REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Israeli Spy at Pentagon

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 14:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2933
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, August 27, 2004 8:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


www.reuters.com/newsArticle.
jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6093465&pageNumber=1

Quote:

...CBS News, which first reported the story, said federal agents were about to arrest the suspect, who it said may have been in a position to influence Bush administration policy on Iran and Iraq.

The network said the analyst had ties to Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, both regarded as leading architects of the war on Iraq that President Bush launched in March last year.

... The network described the spy as "a trusted analyst" ... (who) worked for Feith, who created a special intelligence unit before the Iraq war that had sought to build a case that Baghdad had ties to al Qaeda

... The Washington Post reported on its Web site that the official under suspicion specialized in Iranian affairs and was a veteran of the Defense Intelligence Agency who was nearing retirement.



Am I allowed to say "I told you so"?






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 27, 2004 10:46 PM

BANRIGH


I find it strange that the Pentagon has a website. Kinda creepifyin.

Did they kiss your ass to your satisfaction?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 27, 2004 10:52 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I lost the capacity to be shocked a long time ago. This was the same office in the Pentagon that fell for what Chalabi was selling hook line and sinker. It was set up post 9-11 to serve as a neocon alternative to the CIA and the State Department intelligence services (I think it was also redundant with a group in the Pentagon itself). The real purpose seems to have been to provide supporting evidence for the administration to justify the Iraq invasion. All of their sources were provided by Chalabi's group, the Iraqi National Congress. We have since learned that these sources were coached. Basically, the majority, if not all, of the information put out by this special office was discredited. And now we find out that one of the people in the office is a potential spy for Israel? Doesn't suprise me at all.

It was actually this office in the Pentagon that really got me questioning why we needed to invade Iraq. Here are some of the questions running through my mind back in January and February of 2003. Why are we trusting an office that has only been in operation less than two years over intelligence from groups who have been operating for decades? Why do we believe Chalabi when he tells us that we will be welcomed with open arms and flowers when the man hasn't been in Iraq in more than forty years? What's the hurry to get on the ground and into Iraq? Why are we letting two prominent members of PNAC (Project for a New American Century) who wrote a report years ago stating that we needed some attack on the US to force us into invading a middle eastern country, preferably Iraq, be the major source for information that leads to us invading Iraq? Why are all the sources this PNAC led office is using to boltress it's support for invading Iraq being provided by the INC? (Iraqi National Congress - Chalabi's group that was getting millions of dollars of federal money to lie to us - they were still getting paid up until Chalabi bit our hand and went to hide in Iran)

It was frustrating at the time that there was no discourse on any of these questions in the mainstream media. Now, a year and a half after it's too late we're starting to finally hear stuff the US public should have known all along. The information was pretty much all there, our media just didn't ask the questions.

I just wish that the Republicans would clean house and marginalize those neoconservatives (GW's presidency has been a testing ground for neo-conservative foreign policy. I think it's safe to say that it was a failure. They should go on back to their think tanks and let the real Republicans regain control of the party). I also wish that we didn't have a media so afraid of their corporate bosses that they are worthless.

[/end rant]

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 2:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I find it strange that the Pentagon has a website. Kinda creepifyin.

Did they kiss your ass to your satisfaction?



eh?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 6:07 AM

THEGREYJEDI


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I lost the capacity to be shocked a long time ago. This was the same office in the Pentagon that fell for what Chalabi was selling hook line and sinker. It was set up post 9-11 to serve as a neocon alternative to the CIA and the State Department intelligence services (I think it was also redundant with a group in the Pentagon itself). The real purpose seems to have been to provide supporting evidence for the administration to justify the Iraq invasion. All of their sources were provided by Chalabi's group, the Iraqi National Congress. We have since learned that these sources were coached. Basically, the majority, if not all, of the information put out by this special office was discredited. And now we find out that one of the people in the office is a potential spy for Israel? Doesn't suprise me at all.

