From “Agents of Influence,” an article by Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation, October 4, 2004 – http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=dreyfuss:
I can think of no fitting way to frame this story as an issue for debate other than WTF??!!!
I don’t know what to say other than :eek:
Also from the article:
After the friggin election. :mad:
As usual, those damn sneaky Jews - uh, I mean Neo-cons, up to their old tricks again. When we will we ever learn?
Haven’t we put this self-indulgent bullshit to rest yet? Geez…there are a lot of Jewish neoconservatives. This does NOT mean that “neocon” is code for “Jew”. It’s very clever, the way that the Right tries to hook criticism of this Administration to the anti-semitism train, but it won’t leave the station. Give it a rest.
Now that you’ve got that bit of predictable venting out of the way, Paul, why don’t you address the very real and relevant question of whether this particular damn sneaky Jew, Ariel Sharon (a man to whom “sneaky” is the mildest and kindest epithet that could justly be applied), has been planting spies and/or agents of influence in the Bush Administration or not?
Nah, this has little to do with allegations of disloyal “sneaky Jews” than the possibility that right wing nutjobs would put their vision of the world above normal procedures.
To answer the question asked: no one, except perhaps Sharon and a few others, knows.
First question is if Sharon, or his representatives, placed spies for any purpose. It appears likely so.
Then the question is for which purpose and who knew what when?
To influence going into Iraq? Doubt it. It doesn’t serve Israel’s interest to any great degree. Saddam was a sabre-rattler when it came to Israel and far enough away that he was considered as iminent of a threat as, say Iran is. More the purpose was indeed more mundane: to know what was planned when and be able to position himself favorably for what was to occur. Knowledge is power as they say. To influence? If so then the influence would be best served by policies more pertinent to Sharon’s perception of Israel’s best interests: the freedom to pursue those that he considers terrorists using whatever force needed and at whatever the consequence and collateral damage. Iraq just doesn’t especially help Israel or Sharon’s domestic political interests all that much. Which doesn’t mean that it didn’t serve the right wing agenda and that members of an activist portion of the right that felt that the flexing of American muscle would serve the creation of the Greater American Empire wouldn’t be above fabrication of information.
Did members of the Bush administration knowingly aid and abet spying against the US? Well, I sure would hope that the FBI was interested in that question at all times. I would see them using Sharon though, more than the other way around. Sharon is not sneaky or cunning; he is direct. Disagree with his ends, disagree with his ethics, disagree with his moral compass, but his style is mainly a straight-up pugulist, not too prone to wile. Certainly not smart enough to do it well.
Meanwhile recent events in the media leave one a bit cynical about the reliability of unnamed sources “familiar with the investigation.” Both sides of the spectrum have shown that we in the public need more solid information than rumors.
WTF? Is this real? If it is, I hope it is not squashed by the White House, Perle or anyone else. Maybe it’s just me, but if I were President and I found out I was being spied on and manipulated, I’d be furious. Heads would roll. What we’re talking about here is espionage and treason. I hope it isn’t true, but it is way too important to sweep under the rug.
Are you ever going to return the thread that you started about this very accusation you’re making? It’s a much more appropriate place to discuss it. You have as of yet presented less than a single shred of evidence for your case.
Here’s a link to help you find the thread if you should muster any evidence for your position: **“Neo-Con” is a code word for Jew**
Brain glutton
see also
Another Israeli mole uncovered - Why does Israel feel it can spy on us with impunity?
and
**Rogue Element On the Loose in the Pentagon**.
Other related threads:
**Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP): What’s the Deal?**
And another story of neocons being played by a foreign government:
**DIA says Iran used INC to get US in Iraq**
Nah, it’s just another piece of garbage, a smear from the virulent Israel-haters at The Nation, as hateful a publication as can be imagined and whose site should be treated on this board exactly as Stormfront is.
Mr. Franklin, it seems, was sloppy with classified materials. It looks like he did a couple of things – he may have improperly disclosed some stuff to the press, he improperly brought classified documents home and he may have given some stuff to AIPAC which he thought was already publically disclosed (and in fact, may have been). The latest is that he’s cooperating with the investigators and is gonna get charged with mishandling classifed documents or not at all.
The substance of his alleged infractions come down to disclosing that there is a debate within the administration about how to handle Iran, with hardliners wanting to take a harder stance and and others wanting to go less hard. Congratulations – I just told you the “secret” stuff that Franklin is being investigated about. Don’t tell the FBI.
Mr. Franklin is fully six desks below Mr. Feith – it’s not like the guy was meeting the President, or even Mr. Feith, every morning. He’s a career DoD guy, not a political appointee, and he prepares policy papers but is not personally a policy maker in his current position.
That Mr. Feith or others in the administration are strongly pro-Israel is not exactly a shocker and Sharon didn’t need to put any “spies” in place for it to happen.
That only leaves us reports from: ABC, CBS, Rueters, AP, Knight Ridder, NYT, WaPo, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Times, Newsday, Time Magazine, MSNBC, UPI, CNN and more than a handful of others to go with.
Or perhaps the “Israeli haters” also run these places as well?
If anyone cares to look, there’s a wealth of info specific to this case contained in the first two threads that I linked to:
Rogue Element On the Loose in the Pentagon
&
**Another Israeli mole uncovered - Why does Israel feel it can spy on us with impunity?**
Huh? All those guys reported that Mr. Franklin is being investigated – apparently a factually true story. Are they also reporting that “It’s not a routine spy case. According to sources familiar with the investigation, the FBI is looking at a group of neoconservatives who have occupied senior posts at the White House, the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney’s office. It’s not that they are supporters of Israel–no crime there–but that some of them might be conspirators in a clandestine operation launched by Sharon’s Likud Party.”? That it’s a sweeping probe which includes some of the most senior policymakers in our government and goes back to Sharon personally? That hasn’t been my impression of the coverage.
SimonX,
Yes, cite please.
A sample of what other sources have said is The Washington Post’s report
Anything more is “unnamed sources familiar with …” and other statements of the same reliability. Someone saying something that a biased source says, trust us, he’s reliable. It means nothing other than that someone wants the public to believe it. It may be true that the FBI is investigating whether or not some hard line rightists tried to intentionally manipulate intelligence. I wouldn’t put it past the Rumsfeld/Cheney crowd. And maybe even the passing on of information was part of a back channel that the Bush administration wanted to use for thier own purposes. Or maybe not. But my search comes up only with Arab media outlets, a few stray blogs, and The Nation as the only one alleged that Sharon is calling the shots to manipulate America into war. After all, Bush hardly needed any manipulation. And the US/Iraq War is hardly in Israel’s best interest as it distracts from America’s ability to constrain Iran’s nuclear capacity, which worries Israel a lot more.
:mad: That is a shameful, stinking libel, manhattan. There is a lot in the pages of The Nation that is angry, but nothing that is hateful in the Stormfront sense. And I’ve never known The Nation to be caught out in a lie, in the Fox News sense.
manhattan’s slur on The Nation is especially appalling when one considers the large number of Israeli Jews who write about Israel in its pages. A few examples:
-
Essay by Ben-Gurion University professor Neve Gordon on the “transfer policy”.
-
Interview with Avi Shlaim on America, Israel, and the Middle East.
-
Speech by Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim on being awarded Israel’s prestigious Wolf Prize, “established to honor outstanding artists and scientists who have worked ‘in the interest of mankind and friendly relations among people.’”
-
Letter from jailed Israeli military “refusenik” Yigal Bronner.
You may consider the Nation’s editorial stance too kind to the Palestinians and too harsh on Israel, but to smear the responsible journalism of this reputable publication by comparing it to something like Stormfront is utterly indefensible and inexcusable. Shame on you, manny.
I’m so confused. Do The Jews™ run the media or not? This is turning out to be as big a disappointment as learning that The Jews™ don’t control international finance.
That Ford guy made okay cars but I’m starting to wonder about his understanding of history and politics.
It is a common method of anti-Israel-leaning media to publish reports by Jews, especailly Israeli Jews, in condemnation of Israel, as doing so is saying, “look, even Jews don’t approve of Israel’s policies.” You shouldn’t be surprised by this at all. This allows people to make statements like the one you made above, and allows them do disavow themselves of claimed “anti-Israel bias.”
By the way, “apalling” is a strong word to describe someone’s criticism of a magazine. Do you have deep emotional ties to The Nation or something?
This article is worth a read. This too. This essay is also worth a look.
What’s really worth y’all’s time is this Google Search I’ve done for your convenience with the words “Neocon Jew.” You will find dozens of people making my argument, and you will find just as many people making your argument. The point is, it is a topic of debate, and I’m not a lone nut with a conspiracy theory.
I do! And if you don’t, depart from me into the everlasting BBQ Pit!
Let’s get some things straight here, pal:
It is “anti Israeli occupation policy” not “anti Israel”. The latter implies that someone is opposed to the existance of the state of israel. If you think another terminology is superior, i’d like to hear you explain why; or else shut up with the name-calling.
So have you decided yet if the guys at the nation are “anti Israel” or “anti semites” or what? Please let us know when you come to a final conclusion.
Take me. I am anti the occupation. I am not anti Israel. Neither am I an anti semite. And all the same I don’t like neo-cons, or rather neo-con policy.
Now, if I owned a magazine, like the Nation, I would choose to publish writers that were also anti Israeli occupation policy, because I agreed with them. Regardless if they were jews or not.
I would get pretty pissed when some guy claimed that I really must be an anti-semite, and that my magazine must be an anti-semite magazine because I didn’t like Israeli policy on the occupied territories. I would get REALLY pissed when that same guy implied that if I sometimes published articles buy people who were Israeli jews and were critical of the occupation then maybe it was because I am really an anti-semite deep down, or at least I have “anti Israel bias” which could very well the same thing. Yeah, i would get pissed then.
Not that complicated, huh?
When people use the term “anti-American,” are they referring to opposition to the existence of America, or are they referring to opposition of US policies? Generally the latter, and not the former (unless we’re referring to 18th-century England.) Likewise with Israel: anti-Israel is generally taken to mean anti-Israeli policies, and that’s what I’m using it to mean here.
Focusing incessantly on Israeli policies, however, while ignoring other issues of more brutal human rights oppression (such as the Muslim massacres in the Sudan, or the oppression of women in the Arab Muslim world, or Russia’s policy in Chechnya, or warlords hacking people to death in Sub-Saharan Africa,) sometimes strikes me as blatantly against the state of Israel itself and not simply against their policies. And I find that many publications seem to ignore Muslim-on-Muslim violence and Muslim-on-Infidel violence in favor of "U.S./Israel Imperialist-on-poor-oppressed-people-violence. That kind of bias in terms of what writings and articles you select strikes me as a little more than simply disagreeing with Israel’s policy. Real advocates of human rights would spend more time chastising the Arab world than Israel (and I’m not saying Israel is blameless as far as human rights go, but you see more condemnation of it from these people than of Arabs or Muslims.)
This is the way I see it, and I may or may not be correct. It’s my opinion. I’m not really trying to convince you that it’s true, but I see it as often being the case.
I’ll say something else: You used the word “anti-Semite” in your post five times. Nobody else even brought up the word in this whole thread, least of all me. You dragged that terminology into the conversation.