result in dismal failure and pointless mass murder. It will destroy America. It will wreck our economy and kill our sons. Perle and his cronies are mountebanks, swindlers, hypocrites. They are war criminals.

Richard Perle is a traitor. There's no other way to put it.

If Richard Perle -- and Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, and all the other Zionists embedded in the Bush administration -- love Israel so much, they should pack their bags and go there.

If they won't go on their own, they should be forced to leave.

In the meantime, their treacherous crimes need to be exposed.


nimmo@zianet.com Kurt Nimmo's Another Day in the Empire http://nimmo.blogspot.com/"

Max Boot - Biography

Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran: "Max Boot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Boot is Olin Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. He is also a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

His last book, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power (Basic Books) was selected as one of the best books of 2002 by The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Christian Science Monitor. It also won the 2003 General Wallace M. Greene Jr. Award, given annually by the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation for the best nonfiction book pertaining to Marine Corps history. He is now writing his next book, a history of revolutions in military affairs over the past 500 years, War Made New: Four Great Revolutions That Changed the Face of Battle and the Course of History, which will be published by Gotham Books, an imprint of Penguin (USA).

Boot has written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Financial Times, Foreign Affairs and many other publications. He is also a frequent public speaker and guest on radio and television news programs. He has lectured at many military institutions, including the Army and Navy War Colleges, the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School, and the Naval Academy at Annapolis.

Before joining the Council in October 2002, Boot spent eight years as a writer and editor at The Wall Street Journal, the last five years as editorial features editor. From 1992 to 1994 he was an editor and writer at The Christian Science Monitor.

Boot holds a bachelor's degree in history, with high honors, from the University of California, Berkeley (1991), and a master's degree in history from Yale University (1992). He grew up in Los Angeles and now lives in the New York area with his wife and three children. "