Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ESPIONAGE - DOD employees A & B Foreign Officals 1, 2, & 3

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 12:42 PM
Original message
ESPIONAGE - DOD employees A & B Foreign Officals 1, 2, & 3
http://www.alternet.org/story/24011/



First, the indictment says that from "about April 1999 and continuing until on or about August 27, 2004" Franklin, Rosen and Weissman "did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully conspire" in criminal activity against the United States. So far, no one has explained what triggered an investigation that began more than six years ago. But it reveals how long the three indicted conspirators and "others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury," engaged in such criminal activity. In any case, what appeared at first to be a brief dalliance between Franklin and the two AIPAC officials now -- according to the latest indictment, at least -- spans more than five years and involves at least several other individuals, at least some of whom are known to the investigation. What triggered the investigation in 1999, and how much information has FBI surveillance, wiretaps and other investigative efforts collected?

Second, the indictment makes it absolutely clear that the investigation was aimed at AIPAC, not at Franklin. The document charges that Rosen and Weissman met repeatedly with officials from a foreign government (Israel, though not named in the indictment) beginning in 1999, to provide them with classified information. In other words, the FBI was looking into the Israel lobby, not Franklin and the Defense Department, at the start, and Franklin was simply caught up in the net when he made contact with the AIPACers. Rosen and Weissman were observed making illicit contact with several other U.S. officials between 1999 and 2004, although those officials are left unnamed (and unindicted). Might there be more to come? Who are these officials, cited merely as United States Government Official 1, USGO 2, etc.?

Third, Franklin was introduced to Rosen-Weissman when the two AIPACers "called a Department of Defense employee (DOD employee A) at the Pentagon and asked for the name of someone in OSD ISA with an expertise on Iran" and got Franklin's name. Who was "DOD employee A"? Was it Douglas Feith, the undersecretary for policy? Harold Rhode, the ghost-like neocon official who helped Feith assemble the secretive Office of Special Plans, where Franklin worked? The indictment doesn't say. But this reporter observed Franklin, Rhode and Michael Rubin, a former AEI official who served in the Pentagon during this period and then returned to AEI, sitting together side by side, often in the front row, at American Enterprise Institute meetings during 2002-2003. Later in the indictment, we learn that Franklin, Rosen and Weissman hobnobbed with "DOD employee B," too.

Fourth, Rosen and Weissman told Franklin that they would try to get him a job at the White House, on the National Security Council staff. Who did they talk to at the White House, if they followed through? What happened?

Fifth, the charging document refers to "Foreign Official 1," also known as FO-1, obviously referring to an Israeli embassy official or an Israeli intelligence officer. It also refers later to FO-2, FO-3, etc., meaning that other Israeli officials were involved as well. How many Israeli officials are implicated in this, and who are they?

Sixth, was AEI itself involved? The indictment says that "on or about March 13, 2003, Rosen disclosed to a senior fellow at a Washington, D.C., think tank the information relating to the classified draft internal policy document" about Iran. The indictment says that the think tank official agreed "to follow up and see what he could do." Which think tank, and who was involved?

The indictment is rich with other detail, including specific instances in which the indicted parties lied to the FBI about their activities. It describes how Franklin eventually set up a regular liaison with an Israeli official ("FO-3") and met him in Virginia "and elsewhere" to communicate U.S. secrets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. background
FBI probes Jewish sway on Bush government
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=802725&mesg_id=802725

Israeli spy nest in the U.S. - Ashcroft says: ’Don’t arrest them!’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=802249

Ashcroft Nixes Arrests in Israeli Spy Probe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=796806

Secrets: Classified Info: Springing a Leak
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x803017

FBI probes Jewish sway on Bush government
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=802725

Spy Case Renews Debate Over Pro-Israel Lobby's Ties to Pentagon Cons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=804314

Israel's Mole Inside the Pentagon
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=783161

Pro-Israel Lobby Has Strong VoiceAIPAC Is Embroiled in Investigation
of Pe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=803035

Defense, Cheney Iran Specialists Questioned in (Israeli Spy) Probe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=801031

Leak Inquiry Includes Iran Experts in Administration (WaPo)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=801678

White House Learned of Spy Probe in 2001
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=800454

LAT: Israel Has Long Spied on US,Say Officials(but CIA, Mossad "intimate")
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=798631


Wider FBI Probe Of Pentagon Leaks Includes Chalabi - WaPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=798333

Serving Two Flags The Bush Neo-Cons and Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=799167

Israeli political advisor may have received U.S. secrets
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=795817

Pentagon leaks connected to battle over Iran policy (this is big!)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=797846

Pentagon Office in Spying Case Was Focus of Iran Debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=796889

Alleged Pentagon Leak to Iraqi Is Under Investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=798060

Spy probe scans neo-cons' Israel ties (long article from Asia Times)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=794029

AIPAC hires lawyers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=794332

IAEA: No proof of secret Iran plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=793930

WP: Spy Probe Expands/Linked to NSC Probe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=795385

Pentagon Office in Spying Case Was Focus of Iran Debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=795432

U.S. Spy Probe Focuses on Two Lobbyists -Guardian
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=794973
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
46. Here's another thread. Every time I posted a careful article by Professor
Juan Cole or documented the fact that the AIPAC lobby favors regime change in Iran, in non-inflammatory, professional language, the post was deleted. Look at the thread - you'll see for yourself what surely looks to me like censorship in action. Yes, at DU.