It was actually this office in the Pentagon that really got me questioning why we needed to invade Iraq. Here are some of the questions running through my mind back in January and February of 2003. Why are we trusting an office that has only been in operation less than two years over intelligence from groups who have been operating for decades? Why do we believe Chalabi when he tells us that we will be welcomed with open arms and flowers when the man hasn't been in Iraq in more than forty years? What's the hurry to get on the ground and into Iraq? Why are we letting two prominent members of PNAC (Project for a New American Century) who wrote a report years ago stating that we needed some attack on the US to force us into invading a middle eastern country, preferably Iraq, be the major source for information that leads to us invading Iraq? Why are all the sources this PNAC led office is using to boltress it's support for invading Iraq being provided by the INC? (Iraqi National Congress - Chalabi's group that was getting millions of dollars of federal money to lie to us - they were still getting paid up until Chalabi bit our hand and went to hide in Iran)

It was frustrating at the time that there was no discourse on any of these questions in the mainstream media. Now, a year and a half after it's too late we're starting to finally hear stuff the US public should have known all along. The information was pretty much all there, our media just didn't ask the questions.

I just wish that the Republicans would clean house and marginalize those neoconservatives (GW's presidency has been a testing ground for neo-conservative foreign policy. I think it's safe to say that it was a failure. They should go on back to their think tanks and let the real Republicans regain control of the party). I also wish that we didn't have a media so afraid of their corporate bosses that they are worthless.

[/end rant]

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!




Here's my two cents. People who don't like conservatives and neo-conservatives will use this and blame it all on Bush. I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to lay this blame on GW alone, or even at all. Bush's administration is to blame. Namely Cheney, Rumsfield, and all the other prototypical hand-wringing evil neocons. Bush isn't dumb. Yes, his father and his father's money helped get him into Yale. But he still went to Yale. No amount of money and influence will get mayonaise into Yale. Still, there's a lot going on around and behind Bush that I don't think he sees or realizes. Bush, to me, seems a genuinely good person. Misguided, heavily misinformed, perhaps even easily influenced, but I have no doubts about his personal intentions. I'm going to have to agree with a moderate, even somewhat liberal, blogger I read (John Scalzi) and say that I think we should be in Iraq. Maybe the reasons weren't all squared away, but the end result was needed. Those people should have been freed from under Saddam a long time ago, but weren't. And it also sends a message to the other mid-east nations. We won't take shit from you. You guys get along, or we'll drop bombs on your ass, too. We've got a lot of muscle to enforce peace as well as we can. We used a little bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you might ask why we should be the ones doing the peace-keeping. Well, we should, and are, because no one else will. It's a job what needs doing. We can and will and do. And that's why I'm proud to be an American. Semper pax Americana. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus.

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:32 AM

CREVANREAVER


Quote:

Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
Here's my two cents. People who don't like conservatives and neo-conservatives will use this and blame it all on Bush. I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to lay this blame on GW alone, or even at all. Bush's administration is to blame. Namely Cheney, Rumsfield, and all the other prototypical hand-wringing evil neocons. Bush isn't dumb. Yes, his father and his father's money helped get him into Yale. But he still went to Yale. No amount of money and influence will get mayonaise into Yale. Still, there's a lot going on around and behind Bush that I don't think he sees or realizes. Bush, to me, seems a genuinely good person. Misguided, heavily misinformed, perhaps even easily influenced, but I have no doubts about his personal intentions. I'm going to have to agree with a moderate, even somewhat liberal, blogger I read (John Scalzi) and say that I think we should be in Iraq. Maybe the reasons weren't all squared away, but the end result was needed. Those people should have been freed from under Saddam a long time ago, but weren't. And it also sends a message to the other mid-east nations. We won't take shit from you. You guys get along, or we'll drop bombs on your ass, too. We've got a lot of muscle to enforce peace as well as we can. We used a little bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you might ask why we should be the ones doing the peace-keeping. Well, we should, and are, because no one else will. It's a job what needs doing. We can and will and do. And that's why I'm proud to be an American. Semper pax Americana. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus.



