Running for Cover
Justin Raimondo hits a home run this morning when discussing the War Party's attempts to smear the war protesting mom Cindy Sheehan.
Of course. People use the word neocon becuase they want to be sure NOT to implicate anyone other than neocons. The neocons desparately want to expand the meaning of neocon to "Jews" so that they may hide under the cover of claims of anti-semitism. We will have none of it.
Justin sums it up well:
Indeed.
Link
What is particularly loathsome about Hitchens is that his "argument" consists entirely of epithets: to speak of "neocons," he avers, is to speak of a "Jewish cabal." But why is that? Most American Jews are vastly unsympathetic to George W. Bush, his party, and his war. Aside from that, however, is neoconservatism suddenly and inexplicably disappeared, even as one of its leading exponents triumphantly brays that the "neoconservative movement" has succeeded? Sheehan never once used the word "Jew" to describe anyone or anything for the simple reason that "neocon" is not a synonym for a person of the Jewish faith. Hitchens himself is a living example of why this is true. There are others: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Michael Novak, Victor Davis Hanson, and Bill Bennett, not to mention former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, indicted spy for Israel and devout Catholic.
Of course. People use the word neocon becuase they want to be sure NOT to implicate anyone other than neocons. The neocons desparately want to expand the meaning of neocon to "Jews" so that they may hide under the cover of claims of anti-semitism. We will have none of it.
Justin sums it up well:
The neocons did bring us this war: they manufactured the lies, they promoted the phony "intelligence," they went on television predicting that the Iraqis would shower us with flowers and hosannas. They aren't scapegoats: they're the culprits, and they deserve what's coming to them – although not nearly enough are going to be called upon to account for their actions.
Indeed.
Link
posted by Brian at 7:42 AM
3 Comments:
Cindy Sheehan denied writing her son died for Israel
An American Jewish Committee poll just before the 2004 election showed that 79% of Jews opposed the Iraq war and that opposition to the war was the #1Israel for Jews (#6 was Israel). A few weeks later 78% voted for kerry.
Stop bashing Jews. If the "goyim" voted for President the way Jews did, this would be the list of our last few Presidents.
Humphrey, Mc Govern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry.
WE ARE NOT ISRAEL FIRSTERS. DONT CONFUSE the 50,000 Jews of AIPAC with 6,000,000 loyal American Jews.
And wait til Rosen's conviction is handed down! It will be bye bye AIPAC
New York Jewish Week today
08/19/2005 New York Jewish Week
What Did AIPAC Know — And When?
Former pro-Israel lobby chief says he was aware of aide's access to secret info in '83.
Larry Cohler-Esses - Editor-At-Large
Contrary to recent claims by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a top official of the pro-Israel lobby knew of the use of classified government information in its work, The Jewish Week has learned.
Thomas Dine, a former executive director of AIPAC, confirmed this week that during his tenure Steven Rosen, the lobby's foreign policy director until April, informed him of his success in gaining access to a highly classified document.
Rosen, 63, and two others pleaded not guilty Tuesday to federal charges in Alexandria, Va., that they had conspired to obtain and disclose classified national defense information. The indictment against Rosen, his former AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman and their alleged Pentagon source, Larry Franklin, cites alleged security breaches dating back to 1999.
Dine said federal agents investigating Rosen unearthed a memo from 1983, soon after Rosen's arrival at AIPAC, in which Rosen boasted about his access to a comprehensive, classified review of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
"They showed it to me," Dine said of FBI agents who interviewed him for about 45 minutes in April. "I remembered the letter."
The Rosen memo was directed to one of the lobby's prominent supporters and himself, Dine said.
AIPAC and federal prosecutors have depicted Rosen as a lone ranger. His superiors at AIPAC have said that until recently they were ignorant of his alleged pursuit of classified information.
But Dine's account indicates that soon after starting his job at the lobby, Rosen explicitly informed his boss — the lobby's top staff official — of his success in obtaining such information in writing. It also shows that federal investigators are probing much further back into Rosen's activities than the indictment indicates.
Asked his reaction to the memo at the time, Dine said his impression was that Rosen had not actually laid his hands on the classified document itself but had obtained intelligence on it in the draft stage.
"The normal course of business in Washington is the exchange of ideas and information," Dine said. "It's mainly done verbally. Whether those ideas and [the] sharing [of them] are classified is ambiguous, vague — and business as usual."
Another source who has seen the memo said, "He [Rosen] was bragging, 'I got access to this classified document that shows us where U.S. policy is going. And I'm working to influence it.' "
The source described the two-page memo as being typed on plain, non-letterhead paper.
Both Dine and the source agreed that in the memo, Rosen specifically described the information he was accessing as "classified" and named the document in question as "National Security Decision Directive 99" — a crucial comprehensive review of U.S. Middle East policy, then in draft form.
The memo, which was copied to Dine, was addressed to Guilford Glazer, they said. Glazer, a wealthy AIPAC supporter, was then a business partner to billionaire oilman Armand Hammer and known to be a financial patron of Rosen's work. Attempts to reach Glazer were unsuccessful.
Dine, who resigned as AIPAC's executive director in 1993 after serving 14 years on the job, recently left his post as president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to become the chief executive of San Francisco's Jewish Community Federation.
A spokeswoman for Abbe Lowell, Rosen's attorney, declined to comment on the memo's implications. Asked about AIPAC's depiction of Rosen as having acted without authorization, the spokeswoman replied, "We'll address those issues in motions we will be filing in court."
Patrick Dorton, an AIPAC spokesman, said the lobby "dismissed Rosen and Weissman because they engaged in conduct that was not part of their jobs, and because this conduct did not comport in any way with the standards that AIPAC expects of its employees."
Asked if the memo did not suggest a different standard was in place earlier, Dorton replied, "What may or may not have happened 22 years ago is not relevant, given that the entire AIPAC staff and leadership has changed. None of the principals are at AIPAC anymore."
Dorton declined to say when the current standards had been established or by whom.
"AIPAC could not condone or tolerate the conduct of the two employees under any circumstances," he said. "The organization does not seek, use or request anything but legally obtained, appropriate information as part of its work."
Dorton said federal investigators had never brought up the document in the many interviews conducted with AIPAC personnel.
Dine's attitude toward the information he received from Rosen mirrored views expressed by many lobbyists, journalists and policy analysts since the indictments were announced earlier this month.
Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' secrecy project, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "This prosecution breaks troubling new ground. It means that anyone who works in national security-policy advocacy or as a government watchdog could be liable to prosecution. That's preposterous."
But others pointed out that in the more recent case, according to the indictment, Rosen allegedly shared the classified information he had obtained with foreign officials, reportedly Israelis.
Pattern of Activity
In some ways, Rosen's pattern of activity as related in the account of the 1983 memo was similar to the allegations detailed in the indictment. In the more recent case, Rosen allegedly gained access to classified information on a U.S. policy document on Iran, also in its draft stage, and also for the purpose of more effectively influencing that policy as it was being developed.
To Bill Mateja, an ex-federal prosecutor who ran the Justice Department's task force on white-collar crime, the '83 memo suggests that federal prosecutors may have reason to conduct a wider probe despite public assurances they have offered others at AIPAC that they are not at risk.
"I think it does have an impact on things," Mateja said. "It indicates AIPAC was aware Rosen was trading in confidential and sensitive information. It seems to show his superiors knew this, contrary to what they have been saying."
Mateja cautioned that statute of limitations issues could limit prosecutors' ability to use such an old memo. But under the conspiracy charges that are part of the indictment, there are circumstances in which it could be deployed, he said.
"If there is any kind of evidence [others] acquiesced in Rosen's conduct, there could be legal liability for those individuals," he said.
On the other hand, Mateja added, a prosecutor could use his discretion and decide not to pursue individuals he deemed highly cooperative with his investigation.
It is not known how the FBI obtained the memo, but the agency in its investigation has executed search warrants of AIPAC's offices and Rosen's residence.
In the memo Rosen — then only recently hired to a senior position with AIPAC — informed Dine and Glazer that he had recently obtained access to a draft of National Security Decision Directive 99, a document classified as "Top Secret," the government's highest level of restriction.
Attempt to Influence U.S. Policy
Rosen said his access to this secret draft would enable AIPAC to influence U.S. policy toward the Middle East as it was developing, with unprecedented new effectiveness, according to Dine and the second source.
National Security Decision Directive 99, dated July 12, 1983, which was obtained by The Jewish Week from the Reagan Library archives in Simi Valley, Calif., was a comprehensive review by the National Security Council of U.S. Middle East policy ordered by then-President Reagan.
The final document, which was signed by Reagan and has since been declassified, marked a crucial victory for those promoting strategic military cooperation between the United States and Israel. In the document, Reagan ordered a resumption of "cooperative planning with Israel."
Eighteen months earlier, Reagan had cut off such military cooperation in reaction to Israel's passage of a law that moved it toward annexing the Golan Heights. A formal strategic "Memorandum of Understanding" between the two countries was suspended by Reagan's order. Subsequent tensions over Israel's invasion of Lebanon increased the estrangement between the U.S. and Israel.
But NSDD 99 not only restored the military understanding, it ordered an intensive internal review, to be completed in six weeks, with an eye toward "expanding on the work begun earlier" in order to counter "Soviet involvement and aggression which threaten vital Western interests in the Near East and South Asia."
"Thereafter we will develop an interagency plan to implement the findings of this review as feasible and appropriate," Reagan's order concluded.
"It was a new beginning," said Avraham Ben-Zvi, a Tel Aviv University historian who concentrates on U.S.-Israel relations.
He said Reagan's directive resuming and expanding on the earlier Memorandum of Understanding "is important because it was the second official document. It laid the groundwork, set the threshold upon which the relationship continued to expand."
Ben-Zvi said he could not comment knowledgeably on what influence, if any, AIPAC or Rosen had on the breakthrough. In general, he believed political factors played an important role in the administration's decision — particularly its interest in giving Israel incentives to move out of Lebanon.
In other sections of the indictment, the government alleges that Rosen shared classified information he received from Franklin, a Pentagon Iran specialist, with other AIPAC officials. According to one report, this included AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr.
Kohr has denied he was aware the information Rosen gave him was classified, according to JTA. In the part of the indictment that appears to refer to this episode, Weissman is alleged to have described the information as having come from "an American intelligence source."
Paul McNulty, the U.S. attorney for eastern Virginia, at his Aug. 5 news conference announcing the indictment seemed to support AIPAC's position that others had no prior knowledge Rosen was trafficking in classified intelligence.
"AIPAC as an organization has expressed its concern on several occasions with the allegations against Rosen and Weissman," said McNulty. "In fact, after we brought some of the evidence that we had to AIPAC's attention, it did the right thing by dismissing these two individuals."
Post a Comment
<< Home