The New Yorker article in the Opening post of the censored thread is still excellen and worth reading. (It, and the responses to it, have nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but the thread was whisked off to that forum and so was the heads-up thread I posted. Poof!)

This is far too important and far too well documented to bury like that. Here's the thread I'm talking about.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x95114#95248
Thread title: New Yorker: the Franklin scandal shows how the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC {works to shape American foreign policy}

Too bad I wasn't allowed to post the Juan Cole article on this topic. It's excellent, as his always are, and certainly not anti-semitic. This is about a political faction in Washington and a related one in the Israeli government. These factions share the goal of regime change in Iran, and they want it even more than they wanted it in Iraq. Larry Franklin is one of these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think people are reading this AIPAC thing all wrong.
Bush is in bed with the Saudis. The Saudis HATE Israel and want it destroyed. AIPAC is THE most powerful lobbying group in Washington, and would never stand idly by while Israel was sold out by Bush at Saudi request. So, how does Bush serve his Saudi masters? By taking down AIPAC in a setup sting.

Worked like clockwork.

No doubt Franklin will get off with a hand slap, but AIPAC will be heavily damaged as a lobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. So bush sets up DOD employees A and B?
Edited on Sun Aug-14-05 01:23 PM by seemslikeadream
I think not


Investigation starts April '99
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Don't kid yourself.
Bush was more than happy to send DoD types to Iraq to die, despite knowing the threat was not real.

What makes you think he would stop at implicating DoD types in Washington in some other ploy?

WRT 1999 - BushCo was already taking over Washington, despite having not yet been elected!

I was in Texas for the Pres campaign - the goose steppers were out in force making the will of Der Fuerer manifest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Sure, and Feith is a hero.
Edited on Sun Aug-14-05 01:27 PM by Al-CIAda
AIPAC Spy Case involves Intelligence on Iranian WMD

Juan Cole

09/06/04 -- James Gordon Meek reports that both FBI investigations of leaks from the Pentagon concern in part secret US intelligence on Iranian weapons of mass destruction programs. The FBI suspects that this intelligence was leaked to AIPAC and the Israelis on the one hand, and to Ahmad Chalabi on the other. Chalabi in turn is suspected of passing the information on to Tehran, playing the role of double agent. Although the FBI seems to be keeping the two inquiries separate, there is strong circumstantial evidence that there was a behind-the-scenes connection between Chalabi and the Israelis. That is, the information circuit may have been ingrown among the Neoconservatives, the Israelis and Chalabi's people.

It should be noted that Chalabi, the Neoconservatives, and Israel's Likud Party were allied in wanting to get up a US war against Iraq. But they were divided on the next stage, which was to get Washington to attack Iran, as well. Chalabi hates Saddam, but as an Iraqi Shiite has strong ties to Tehran, so he was not actually on board with Stage Two, and may have helped derail it, for which he is now hated in some Neoconservative circles.
Con't-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6869.htm
------------

Crazy Like a Fox
Neocons go bananas over AIPAC spy scandal, but there's a method to their madness
by Justin Raimondo

...Anonymous," a currently serving CIA analyst, writes:"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 an astounding and historically unprecedented manner, the Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to the tiny Jewish state and its policies; as Anatol Lieven has written, the Israelis have been so successful that Israeli nationalism 'for many Americans has become deeply entwined with their American nationalism.'"
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3583
------------
Leak Inquiry Includes Iran Experts in Administration
FBI counterintelligence investigators have in recent weeks questioned current and former U.S. officials about whether a small group of Iran specialists at the Pentagon and in Vice President Cheney's office may have been involved in passing classified information to an Iraqi politician or a U.S. lobbying group allied with Israel, according to sources familiar with or involved in the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60497-2004Sep3.html?nav=rss_nation
------------------

The Israeli "art student" mystery
For almost two years, hundreds of young Israelis falsely claiming to be art students haunted federal offices -- in particular, the DEA. No one knows why -- and no one seems to want to find out.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index_np.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I think the Chalabi thing is backwards, too.
I think the reason why BushCo isolated access to intelligence was so they could fix intelligence to fit their agenda. In short, they were feeding data to Chalabi and using him to spread it around to support their ambition.

Why in h*ll would Iran want our troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq? They're not stupid and they're more than capable of figuring out they'd be next on our agenda, especially as they build up nuclear capability. That's the part that has always bothered me about the cover story that Chalabi was Iranian intel.

It makes much more sense that Saudi tool Bush would play it the other way around and set up AIPAC and use Chalabi to pass along their Iraqi lies, and burn them both when convenient. Add in historic support by American Jews of the Democratic party and you've got more than enough reason for BushCo to start some nasty ops... And lord knows BushCo couldn't be open about attacks on AIPAC when the religious right supports Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. hahahahaha....... surely you jest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Are you trying to say...
...that BushCo doesn't have designs on the entire middle east and is willing to do just about anything to get it?