TheGreyJedi, you took thoughts right out of my mind. I agree with you 100 percent. If you or anyone else is interested in an alternative to either President Bush or Senator Kerry go to the website below.

http://www.badnarik.org/

And here is some required reading.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

"Thoughts are the gun. Words are the bullets. I'm the triggerman."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:59 AM

THEGREYJEDI


Libertarians...

Better the devil I know than the devil I don't.

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 11:20 AM

CREVANREAVER


Quote:

Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
Better the devil I know than the devil I don't.



Hey, sometimes what you think to be a devil is actually an angel.

I'm personally tired of going with the lesser of two evils.

Badnarik in November!!!!



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 11:30 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by GreyJedi
Here's my two cents. People who don't like conservatives and neo-conservatives will use this and blame it all on Bush. I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to lay this blame on GW alone, or even at all. Bush's administration is to blame. Namely Cheney, Rumsfield, and all the other prototypical hand-wringing evil neocons. Bush isn't dumb. Yes, his father and his father's money helped get him into Yale. But he still went to Yale. No amount of money and influence will get mayonaise into Yale. Still, there's a lot going on around and behind Bush that I don't think he sees or realizes. Bush, to me, seems a genuinely good person. Misguided, heavily misinformed, perhaps even easily influenced, but I have no doubts about his personal intentions. I'm going to have to agree with a moderate, even somewhat liberal, blogger I read (John Scalzi) and say that I think we should be in Iraq. Maybe the reasons weren't all squared away, but the end result was needed. Those people should have been freed from under Saddam a long time ago, but weren't. And it also sends a message to the other mid-east nations. We won't take shit from you. You guys get along, or we'll drop bombs on your ass, too. We've got a lot of muscle to enforce peace as well as we can. We used a little bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you might ask why we should be the ones doing the peace-keeping. Well, we should, and are, because no one else will. It's a job what needs doing. We can and will and do. And that's why I'm proud to be an American. Semper pax Americana. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus.


I definitely see a distinction between neo-conservatives and conservatives. I don't see myself as falling in the category of "People who don't like conservatives and neo-conservatives.." I think that the neo-conservatives embrace a foreign policy that is against the best interests of the US. I don't think it's a matter of like or dislike but rather a matter of beneficial or detrimental policies. There are some policies advocated by conservative groups that I see as beneficial. Others, not so much.

This administration is much more a neo-conservative administration than a conservative administration. Does this mean that I blame GW for everything? Nope. I see him more as smart but intellectually lazy than a mastermind of policy. His advisors have insulated him quite well from reality. I honestly believe that GW thinks he is doing what is best for the country. But we're in worse shape than we were four years ago (using a number of different measures). Just look at all the people who have retired or been fired or been forced to resign from this administration. There's a lot of people falling on their swords to protect those above them for failed policy decisions.

Here's what I see you saying about Iraq: It doesn't matter how we got there; the important thing is that freeing the Iraqis from the rule of Hussein is a good thing. (Please let me know if I've mischaracterized what you are saying). I agree that getting rid of Hussein was a good thing for the people of Iraq. I fail to see how doing that was a good thing for the people of the United States. In my mind this was a distraction from the war on Al Qaeda.

editted to add: The latin phrase you included at the end of the post sent me off on a little tangent. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus (Let there be justice even if the world perishes). I guess it would depend on who gets to define what is just. And, ummm, can we vote on the "pereat mundus" part? I find it interesting that the person who this modified quote is attributed to, Ferdinand I of the Holy Roman Empire, is probably best known for signing a peace treaty with the Ottomon Empire (the Moslem power of his day and age) - that a person who made a statement that could be seen as decrying compromise is best known for a compromise.

But at least it wasn't Ferdinand I of Austria from a few hundred years later - who was quoted as saying, "I am Emperor, I want noodles, so I get them." and "It is easy to govern, but what is difficult is to sign one's name." Now there was a man who was so stupid that he was told by his father while he lay dying, "Reign and don't change anything."

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 2:05 PM

THEGREYJEDI


Well, see, while Justin is a retardly popular name for my generation, I think I might be one of the very few who knows and lives what the name means. Justin - Just, upright. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus is more of a personal creed. I think you picked up on what I was saying, though I was not implying that you were one of the Anti-Republicans of the world.

The problem with our actions against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and terrorism in general is that it's a slow-going process and the American cattle, I mean public, wants results at the click of a mouse. They think all we have to do is knock on a door, drag Osama's ass out and be done with it. They haven't looked at a map, or talked to anyone what's been there. Afghanistan is a dirt heap consisting of a lot of rocks and a lot of mountains. We're slowly dragging the rats out, but the American cattle, I mean public, want faster results. I agree that maybe the war in Iraq was a wag the dog situation. It still needed doing. Bush the First didn't do it because he knew it would be an unpopular, long-term project. And he was right. But like the war with Iraq, our war on terror is the right thing to do.

And God decides what is and isn't Just. And I plan to continue doing what is Just even if the world should perish around me. No power in the 'verse will sway me from the path of Righteousness.

But now I'm getting preachy. I'm just a bit too violent to be a shepherd, so I'll leave y'all with this. Libertarianism won't work. Ever. So long as there are humans. Mankind can't be left to it's own devises. Mister Badnarik (where the hell did he come from with a name like that?) might trust us to run our own lives, but I know better. Mankind isn't to be trusted to its own devices. So that's why I'll vote Bush. This country knows peace and propserity, provided you're not too lazy to get up off your ass and work for it. But if for some reason this great land of ours goes dark, Bush will have left me with a means of self-defense. For my tastes, the Kerry/Edwards ticket is just a little too not moderate. I'm afraid for the guns I don't even own yet. Bush can only be in office for four more years anyway.

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 28, 2004 4:44 PM

LTNOWIS


First, check out this website:
http://selectsmart.com/president/

It's a quiz that says what candidate you should support solely based on their positions. It's not biased, because I got Bush as last out of 17, and my dad got him as first out of 17.

Quote:

And it also sends a message to the other mid-east nations. We won't take shit from you. You guys get along, or we'll drop bombs on your ass, too. We've got a lot of muscle to enforce peace as well as we can. We used a little bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you might ask why we should be the ones doing the peace-keeping. Well, we should, and are, because no one else will. It's a job what needs doing. We can and will and do. And that's why I'm proud to be an American.


See, while the Iraq invasion sends the message that we don't tolerate human rights violations, I'm not sure that message is true. Would we have done anything about the Taliban if 9/11 hadn't happened? We're not doing anything about the genocide in Darfur, despite the media attention. There are a bunch of other crudded-up nations suffering from dictators of civil wars.
The problem is, we really don't have enough muscle for some of these problems. In Iraq, we have to rely on other nations and Iraqi military to maintain order, but we still need to lengthen deployments and such. Likewise, North Korea's threatening us with nukes, and they abuse their people, but we can't smite them because they've got 950,000 soldiers, and possibly nukes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 29, 2004 8:57 AM

CREVANREAVER


Quote:

Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
... check out this website:
http://selectsmart.com/president/



Thanks LtNOWIS, that's a great website!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2022 8:46 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2022 2:36 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Ghislaine Maxwell sexually propositioned a teenage Petronella Wyatt
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11478971/Ghislaine-Maxwell-
sexually-propositioned-teenage-Petronella-Wyatt.html


MTV, football teams and owning the British press: How Robert Maxwell made his millions
https://thetab.com/uk/2022/11/29/how-did-robert-maxwell-get-his-money-
283769


Single mother claims in lawsuit she was brutally raped by billionaire Leon Black
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11478595/Single-mother-claims
-lawsuit-brutally-raped-billionaire-Leon-Black.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL