Yes, it is incomprehensible that Condescenia Rice and
John Ashcroft still have their jobs, knowing what we
now in the wake of the 9/11 Commission hearings, and
in particular the testimony of Richard Clark. Yes, it
is incomprehensible that Donald Rumsfeld still has his
job in the wake of Abu Ghraib and in the midst of the
Mega-Mogadishu that is Iraq...But there is still
hope...There are *many* patriot professionals in
Beltwayistan, in the intelligence community, in the
law enfocrement community, in the foreign policy
establishmnt, in the US military (both active and
retired) who want to bring the Bush cabal and its
loose neo-con cannons down -- politically -- and save
the Republic and the Western Alliance...this criminal
investigation of treason and espionage is another
example, like the Plame investigation and the Chalabi
revelations, of patriot professionals at work on an
operational level enforcing the laws of the US and
serving the US Constitution in a strange, tragic
interlude in our history...Here is the story that CSB
broke...The LNS has tagged on a piece from the
Guardian, giving some background...
CBS: CBS News has learned that the FBI has a
full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is
about to -- in FBI terminology -- "roll up" someone
agents believe has been spying not for an enemy, but
for Israel from within the office of the Secretary of
Defense at the Pentagon.
60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports the FBI
believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected
mole supplied Israel with classified materials that
include secret White House policy deliberations on
Iran.
CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy,
described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned
over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward
Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S.
policy-makers were still debating the policy."
This put the Israelis, according to one source,
"inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try
to influence the outcome."
The case raises another concern among investigators:
Did Israel also use the analyst to try to influence
U.S. policy on the war in Iraq?
With ties to top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and
Douglas Feith, the analyst was assigned to a unit
within the Defense Department tasked with helping
develop the Pentagon's Iraq policy.
Jonathan Steele, Guardian: History is beginning to
repeat itself, this time over Iran. Just two years
after the notorious Downing Street dossier on Saddam
Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and the
first efforts to get United Nations approval for war,
Washington is trying to create similar pressures for
action against Iran.
The ingredients are well-known: sexed-up intelligence
material which puts the target country in the worst
possible light; moves to get the UN to declare it in
"non- compliance", thereby claiming justification for
going in unilaterally even if the UN gives no support
for invasion; and at the back of the whole brouhaha, a
clique of American neoconservatives whose real agenda
is regime change.
Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml
FBI Probes Pentagon Spy Case
Aug. 27, 2004
FBI Probes Pentagon Spy
(Photo: CBS/AP)
The FBI believes it has "solid" evidence that the
suspected mole supplied Israel with classified
materials that include secret White House policy
deliberations on Iran.
The FBI investigation is headed by Dave Szady.
(Photo: CBS)
(CBS) CBS News has learned that the FBI has a
full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is
about to -- in FBI terminology -- "roll up" someone
agents believe has been spying not for an enemy, but
for Israel from within the office of the Secretary of
Defense at the Pentagon.
60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports the FBI
believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected
mole supplied Israel with classified materials that
include secret White House policy deliberations on
Iran.
At the heart of the investigation are two people who
work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has
involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and
photography that CBS News was told document the
passing of classified information from the mole, to
the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.
CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy,
described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned
over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward
Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S.
policy-makers were still debating the policy."
This put the Israelis, according to one source,
"inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try
to influence the outcome."
The case raises another concern among investigators:
Did Israel also use the analyst to try to influence
U.S. policy on the war in Iraq?
With ties to top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and
Douglas Feith, the analyst was assigned to a unit
within the Defense Department tasked with helping
develop the Pentagon's Iraq policy.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been made aware
of the case. The government notified AIPAC today that
it wants information about the two employees and their
contacts with a person at the Pentagon.
AIPAC told CBS News it is cooperating with the
government and has hired outside counsel. It denies
any wrongdoing by the organization or any of its
employees.
An Israeli spokesman said, "We categorically deny
these allegations. They are completely false and
outrageous." The suspected spy has not returned
repeated phone calls from CBS News.
İMMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comment
--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1291894,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexed-up reports, pressure on the UN ... here we go
again
US claims over Iran's nuclear programme sound eerily
familiar
Jonathan Steele
Friday August 27, 2004
The Guardian
History is beginning to repeat itself, this time over
Iran. Just two years after the notorious Downing
Street dossier on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of
mass destruction and the first efforts to get United
Nations approval for war, Washington is trying to
create similar pressures for action against Iran.
The ingredients are well-known: sexed-up intelligence
material which puts the target country in the worst
possible light; moves to get the UN to declare it in
"non- compliance", thereby claiming justification for
going in unilaterally even if the UN gives no support
for invasion; and at the back of the whole brouhaha, a
clique of American neoconservatives whose real agenda
is regime change.
The immediate focus for action against Iran is the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which has produced
five reports on Iran in the last 14 months. Part of
the UN, with an international board which acts like a
mini security council, the IAEA's reports have raised
questions about Iran's professedly civilian nuclear
programme and its desire to create its own fuel cycle
which could eventually be used to produce bombs.
To satisfy its critics, Iran agreed last year to allow
so-called intrusive inspections. As a
confidence-building measure, it also stopped enriching
uranium. In a few days' time the IAEA will issue a new
report, and it is its wording which is causing the
latest flurry. John Bolton, the Bush administration's
point-man, has been rushing round Europe claiming the
evidence of sinister Iranian behaviour is clear, even
though the IAEA has consistently made no such
judgment. It has called for more transparency, but
prefers to keep probing and, like Hans Blix and the UN
weapons inspectors in Iraq in 2003, insists it needs
more time.
Advertiser links
Volunteer Work Abroad
Experience a country from a whole new perspective by
signing...
crossculturalsolutions.org
Orphan Helpers
Make a difference in the life of a desperate child
and...
orphanhelpers.com
Volunteers at Free Medicine Program
Volunteers are needed to help people across America
afford...
freemedicineprogram.com
Iran, meanwhile, says the IAEA should accept that
nothing wrong has been found, close the dossier and
let Iran receive the civilian nuclear technology -
with the safeguards that go with it - which countries
like Germany and France have promised.
Bolton is not, at this stage, claiming to have
intelligence which the IAEA's inspectors don't. After
the fiasco of the US's pre-war material on Iraq, he
has not started to trumpet US sources. But he is
choosing to interpret the available knowledge as
harshly as possible. He is also close to the
Washington hardliners in the Project for the New
American Century, who created the doctrine of
pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly states and who
favour regime change to deal with Islamist
fundamentalism.
Norman Podhoretz, the arch-conservative editor of
Commentary magazine, one of their house journals, said
last week: "I am not advocating the invasion of Iran
at this moment, although I wouldn't be heartbroken if
it happened."
There are differences from the anti-Iraq campaign two
years ago. This time the US is taking the lead in
going to the UN. Bolton wants the IAEA board to say
Iran has violated its commitments under the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and take the matter to the
security council for a decision on sanctions or other
stern action. France and Germany are resisting a move
to the UN.
Second, even the US (Podhoretz excepted) is not
talking about a full-scale US invasion with ground
troops. It has too many soldiers tied up in Iraq and
Afghanistan to spare many for a third campaign. The
talk is of using US special forces or airstrikes to
destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, or giving a green
light to Israel to do it. Slightly less impatiently,
there are hints that the CIA will step up its campaign
to overthrow the regime in Tehran by encouraging
anti-government TV and radio broadcasts from abroad
and infiltrating opposition movements.
The biggest difference, though, is in Britain's
stance. Unlike with the Bush campaign against Saddam
Hussein, Britain is siding this time with France and
Germany. It is part of a "troika" which promotes
constructive engagement rather than confrontation with
Iran. Their dialogue ran into a sticky phase this
summer with allegations of bad faith on both sides,
but the three European states are willing to keep it
going.
They have powerful arguments. The disaster of the Iraq
war and the failure to bring peace, stability or order
make them want no repetition in Iraq's more populous
and larger neighbour. Even "limited" air-strikes on
Iran's nuclear facilities would unify the country and
harden hostility to the west throughout the Middle
East, especially if Washington subcontracted the
attacks to the Israeli air force.
Most Iraqi resistance to the Americans is based on
nationalist resentment, and Iranians are no different.
People of all political persuasions in Tehran support
their country's right to have nuclear power, and
probably even bombs. Threatening them with force is
not the most intelligent way to persuade them
otherwise.
The defeat of Iran's reformist MPs in this spring's
unfair elections, as well as the certainty that
President Mohammad Khatami will be replaced by a less
liberal figure next year, have not ended the chance of
dialogue with Tehran. European diplomats detect the
emergence of a group of "pragmatic conservatives" in
the Iranian leadership who could be easier to deal
with than the beleaguered liberals of the past seven
years. Many are non-clerical veterans of the Iran-Iraq
war who are influenced by nationalism and economic
imperatives more than the revolutionary Islamic
ideology of the Khomeini generation. They want better
relations with the west.
Britain's difference with Washington on Iran is
remarkable. It matters more than the better-publicised
splits on the Kyoto environmental protocol or the
international criminal court. But does Britain's
alignment with France and Germany on Iran mean that
Tony Blair has really parted with George Bush on a key
geo-political and military issue? Or has he not yet
spotted that what he regards as the lily-livered
flunkies in the Foreign Office are up to their
"realist" tricks again? They also opposed the invasion
of Iraq until Ol' Laser-Eyes in Downing Street focused
on the file.
We will know the answer after the US election. Even if
Kerry wins, European diplomats expect no major change
in Washington's policy to wards Iran. Like Cuba, Iran
produces special symptoms of irrationality (because of
the unrevenged wound to US pride the mullahs caused
when they held diplomats hostage in the embassy a
quarter of a century ago).
So how will Blair cuddle up to the new president? What
easier way than to break with France and Germany and
show Kerry that, whether there's a Democrat or a
Republican in the White House, Britain's prime
minister is still best friends when it comes to being
tough with Islamist bullies and taking the brave and
moral route to war? Inshallah, no.
j.steele@guardian.co.uk
Posted by richard at August 28, 2004 08:54 AM