While I agree that Israel would spy on the US, and has done so before, what motive would Iran have to get us to invade Iraq when we're already in Afghanistan? Hussein was neutered and couldn't do squat to Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. On The Mclaughlin Group August 5, Pat Buchanan said
the Israeli spy scandel was going to metastasize, seriously.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
32. Very funny. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Recommended. Not as easy to grasp as the Cindy Sheehan story but
equally worthy of our collective attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Larry Franklin spy probe-
Cloak and Swagger
The Larry Franklin spy probe reveals an escalating fight over control of Iran policy.


By Laura Rozen and Jason Vest
Issue Date: 11.02.04
--
At the time the CBS report aired in late August -- incidentally, on the Friday evening before the opening of the Republican national convention -- custody of the Franklin investigation was being transferred from the head of the FBI counterintelligence unit, David Szady, to U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty, a Bush appointee, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the case moved to the grand-jury phase.

And then, in mid-September, news of the Franklin investigation went dark.


http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8764

---

Disinfopedia-
Larry Franklin
From Disinfopedia


Lawrence (Larry) Franklin is an analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency who works in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. He reports directly to Feith's deputy, William Luti and specializes in Iranian policy issues. <1>

Allegations of Espionage

On August 29th 2004, it was reported that Franklin is under investigation for allegedly spying for the state of Israel <4> (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040828_1405.html) <5> (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1093674510956) <6> (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040828-020807-9421r.htm). According to an article in Haaretz, Franklin is not Jewish himself <7> (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/470390.html).

Franklin allegedley offered highly classified draft documents regarding the United States policy towards Iran to two members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The two AIPAC Iran analysts, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, have retained a well known criminal defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, for counsel.<8> (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/09/02&ID=Ar01300)

Attorney General John Ashcroft assigned highly partisan Republican U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty to the espionage case. Charges of espionage were expected to be downgraded to charges of mishandling classified information.

Franklin's security clearance was revoked in June 2004.


Secret Meetings with Iran-Contra Arms Dealers

Beginning in 2001, Franklin and Harold Rhode (Feith's top specialist on the Middle East) held secret meetings in Rome with Iran-Contra arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. These meetings were arranged by longtime Republican operative Michael Ledeen.

The Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.marshallrozen.html) claimed the intent of these meetings was clear: "regime change" in Iran:

"The DoD-Ghorbanifar meetings suggest the possibility that a rogue faction at the Pentagon was trying to work outside normal US foreign policy channels to advance a "regime change" agenda not approved by the president's foreign policy principals or even the president himself."

"According to U.S. government sources, both the State Department and the CIA eventually brought the matter to the attention of the White House -- specifically, to Condoleezza Rice's chief deputy on the National Security Council, Stephen J. Hadley...Hadley sent word to the officials in Feith's office and to Ledeen to cease all such activities.

An anonymous senior administration official quoted by the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service (http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=94701) said that the immediate objective of the Pentagon hawks appeared to be to "antagonise Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden U.S. policy against them."
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Larry_Franklin
---
FBI Probes Pentagon Spy Case
(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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml

----

Analysis: More Being Learned About Larry Franklin, Suspected Spy For Israel
Morning Edition: September 3, 2004

Chalabi Linked to Pentagon Leak Probe
STEVE INSKEEP, host:
Now in this country, we're learning more about a suspected spy for Israel at the Pentagon. Since word leaked out about him, we've learned the man's name, Larry Franklin, and a bit more about his work as a mid-level analyst on the Pentagon's Iran desk. Now there are growing indications that the FBI probe is actually much wider than just Franklin and that it's been going on for at least two years. NPR's Mary Louis Kelly is following all this and has an update on the investigation.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2004/sep/040903.kelly.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. Great post
I recommended it, too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. great post nominated. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. Amiram Nir was a BFEE friend of Poppy's.
Since October Surprise / Iran-Contra days, AIPAC's had the goods on Poppy and the BFEE Thing. The bosses know where the skeletons are. In Mr. Nir's case, he became one.



US and Israel Deny Nir Report:

US Secretary of State George Shultz and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres both have denied any knowledge of a secret agreement described in an interview given to the Washington Post before his death by Amiram Nir, counterterrorism adviser to Peres and a major Israeli figure in the Iran-contra scandal. Nir, who was killed in early December in the crash of a chartered aircraft in Mexico, said the US-Israeli agreement provided for use of funds from the sale of US arms by Israel to Iran in 1985 and 1986 for counterterrorist operations. "Mr. Nir in his capacity in the Israeli government did propose a more formal agreement or memorandum of agreement in the time period of September and October 1985," State Department spokesman Charles Redman said. "But that proposal was immediately rejected by the United States government. So that may explain where some of this story came from."

SOURCE:

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0189/8901022.htm



While Nir's not here, the story's the same.



Poor fellah.
Knew too much.
Never got a chance to tell his story to Congress.
Good for Bush, though.



THE NORTH NOTEBOOKS

From Washington by Tim Wheeler

EXCERPT...

The North notebooks provide a wealth of new evidence. One
page, released for the first time May 8, lists a "mtg w V.P." at 12
noon, August 6, 1986. North began that day by meeting with Israeli
terrorist expert, Amiram Nir. According to North's notes, he then
went to an extraordinary meeting at the White House with members of
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. According to
his later testimony, North "lied, lied, lied" to the lawmakers about
the Iran-contra conspiracy. North then met with several other covert
agents, including Gregg. Finally he met with Vice President Bush.
Did the Vice President discuss with North his lies to an official
oversight committee of the U.S. Congress?

Asked about this notation in North's notebook, White House
Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater declared, "The vice president's role
in the Iran-contra affair was completely examined in the congressional
inquiry and we have nothing to add."

Among the North notebooks released May 18 were those
reflecting the coverup began November, 25, 1986, when then-Attorney
General Edwin Meese announced at a White House news briefing the sale
of U.S. arms to Iran and diversion of the profits to the contras.
Much has been written about the notations North jotted on one page of
his steno pad that day. "Call from JMP," North wrote, referring to
his boss, National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter. The page
continues: "VP call Peres ... Discovered contra connection ... wd be
best if Israel wd accept that they were aware that some funds were
diverted ... Put it off on Gorbanifar ." Thus, North suggests
that Vice President Bush telephoned Israeli Defense Minister Shimon
Peres to enlist his help in the cover story pinning the diversion on
Iranian businessman and arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar.

In the photocopy of that page from North's notebook released
by the congressional Iran-contra committee two years ago, Exhibit JMP-
85, all references to Israel are blacked out. On the second line,
only the letters "VP" are legible.

CONTINUED...

http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/north.htm





Ollie North Dreamcatcher



Here's that transcript. Much of the discussion gets bogged down in details that only an Iran-contra trivia expert would now recall. But note that Bush never revealed his full involvement in Iran-contra and that when Rather asked him about a key and dramatic meeting on the Iran deal he attended, Bush replied he did not remember what had transpired.

DAN RATHER: Mr. Vice President, thank you for being with us tonight. Donald Gregg still serves as your trusted advisor. He was deeply involved in running arms to the contras, and he didn't inform you. Now, when President Reagan's trusted advisor Admiral Poindexter failed to inform him, the President fired him. Why is Mr. Gregg still inside the White House, is still a trusted advisor?

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Because I have confidence in him and because this matter, Dan, as you well know, and your editors know, has been looked at by the $10 million study by the Senate and the House, it's been looked at by the Tower Commission. The Rodriguez testimony that you put on here I just think it's outrageous because he was totally vindicated, swore under oath that he never talked to me about the contras. And yet this report you're making, you told me, or your people did -- you have a Mr. Cohen that works for you -- was going to be a political profile. Now if this is a political profile for an election, I have a very different opinion as to what one should be. Don Gregg works for me because I don't think he's done anything wrong. And I think if he had, this exhaustive examination that went, that was gone into by the Senate and by the House, would have showed it. And you've impugned the--my integrity by suggesting with one of your little boards here that I didn't tell the truth about what Felix Rodriguez -- you didn't accuse me of it, but you made that suggestion. And other people were in the meeting, including Mr. Nick Brady, and he has said that my version is correct. And so I find this to be a rehash and a little bit, if you'll excuse me, a misrepresentation on the part of CBS, who said you're doing political profiles on all the candidates, and then you come up with something that has been exhaustively looked into.

RATHER: Mr. Vice President, what we agreed to or didn't agree to, I think you will agree for the moment, can be dealt with in another way. Let's talk about the record. You say that we've misrepresented your...

BUSH: Let's talk about the full record.

RATHER: ...record. Let's talk about the record.

BUSH: Yeah.

RATHER: If we've misrepresented your record in any way, here's a chance to set it straight. Now, for ex...

BUSH: Right. Can I just set it straight on one count, because you implied from that little thing, I, I have a little monitor sitting on the side here -- that I didn't tell the truth . Now this has all been looked into. It's just a rehash.

RATHER: Where did we imply that, Mr. Vice President?

BUSH: Well, just here, on this board, where you have the idea that Bush says that he didn't tell, didn't tell, didn't tell about the contras' supply from Felix Rodriguez.

RATHER: Mr. Vice Pres...

BUSH: Felix Rodriguez testified under oath, he has been public, and you could have at least run a little picture of him saying that I never told the Vice President about the contras. I'm asking for fair play, and I thought I was here to talk about my views on education, or on getting this deficit down...

RATHER: Well, Mr. Vice President, we want to talk about the record on this...

BUSH: Well, let's...

RATHER: ...because it...

BUSH: Well, let's talk about the full record. That's what I want to talk about, Dan.

RATHER: The framework here is that one-third of the Republicans in this poll...

BUSH: Yeah.

RATHER: One-third of the Republicans, and one-fourth of the people who say that, you know, they rather like you, believe you're hiding something. Now if you are, here's a...

BUSH: I am hiding something.

RATHER: Here's a chance to get it out.

BUSH: You know what I'm hiding? What I told the President, that's the only thing. And I've answered every question put before me. Now, if you have a question, what is it?

RATHER: I do have one.

BUSH: Please please fire away.

RATHER: You have said that if you had known this was an arms for hostages swap...

BUSH: Yes.

RATHER: ...that you would have opposed it. You also said that...

BUSH: Exactly. Now, let me, let me ask...

RATHER: ...that you would have opposed it. You also said that...

BUSH: Exactly. Now, let me ask...

RATHER: ...that you did not know that you...

BUSH: May I answer that...directly?

RATHER: That wasn't a question, it was a statement.

BUSH: Yes, it was a statement and I'll answer it.

RATHER: Let me ask the question, if I may, first.

BUSH: The President created this program, has testified or stated publicly he did not think it was arms for hostages, and it was only later that....

RATHER: That's the President, Mr. Vice President.

BUSH: ...and that's me, because I went along with it -- because you know why, Dan? Because I...

RATHER: That wasn't the question, Mr. Vice President.

BUSH: ...worried when I saw Mr. Buckley, heard about Mr. Buckley being tortured to death, later admitted is the CIA chief. So if I erred, I erred on the side of trying to get those hostages out of there. And the whole story has been told to Congress.

RATHER: Mr. Vice President, you set the rules for this talk here. I didn't mean to step on your line there, but you insisted that this be live, and you know we have a limited amount of time.

BUSH: Exactly, and that's why I want to get my share in here on something other than what you want to talk about.

RATHER: The President has spoken for himself. I'm asking you...

BUSH: Please.

RATHER: ...to speak for yourself, which you have not been willing to do in the past, and if I may suggest that this is what leads people to say, "Either George Bush was irrelevant or he was ineffective. He said himself he was out of the loop." Now, let me give you an example...

BUSH: Uh, may I explain "out of the loop?"

RATHER: You said, "Ask a question."

BUSH: May I explain "out of the loop?" No operational role. Go ahead.

RATHER: Now, you've said that if you'd known it was an arms-for-hostages swap you would have opposed it. You said the first you knew it was an arms-for-hostages swap was in December of 1986, correct?

BUSH: When the whole thing became briefed to me by Senator Durenberger...

RATHER: Exactly.

BUSH: ...and the proximity of arms to hostages much closer than we had thought on these hearings that were...

RATHER: But Mr. Vice President, you went to Israel in July 1986....

BUSH: Yes.

RATHER: ...and a member of your own staff, Craig Fuller, has verified, and so did the only other man there, Mr. Nir, Mr. Amiram Nir, who's the Israeli's top anti-terrorist man...

BUSH: Yes.

RATHER: ...those two men were in a meeting with you and Mr. Nir not once, but three times, three times, underscored with you, that this was a straight-out arms-for-hostages swap.

BUSH: What they were doing...

RATHER: Now how do you...

BUSH: Read the memo, read the mem.

RATHER: I have, sir.

BUSH: What they were doing...

RATHER: How can you reconcile that you were there? Mr. Nir underscored three separate occasions that it was an arms-for-hostages swap and told you you were dealing with the most radical elements in Iran. You were dealing straightaway with the Ayatollah Khomeini.

BUSH: I was told what they were doing and not what we were doing, and that's the big difference; and, Dan, I expressed my concerns and reservations about that. That has been testified to under oath by Mr. Poindexter. And it's been confirmed that I had reservations and spoke up by Don Regan. In fact, he said the other day that I expressed them to the President.


RATHER: That's correct.

BUSH: I don't discuss what I talked to the president because there's a principle involved. It has nothing to do with Iran-contra. It's the principle of confidentiality...

RATHER: But Mis...

BUSH: ...between the President and the Vice President.

RATHER: ...Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President...

BUSH: Yes.

RATHER: ...the President has said he wants all the facts out. He gave up such things as even his own diary. Every principal, including...

BUSH: He did not give up his own diary.

RATHER: ...Secretary Shultz. He gave up some of it.

BUSH: His diary, his brief. Well, Dan, let's be careful here because you're explaining a political profile.

RATHER: I want you to be careful, Mr. Vice President...

BUSH: I will be careful

RATHER: ...because the problem here...

BUSH: But I want to get my side of this out.

RATHER: ...is that you repeatedly sat in the meetings. You sat in a meeting in which Secretary Shultz, in the most forceful way, raised his objection...

BUSH: I wasn't there, for the most forceful way. If it was the most forceful way -- I've heard George Shultz be very, very forceful; and, if I were there and he was very, very forceful at that meeting, I would have remembered that. I don't remember that. And that is what I'm saying.

RATHER: Then how do you explain that you can't remember it and the other people at the meeting say he was apoplectic?

BUSH: Maybe I wasn't there at that point.

RATHER: You weren't in the meeting?

BUSH: I'm not suggesting. I'm just saying I don't remember it.

RATHER: I don't want to be argumentative, Mr. Vice President.

BUSH: You do, Dan.

RATHER: No...no, sir, I don't.

BUSH: This is not a great night, because I want to talk about why I want to be president, why those 41 percent of the people are supporting me. And I don't think it's fair...

RATHER: And Mr. Vice President, if these questions are --

BUSH: ...to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?

RATHER: Well, Mister...

BUSH: ...Would you like that?

RATHER: Mr. Vice President...

BUSH: I have respect for you, but I don't have respect for what you're doing here tonight.

RATHER: Mr. Vice President, I think you'll agree that your qualification for President and what kind of leadership you'd bring to the country, what kind of government you'd have, what kind of people you have around you....

BUSH: Exactly.

RATHER: ...is much more important that what you just referred to. I'd be happy to...

BUSH: Well, I want to be judged on the whole record, and you're not giving an opportunity.

RATHER: And I'm trying to set the record straight, Mr. Vice President.

BUSH: You invited me to come here and talk about -- I thought -- the whole record.

RATHER: I want you to talk about the record. You sat in a meeting with George Shultz...

BUSH: Yes, and I've given you an answer.

RATHER: He got apoplectic when he found out that you were...

BUSH: He didn't get apoplectic. You have to ask Don Regan. Ask...

RATHER: ...you and the President were being party to sending missiles to the Ayatollah...

BUSH: Ask...

RATHER: ...the Ayatollah of Iran. Can you explain how -- you were supposed to be the -- you are -- you're an anti terrorist expert. We -- Iran was officially a terrorist state.

BUSH: I've already explained that, Dan.

RATHER: You went around telling -- you -- you...

BUSH: I wanted those hostages -- I wanted Mr. Buckley out of there...

RATHER: Mr. Vice President, the question is -- but you--made us hypocrites in the face of the world.

BUSH: Before he was killed, which he has been killed.

RATHER: How could you...

BUSH: That was bad.

RATHER: ...sign on to such a policy?! And the question is...

BUSH: Well, had the same reason the President signed on to it.

RATHER: ...what does that tell us about your record?

BUSH: The same reason the President signed on to it. When a CIA agent is being tortured to death, maybe you err on the side of a human life. But everybody's admitted mistakes. I've admitted mistakes. And you want to dwell on them, and I want to talk about the values we believe in and experience and the integrity that goes with all of this, and what's -- I'm going to do about education, and you're...there's nothing new here. I thought this was a news program. What is new?

RATHER: Well, I had hoped, Mr. Vice President, that you would tell us to whom you expressed your reservations...

BUSH: Yes, I did.

RATHER: ...when you expressed them and what were the reservations?

BUSH: Poindexter testified under oath.

RATHER: What were the reservations?

BUSH: His testi -- reservation about getting the control of an operation in the hands of a foreign power. Don Regan stated the other day, and I never heard a word of it on CBS, that the Vice President, in the presence of the President, spoke up about his concern about the whole cover of an operation being blown and secret -- and people that you're dealing with putting their lives in jeopardy.

RATHER: And you weren't concerned about sending missiles to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

BUSH: And I felt that always on every covert -- every covert action.

RATHER: You weren't...

BUSH: The President has explained that. The committee looked at that, and so there's nothing new on this.

RATHER: Mr. Vice President, I appreciate you joining us tonight. I appreciate this straightforward way in which you engaged in this exchange. Clearly, some unanswered questions remain.

BUSH: Fire on another one.

RATHER: Are you willing to go to a news conference before the Iowa caucuses, answer questions from all -- all comers?

BUSH: I've been to 86 news conferences since March. Eighty-six of them since March.

RATHER: I gather that the answer is "No." Thank you very much for being with us, Mr. Vice President. We'll be back with more news in a moment.

So long, Dan. Thanks for giving it a shot.

SOURCE:

http://www.davidcorn.com/2005/03/index.php



Bush tried to dump Pruneface twice -- first time he blamed Hinckley the Psycho, the second he blamed Ollie the Traitor.

What a great un-American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #12
34. Now why do they hate Rather?
Wonderful read.

Naor Gilon was the head of the political department at the Israeli embassy who was dealing with Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman. He is a "specialist" on WMD proliferation. He was recently returned to Israel, when the FBI became increasingly focused on his role in this scandal. He is FO1.

I'm curious what else you may know about him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
15. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. hopefully they take down the AEI, too n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
17. Here's a link to the Franklin, etal. indictments
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
19. I wonder if the answer to the 4th question is: Elliot Abrams?
I found this excerpt. I've had a lot of disinfo in the article pointed out to me on another thread, but there's a lot to chew on with this bit:

Finally, it appears the AIPAC officials first went not to the Israelis with the information but to a senior US official who would appear to be authorized to see it: the National Security Council's senior Middle East adviser, Elliott Abrams. It's hard to argue that it's the normal practice of spies to take the classified information they receive to a senior US official.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050606&s=rozen

Looks like another connection between the AIPAC and Plame scandals to me.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Kick to the top.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #19
33. Abrams
is a direct connection between the scandals. He also is one of the people who was pushing Franklin's efforts. But he is not in a strong enough position to get Franklin considered for NSC. Always think in terms of "levels" .... a person on level 2 advocates on level two, except with their immediate supervisor. Look at who is above Abrams, and you have your answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. CondoLIESa?
She would have been above Abrams at the time Franklin was nailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
21. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
22. Who are these officials US Government Official 1, USGO2?

who are all these people? :shrug:


Official at a "Washington, D.C. think tank

US Government Official 1

US Government Official 2

DOD employee A

DOD employee B

Foreign Officals 1

Foreign Official 2

Foreign Official 3
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #22
35. FO1 = Naor Gilon.
How's that for starters? Rosen and Weissman introduced Franklin to him, in a meeting taped/recorded by the FBI. He told Franklin that he was the channel for the most important information. Gilon is at the top of Israeli intel on WMDs. He was recently returned to Israel from the embassy in Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. I'm looking back at these threads mentioning Gilon
Edited on Tue Aug-16-05 11:43 AM by seemslikeadream
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2291546
Torture - Upper echelon involvement? You decide. (HOLY SHIT)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3793707
Why are most DUers happy that Judith Miller could go to jail?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3976740
Anyone remember last year...August? Mole in the Pentagon. Anyone?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4003474
Are Josh Marshall's TECHTONIC PLATES finally starting to move?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4002813
Does the White House have connections to the Yellowcake Forged Document?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4102455
Wayne Madsen articles HOT HOT HOT!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4217996
Feith-based intelligence: A Neocon Scandal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4310764
Conyers to *: No pardons for anyone convicted of blowing Plame's cover.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1973245
Is the Rove/Libby scandal related to the Franklin scandal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1952517

Israeli political advisor may have received U.S. secrets
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=795817
The scoops that followed `Scoop'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=794363

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=789576

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1451470

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1483249

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1510232

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1511402

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1659310

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1660344

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1668995

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1676516
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
23. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
26. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
27. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
28. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
29. only 3 spys
cone-on the FBI is more capable than that.

let me know when wolfie,the dov, and bolton who are die hard neo-cons get indicted

wolfie photo in VFW mag..sickk war monger/war criminal

This is a good start and it happened under clintons watch..1999.
I do notice the poppy o /clinton ads on TV dialing for dollars for Tsunami relief.

"We are only in it for the money" Frank Zappa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
30. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
31. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
37. Total Media BLACK OUT of 18 USC 794, Federal Espionage Statute
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

TREASONGATE: Total Media BLACK OUT of 18 USC 794, Federal Espionage Statute
In my two part series, TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law,
Part 1 Part 2 I discussed the fact that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is virtually irrelevant as to the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. I focussed on the applicability to this fact pattern of 18 USC 793 and 794, the espionage statutes of the United States Code.

Let's go back now, back to the beginning of this affair. Ever since this thing hit the news with gusto only equalled by Monica's dress, we have seen, heard and been witness to a main stream media and main stream blogosphere feeding frenzy of pundits politically analyzing the irrelevant IIPA. What a time they were having until Citizen Spook came along and outed their ruse.

And what timing that the AIPAC indictments should come out a few days after Citizen Spook published this anaylsis, (see TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law, Part 2: THE DEATH PENALTY, 18 USC 794 and the shift from GWOT to GSAVE ). Those indictments were based on 18 USC 793.

But more interesting and more juicy for the media is the simple application of 18 USC 794(b) which provided for the death penalty or life in prison for perpetraitors of espionage "in time of war".

We discussed the diplomatic policy shift from GWOT, global war on terrorism, to GSAVE, global struggle against violent extremism, and how that shift may be evidence of the Bush admin having worries about prosectuion under the controlling espionage laws.

We discussed that 794(b) is met under this fact pattern of the Plame affair since it only requires that the information communicated by the perp be "related to the public defense" and that the perp must intend for that info to be communicated to the "enemy". We distinguised between the term "enemy" and the term "foreign nation" because "enemy" is much broader and does include "the terrorists".

We also discussed that federal case law has held that giving the relevant info to the press is no different than giving it directly to a spy for purposes of the intent requirement of that law.

So why hasn't the main stream media and most of the blogosphere picked up on this story?

BECAUSE THERE'S A MEDIA BLACKOUT IN PROGRESS

I submit that you may begin to "out" everybody in the media and blogosphere based upon their decision to cover 18 USC 794 or not to cover it.

Those who don't cover it, are knowingly or unknowingly, aiding and abetting treason. Coverage of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was exhaustive, from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the liberal blogs, the conservative blogs, etc. It was everywhere as the debate raged on about what was classified and who knew what at what time.

Crapola was fed to the masses. The IIPA is not the espionage act and does not lead to treason convictions. C'mon people, we have a little body of law which is called

THE UNITED STATES CODE!

Let's use it.

Many small web blogs did cover my report on 18 USC 794, and for that, we the people, owe them a debt of gratitude. The only main stream alternative web site which covered my report on 18 USC 794 and the death penalty was Jeff Rense. Rense had an entire section based upon TREASONGATE, which linked to four of my reports. That section has now been removed at rense.com. I dont know why, but I've written Jeff and asked him if there was a problem.

But here we have the biggest story in US history. Treason was perpetrated on this country by the White House. We know the memo listed Plame's ID as "secret" and that classification is prima facia proof of how important it was to national security. She was working on WMD. All of the requirements of 18 USC 794(b) have been met with much more convincing power than under the IIPA, so why has our very own United States Code been ignored.

It's frightening to finally see how deep the rabbit hole goes isn't it.

This information, this law, this US Code, is not speculation or theory. This is the law and it's rock solid.

Where is the press now?
Where is the blogosphere?
Where is the feeding frenzy?
We had it for the IIPA, but for our very own US Code, it's gone, voila.

You knew the info is being controlled, but now you know that it's infected many of your favorite blogs and so called liberal journalists. We've given them a story here at Citizen Spook. Why aren't they running with it?

It's a simple Code, much easier to explain to the people than the IIPA, but it's not as easy to spin and argue about. It's clear, the White House is guilty as sin under 18 USC 794 (and 793) and the penalty is frightening to them.

Take over the blogs.
Take over the comments.
Write letters to the editor.

Where are the big time liberal pundits who are supposed to be fighting against this administration?

Where is the Conyers Blog?
Where is Raw Story?
Where is The Brad Blog?
Where is Daily Kos?
Where is The Huffington Post?
Where is Air America Radio?


Yes, the rabbit hole is deep, but it ends right here.

If the same amount of energy that went into the analysis of the IIPA was applied to 18 USC 794, the White House would be in serious trouble and would be forced to change their plans. They wouldn't have the same time they have now, time to create intricate diversions, time to commit more treason.

America, you have the means to fight this information war and you have the means to demand the media step up and tell the people what laws have been broken. And in doing this you can make them squirm, and you can force their hand and make them act with less time to plan. By exposing the truth, you force them to move faster, to rush their plans and in doing that they are more prone to make a mistake.

Nobody does anything as thorough when they are rushing, compared to when they have time to plot. By ignoring discussion about 18 USC 794 and the death penalty or life in prison, the main stream media and blogosphere are aiding and abetting the enemy by giving it time and resources to plot further treason.

The IIPA discussion was a calculated ruse designed to distract you from the real controlling law, 18 USC 793 and 794.

What are you going to do about it America?

Make some noise, make a lot of noise. If you don't, you have nothing to complain about when they survive this and thereafter bring you tyranny beyond your vision.

What doesn't kill them (by this I mean the law) makes them stronger. They destroyed a network of USA intelligence operations, operations that must have been getting close to uncovering treason worse than the treason they committed by outing Plame and Brewster Jennings et als.

This is war people. There are no civilians in an information war. You're either for the truth and the law, or your against it.

by Citizen Spook

PLEASE REPOST and LINK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
39. Thanks to all for info -- the Israel connection
does seem to be something no one wants to question. AIPAC is pro-Israel lobbying group, and they were involved in giving classified information on Iran, Iraq & US anti-terrorist efforts to Israel.


From the Alternet article:

~snip~
It is an important story, arguably one that has greater implications for national security than the scandal involving the churlish outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. So far, at least, the media frenzy attending to the Plame affair is matched by nearly total silence about the Franklin-AIPAC affair? Can it be true that reporters are more courageous about pursuing a story that involves the White House than they are about plunging into a scandal that involves Israel, our No. 1 Middle East ally?

~snip~

Why is it a 'hands off Israel' policy in this country - to the extent of a virtual media black-out on the subject?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
40. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
41. USGO 2 David M. Satterfield
NYT- U.S. Diplomat Is Named in Secrets Case
The second-highest diplomat at the United States Embassy in Baghdad is one of the anonymous government officials cited in an Aug. 4 indictment as having provided classified information to an employee of a pro-Israel lobbying group, people who have been officially briefed on the case said Wednesday.

The diplomat, David M. Satterfield, was identified in the indictment as a United States government official, "USGO-2," the people briefed on the matter said. In early 2002, USGO-2 discussed secret national security matters in two meetings with Steven J. Rosen, who has since been dismissed as a top lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as Aipac, who has been charged in the case.

The indictment said that Mr. Rosen met USGO-2 on Jan. 18, 2002, and March 12, 2002, but provides few details about the encounters. The indictment does not describe Mr. Satterfield's activities in detail nor does it specify what classified information the diplomat discussed with the lobbyist. The meetings were also confirmed by documents, people who have been briefed said. These people asked not to be identified because many of the matters related to the case are classified.
.....
Mr. Satterfield's role in the inquiry has been known within a small circle at the State Department. Before he was sent to Baghdad, officials at the State Department asked the Justice Department whether the investigation posed any impediment to his assignment in Iraq, someone who has been officially briefed said. Officials at the State Department were advised that he could take the job.

http://nytimes.com/2005/08/18/politics/18inquire.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Fantastic find, seemslikeadream!
What did you think of my theory of Elliot Abrams? Or do you think Rice or Hadley is the answer to question 4?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
42. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-05 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
44. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
45. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-20-05 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
47. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC