A gathering storm
HHW
Israeli exports hit by European boycotts after attacks on Gaza
04.03.2009 | The Guardian
By Rachel Shabi
Israeli companies are feeling the impact of boycott moves in Europe,
according to surveys, amid growing concern within the Israeli business
sector over organised campaigns following the recent attack on Gaza.
Last week, the Israel Manufacturers Association reported that 21% of
90 local exporters who were questioned had felt a drop in demand due
to boycotts, mostly from the UK and Scandinavian countries. Last
month, a report from the Israel Export Institute reported that 10% of
400 polled exporters received order cancellation notices this year,
because of Israel’s assault on Gaza.
“There is no doubt that a red light has been switched on,” Dan
Katrivas, head of the foreign trade department at the Israel
Manufacturers Association, told Maariv newspaper this week. “We are
closely following what’s happening with exporters who are running into
problems with boycotts.” He added that in Britain there exists “a
special problem regarding the export of agricultural produce from
Israel”.
The problem, said Katrivas, is in part the discussion in the UK over
how to label goods that come from Jewish settlements in the occupied
West Bank. Last week British government officials met with food
industry representatives to discuss the issue.
In recent months, the Israeli financial press has reported the impact
of mounting calls to boycott goods from the Jewish state. Writing in
the daily finance paper, the Marker, economics journalist Nehemia
Stressler berated then trade and industry minister Eli Yishai for
telling the Israeli army to “destroy one hundred homes” in Gaza for
every rocket fired into Israel.
The minister, wrote Stressler, did not understand “how much the
operation in Gaza is hurting the economy”.
Stressler added: “The horrific images on TV and the statements of
politicians in Europe and Turkey are changing the behaviour of
consumers, businessmen and potential investors. Many European
consumers boycott Israeli products in practice.”
He quoted a pepper grower who spoke of “a concealed boycott of Israeli
products in Europe”.
In February, another article in the Marker, titled “Now heads are
lowered as we wait for the storm to blow over”, reported that Israelis
with major business interests in Turkey hoped to remain anonymous to
avoid arousing the attention of pro-boycott groups.
The paper said that, while trade difficulties with Turkey during the
Gaza assault received more media attention, Britain was in reality of
greater concern.
Gil Erez, Israel’s commercial attache in London, told the paper:
“Organisations are bombarding [British] retailers with letters, asking
that they remove Israeli merchandise from the shelves.”
Finance journalists have reported that Israeli hi-tech, food and
agribusiness companies suffered adverse consequences following
Israel’s three-week assault on Gaza, and called for government
intervention to protect businesses from a growing boycott.
However, analysts stressed that the impact of a boycott on local
exporters was difficult to discern amidst a global economic crisis and
that such effects could be exaggerated.
“If there was something serious, I would have heard about it,” said
Avi Tempkin, from Globes, the Israeli business daily.
Israeli companies are thought to be wary of giving credence to boycott
efforts by talking openly about their effect, preferring to resolve
problems through diplomatic channels.
Consumer boycotts in Europe have targeted food produce such as Israeli
oranges, avocados and herbs, while in Turkey the focus has been on
agribusiness products such as pesticides and fertilisers.
The bulk of Israeli export is in components, especially hi-tech
products such as Intel chips and flashcards for mobile phones. It is
thought that the consumer goods targeted by boycott campaigns
represent around 3% to 5% of the Israeli export economy.
SHARE THIS POST:
drahcir
Oh, and your electrifyingly timely story about the supposed effect of
boycott was posted nearly a week ago by Heinrich:
Have a nice day, willya, H?
HHW
> http://tinyurl.com/cvhwmv
From the 1993 revised tax treaty between Israel and the U.S.:
Article 15A
Charitable Contributions
(1) In the computation of taxable income of a citizen or a resident of
the
United States for any taxable year under the revenue laws of the
United States,
there shall be treated as a charitable contribution under such revenue
laws
contributions to any organization created or organized under the laws
of Israel
(and constituting a charitable organization for the purpose of the
income tax laws
of Israel) if and to the extent such contributions would have been
treated as
charitable contributions had such organization been created or
organized under
the laws of the United States; provided, however, that this paragraph
shall not
apply to contributions in any taxable year in excess of 25 percent of
taxable income
for such year (in the case of a corporation) or of adjusted gross
income for such
year (in the case of an individual) from sources in Israel.
(2) In the computation of tax liability of a resident of Israel for
any taxation
year under the income tax laws of Israel, there shall be treated as
charitable
contributions eligible for credit or deduction, as the case may be,
under such
income tax laws, gifts to any organization constituting a charitable
organization for
the purpose of the revenue laws of the United States, if and to the
extent such
contributions would have been treated as charitable contributions had
such
organization been a charitable organization for the purpose of the
income tax laws
of Israel; provided, however, that this paragraph shall not apply to
contributions in
any taxation year in excess of 25 percent of taxable income for such
year from
sources in the United States.
>
> Oh, and your electrifyingly timely story about the supposed effect of
> boycott was posted nearly a week ago by Heinrich:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d8lnks
Ah, but Ratner, the boycott numbers aren't alleged, they're Israeli!
Have some respect.
>
> Have a nice day, willya, H?
You frequently make my day.
drahcir
> On Apr 5, 4:08 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/cvhwmv
>
> From the 1993 revised tax treaty between Israel and the U.S.:
Alzheimers getting to ya this eve, old boy? The below is just
repetitive crap that doesn't address the material in the link above,
from which you have, of course, fled. Didn't you think anyone would
notice? And if you think it escaped anyone that you abandoned your
whole tax thing as soon as the post linked to by the above appeared,
think again.
Do you think prefacing your irrelevancy with "ah, but" will distract
anyone from the fact that the above does not address the point, which
is the redundancy?
>
>
>
> > Have a nice day, willya, H?
>
> You frequently make my day.
I try. (That you think anyone will buy the above is laughable.)
HHW
> On Apr 5, 8:11 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 4:08 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/cvhwmv
Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
depends on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS
Form 1023: Exemption Application Submitted by Organization Formed
Outside United States
Does it matter if an organization is formed in a country other than
the United States?
An organization may qualify for exemption under section 501(c)(3) even
if it is formed and/or conducts its activities in a country other
than the United States. Note, however, that contributions to an
organization formed in a foreign country are generally not deductible
as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes except
pursuant to a treaty between the other country and the United States.
(For example, contributions to Canadian charities may be deductible,
while contributions to charities based in most other countries are
not.)
Form 1023 asks whether an organization was formed in a country other
than the United States to help identify charities based or operating
in countries that may present tax risk issues.
Page Last Reviewed or Updated: January 07, 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Note when it was last reviewed and updated by the IRS. Then take into
account that Section 15a was only added to the treaty in 1993. And
then finally note that Israel didn't exist in, what was it, 1938? And
then re-consider your assertion that all counties' charities are
deductible because it conflicts with the passage from the IRS above.
> > Article 15A (Added to the treaty in the 1993 Protocol)
drahcir
> On Apr 5, 8:55 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:11 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 5, 4:08 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/cvhwmv
>
> Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> depends on it.
Do you actually think there's anyone here who doesn't know that if you
had a point which could refute
(which, by the way. you felt compelled to snip), you would state it
simply and clearly, and would have done so in the original thread?
Your cut and paste jobs scream that you don't know what else to do,
and hope that there's one reader here stupid enough to assume that you
must have a point. H, you're a loser, a liar, and a coward. How did a
thing like you develop?
Regarding the below, my post talked about contributions to
organizations formed WITHIN the US, so-called "friends-of"
organizations. The below addresses organizations formed in a foreign
country. Try reading it again. How did a moron like you manage to pass
the bar?
dsharavi
> > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > depends on it.
On Apr 6, 5:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you actually think there's anyone here who doesn't know that if you
> had a point which could refute
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cvhwmv
>
> (which, by the way. you felt compelled to snip), you would state it
> simply and clearly, and would have done so in the original thread?
<yawn> You'll note Hunter abruptly stopped trumpeting that Malt and
Wearsheimer "proved" that "Benny Morris is not an honest scholar," etc
etc, once the why of it percolated through his noodle that M/W would
never have dared do that, and, in fact, did not.
Deborah
drahcir
I'm afraid I didn't follow that discussion, but it smacks of that
dirty sponge he uses for a brain inventing the fairy tale about some
"machine" inflating "the" number of Holocaust dead for dishonest
reasons. It seems the least damaged part of his mentality is his
imagination.
HHW
> On Apr 6, 3:06 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Regarding the below, my post talked about contributions to
> organizations formed WITHIN the US, so-called "friends-of"
> organizations. The below addresses organizations formed in a foreign
> country. Try reading it again. How did a moron like you manage to pass
> the bar?
Read more carefully. I received an unusually high score on the Bar
exam even though I didn't study tax and always used CPAs. In the P.E.F
Israel Endowment case all the ultimate donees are charities formed in
Israel. It is the treaty Article 15a, not friends-of doctrine which
determines the matter and that was done under the lash of the Lobby in
1993. According to the treaty ANY charity formed under Israeli law is
deductible regardless of how "Friends of the Paris Opera" may be
organized.
You want "friends-of"? That's okay. Try this:
"U.S. `friends' organizations
"There are a multitude of U.S. "friends" organizations that are formed
to support a specific foreign charity, such as the American Friends of
the Paris Opera, the American Friends of the London Business School,
and the American Friends of the Tel Aviv University. Although these
domestic charities are established expressly for the purpose of
raising funds in the U.S. that will ultimately be distributed to the
foreign charities they support, they are organized to meet the legal
requirements for contributions to be deductible for U.S. tax purposes.
HHW, absent the treaty of 1993, the question here would be how are
they so organized and why the singularity in the language. The next
step is to parse the exceptions to deductibility set forth below and
then to ask yourself again the significance of the treaty which so
offends me. It is naught but a conveyor belt of money from the U.S.
taxpayer to Israel. Israel is a wealthy country. There is no
justification for it. The quotation continues:
"In Rev. Rul. 63-252 , the IRS addressed alternative factual
situations regarding the deductibility of contributions to U.S.
“friends” organizations. In the first example, a foreign organization
caused a U.S. organization to be formed to (1) conduct a U.S. fund-
raising campaign, (2) pay the administrative expenses from the
collected funds, and (3) remit any balance to the foreign
organization. In the second example, U.S. persons, desirous of
furthering a foreign organization's work, form a U.S. organization
whose charter provides that it will receive contributions and send
them, at convenient intervals, to the foreign organization.
"The IRS, citing Thompson, 12 stated that the inquiry as to the
deductibility of a contribution does not stop once it is determined
that an amount has been paid to a qualifying domestic organization.
Rather, if the amount is earmarked for a foreign charity, it is
appropriate to look beyond the fact that the immediate recipient is a
qualifying organization to determine whether the payment constitutes a
deductible contribution. Similarly, if an organization is required for
other reasons (such as a specific provision in its charter) to turn
over contributions to a foreign charity, or if the contributions are
otherwise inevitably committed to go to a foreign charity, the IRS
stated that the real donee is the ultimate foreign recipient. On this
ground, the IRS concluded that the contributions to the domestic
charity in examples one and two are not deductible.
"Similarly, in example three of Rev. Rul. 63-252 , where the domestic
organization represents to prospective contributors that the
contributions it receives will be turned over to a foreign
organization, the IRS determined that the contributions are not
deductible. In these examples, the foreign charity was considered the
real donee, and the domestic charity was merely a conduit.
"Example three of this Ruling was subsequently amplified by Rev. Rul.
66-79 , 13 in which the IRS concluded that contributions to a domestic
charity which are solicited for a specific project of a foreign
charitable organization will be deductible under Section 170, provided
that the domestic charity reviews and approves the project as being in
furtherance of its own exempt purposes and has control and discretion
as to the use of the contributions. If a U.S. “friends” organization
is listed in the Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section
170(c), Publication 78, a contribution to the organization will
generally be deductible for income tax purposes. Deductibility under
Section 170(c) will be jeopardized only if a contribution to a U.S.
“friends” organization listed in Publication 78 is specifically
earmarked by an individual donor for a foreign charity. 14"
HHW
You had better explain that, Deborah.
HHW
You are part of the machine. You lie about me saying the Holocaust
Industry invented the six million number. We know what its origins
are. Eichmann, for example. And the Nuremberg estimates.
My observations were about the Holocaust Industry using the number for
present day political and financial objectives and accordingly abusing
people (as you do) who prefer the more conservative but higher quality
scholarly estimates, such as Hillberg's. I happen to agree with Norman
Finkelstein that Hillberg's work is the best. Finkelstein is no
Holocaust denier or minimizer. I suggest that you take it up with him.
HHW
Tell your colleagues, Ratner, the Israel is going to get out of the
West Bank.
dsharavi
> > > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > > depends on it.
> > On Apr 6, 5:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Do you actually think there's anyone here who doesn't know that if you
> > > had a point which could refute
> > >http://tinyurl.com/cvhwmv
> > > (which, by the way. you felt compelled to snip), you would state it
> > > simply and clearly, and would have done so in the original thread?
> On Apr 6, 2:25 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > <yawn> You'll note Hunter abruptly stopped trumpeting that Malt and
> > Wearsheimer "proved" that "Benny Morris is not an honest scholar," etc
> > etc, once the why of it percolated through his noodle that M/W would
> > never have dared do that, and, in fact, did not.
On Apr 6, 11:35 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid I didn't follow that discussion, but it smacks of that
> dirty sponge he uses for a brain inventing the fairy tale about some
> "machine" inflating "the" number of Holocaust dead for dishonest
> reasons. It seems the least damaged part of his mentality is his
> imagination
Put it down to the brainfarts of approaching senility--along with the
usual yahyah from the sonei Yisrael flock.
Deborah
drahcir
> On Apr 6, 7:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 3:06 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Regarding the below, my post talked about contributions to
> > organizations formed WITHIN the US, so-called "friends-of"
> > organizations. The below addresses organizations formed in a foreign
> > country. Try reading it again. How did a moron like you manage to pass
> > the bar?
>
> Read more carefully.
No need. From your post:
"Note, however, that contributions to an
organization formed in a foreign country are generally not deductible
as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes except
pursuant to a treaty between the other country and the United States.
(For example, contributions to Canadian charities may be deductible,
while contributions to charities based in most other countries are
not.) "
While my post spoke of "friends-of" agencies formed in the US, yours
speaks of an "organization formed in a foreign country". You're the
one who doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between domestic
agencies and foreign charitable entities, so you're the only one in
need of more careful reading.
I received an unusually high score on the Bar
> exam even though I didn't study tax and always used CPAs.
Interesting. So, precisely when do you figure that you became a dolt
who can't figure out the difference between foreign and domestic
entities?
In the P.E.F
> Israel Endowment case all the ultimate donees are charities formed in
> Israel. It is the treaty Article 15a, not friends-of doctrine which
> determines the matter and that was done under the lash of the Lobby in
> 1993.
That is correct. The point, understood by all but you, is that, if the
treaty article did not exist, the Israeli entities could still benefit
from US tax-deductible contributions via "friends-of" agencies.
Regarding your "lash", of course it's just your typical hot air until
you prove it. You won't because you can't. As I said in the linked-to
post (you know, the one you fled from in the original thread and
snipped twice in this one):
"My guess is that these three provisions were made simply for
expediency - as I have shown very clearly above, deducting donations
to Mexican, Israeli, or Canadian entities would be no problem without
them, via "Friends" organizations, Probably the sheer quantity of
Mexican Americans, Jewish Americans, and Canadian Americans making
such contributions made it easier to include the reciprocal provisions
in the treaty, obviating the necessity of "Friends" organizations. "
According to the treaty ANY charity formed under Israeli law is
> deductible regardless of how "Friends of the Paris Opera" may be
> organized.
That, too is correct. Same for charities formed under Canadian and
Mexican law. See, if you keep trying, eventually you will get it!
>
> You want "friends-of"? That's okay. Try this:
>
> "U.S. `friends' organizations
>
> "There are a multitude of U.S. "friends" organizations that are formed
> to support a specific foreign charity, such as the American Friends of
> the Paris Opera, the American Friends of the London Business School,
> and the American Friends of the Tel Aviv University. Although these
> domestic charities are established expressly for the purpose of
> raising funds in the U.S. that will ultimately be distributed to the
> foreign charities they support, they are organized to meet the legal
> requirements for contributions to be deductible for U.S. tax purposes.
Ok, folks, you want scary? Here it is: for the second time in this
thread, HHW has snipped my link to the relevant post in the relevant
thread:
If you click on it, you will see that the EXACT paragraph that HHW has
told me to "try" above is CONTAINED THEREIN!! HE FORGOT ALREADY!! Is
any further proof needed that HHW is just a senile old idiot? (BTW, of
course, I provided a cite and he didn't.)
>
> HHW, absent the treaty of 1993, the question here would be how are
> they so organized and why the singularity in the language.
I'm sorry, I haven't the foggiest idea what "HHW, ..." is supposed to
mean. Are you addressing yourself? Regarding the below, it's very
simple: there will be situations where "friends-of" entities are not
formed according to the rules, thus their deductibility will be
rescinded. The fact remains that if contributions to "friends of the
Paris Opera" doesn't have a problem, contributions to any charitable
entity won't have a problem, so long as the domestic agency is
properly formed and procedure conforms to IRS guidelines.
I am happy to see that you have FINALLY comprehended the issue, at
least, and that you understand now that contributing to entities in
ANY foreign country is quite possible via the establishment of a
domestic agency that conforms to IRS rules. Thus, while contributing
to an institution in Canada, Israel, or Mexico is easier, the Paris
Opera and various Muslim terrorist-supporting entities need not worry
about American money drying up. It goes without saying that this
completely belies your original argument.
The next
> step is to parse the exceptions to deductibility
No need to "parse" them - the Paris Opera is alive and well and so are
countless other charities not in the US, Canada, Israel, or Mexico who
benefit from US-deductible contributions because their "friends-of"
organizations conform to IRS rules. The fact that someone screwed up
in the below just means that rules are rules and must be followed. I
am sure that even DOMESTIC charities' deductibilty have been rescinded
because some arcane rule was not followed.
In summary, you started the stupid tax thread with the idea, why
should only Israel among all foreign countries benefit from US
donations that are deductible? You answered the question with your
usual bullshit - the evil Jewish lobby. I proved that 1) the
deductibility of DIRECT, individual contribution to entities in Israel
is not unique, that it exists for Canada and Mexico as well, and 2) it
is perfectly possible to get a tax break for contributions to an
entity in ANY OTHER foreign country via "friends-of" organizations. Of
course, as with any charity, those organizations must conform to IRS
guidelines or risk losing their eligibility. Is there anything else
you require education about, H?
HHW
> On Apr 5, 4:08 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/cvhwmv
>
> > Oh, and your electrifyingly timely story about the supposed effect of
> > boycott was posted nearly a week ago by Heinrich:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/d8lnks
>
> > Have a nice day, willya, H?
>
> West Bank.
I say it again, Missy, tell your colleagues that Israel is going to
get out of the West Bank and that Israel would be better off is given
that fact she maintained the relationship instead of fighting us
further.
HHW
You display nothing in response. Where are these famed Jewish
intellectuals and learned scholars? Are they simply awaiting the
outcome in order to say we supported American interests all along?
HHW
>
> > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > depends on it.
» 10/11/2004 10:53
ISRAEL - VATICAN
Catholic hospitals and dying patients hunted by Israeli tax collectors
Jerusalem tax authorities have intensified a campaign of intimidation
against Catholic institutions, in violation of the Agreement between
the Holy See and Israel.
Jerusalem (AsiaNews) - The Jerusalem Municipality is threatening to
confiscate the funds of St. Louis Catholic Hospital, if the Sisters of
St. Joseph of the Apparition, who run this specialised hospital for
the terminally ill, do not pay the property taxes, from which, by
international law, they are exempt. The Municipal tax collectors have
given the Sisters a deadline of the 31 October. At that time they are
threatening to seize the health insurance contributions, which enable
the sisters to care for some 50 terminally ill patients, Arabs and
Jews; Christian, Jewish and Muslim patients. If the tax collectors
seize the funds, the Sisters (who themselves are extremely few) will
not be able to pay the wages of the support staff, and the dying
patients may become homeless.
The crisis has been precipitated by the Jerusalem Municipality in
defiance of the solemn treaty between the Holy See and the State of
Israel - known as the Fundamental Agreement - of 30 December 1993.
This treaty bars the Israeli authorities from enforcing tax demands
that are disputed by the Catholic Church, until a new comprehensive
treaty on these matters is signed between the Holy See and Israel. It
is the firm position of the Holy See that the Sisters, like all other
Catholic convents and institutions in Israel are exempted from
municipal property taxes, in accordance with internationally binding
norms, including the 29 November 1947 UN Resolution that is the basis
for the international legitimacy of the creation of the State of
Israel - as Israel itself acknowledges in its 14 May 1948 Declaration
of Independence. There it is said explicitly that the Jewish State is
being created "on the strength of the UN Resolution".
The Government of Israel, however, has consistently refused to
recognise that it is bound by its solemn Agreement with the Holy See,
and has in fact taken the explicit position in the Courts that the
Agreement with the Holy See has no value. Recently, the influential
Archdiocese of Cologne - which has several institutions in the Holy
Land, has petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice to order the
Government to state publicly for the record whether it recognises the
solemn Agreement with the Holy See. Observers in Jerusalem said to
AsiaNews: "It is possible that precisely because of the impending
decisions in the High Court, the tax authorities have wished to
intensify their campaign of intimidation against Catholic
institutions, in violation of the Agreement".
AsiaNews recalls that Israel's Interior Minister, Avraham Poraz, on a
visit to the Vatican just weeks ago, said in an interview that
Catholic institutions will not be required to pay the tax. The actions
of the Jerusalem municipality belie that promise.
As for the Sisters of St. Joseph, they are anguished. On the one
hand, they - like all other Catholic institutions - are under orders
from the highest Authorities of the Catholic Church not to capitulate
to the unjust and illegal demands of the Tax Authorities, since any
break in the solidarity of Catholic institutions will make a mockery
of the ongoing negotiations between the Catholic Church and the State
of Israel, negotiations that aim precisely at a "comprehensive
agreement" regarding all Catholic institutions. The next negotiating
session on precisely this issue of municipal property tax is scheduled
for 27-28 October, just days before the ultimatum given to the Sisters
of St. Joseph. On the other hand, they cannot contemplate the prospect
of putting out on the street the dying men and women for whom they
care with such love and dedication. But this is precisely what the
high pressure tactics of the municipality are banking on, that the
sisters will break down, and that their surrender will open the
floodgates to the unilateral surrender of all other Catholic
institutions. Church authorities will not let that happen, sources in
Jerusalem say.
The drama of St. Louis Hospital recalls the similar dramatic situation
of St. Joseph's Hospital, which has been the subject of numerous
diplomatic exchanges between the Holy See and the Government of
Israel. In the case of St. Joseph's Hospital, the Government took the
explicit position, in the Jerusalem District court, that the
Fundamental Agreement had no value at all, and the Court accepted the
Government's position. The Church has appealed to the Israeli Supreme
Court, where the case is still pending - together with the petition
from the Archdiocese of Cologne.
drahcir
> On Apr 6, 7:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > depends on it.
BWAHAHAHA!!!! With the below, poor H is doing his very best imitation
of a chicken with its head cut off. Very convincing!! I'll take this
for what it obviously is - your admission of defeat re the tax issue.
Before we call it quits re this issue, I hope you won't "forget" to
inform the group precisely why you asked me to "try" a quote re
"friends-of" agencies that I provided days earlier in my post in the
original thread. I am sure everyone is very curious.
HHW
> On Apr 7, 12:20 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 7:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > > depends on it.
>
> BWAHAHAHA!!!! With the below, poor H is doing his very best imitation
> of a chicken with its head cut off. Very convincing!!
So you don't see the unpleasant, hypocritical contradiction? Indeed,
not. It's an intellectual incapacity rather than seeing it and
pretending not. Unless you want to admit you're lying. Nice corner,
eh?
I'll take this
> for what it obviously is - your admission of defeat re the tax issue.
Ha! You simply can't deal with materials of this sort, Ratner. I gave
them to you silently so to speak to see if you would show any sign of
actually understanding them. You did not. Instead you shot your mouth
off without the most elementary comprehension---and still don't
understand. Advertising your 'friends-of' theory was a stupidly fatal
impulse designed as an excuse to start the insults which are your only
purpose here. But that left you open to the fact that that the friends-
of exception was very narrow and and hedged in by negative IRS
hypotheticals which covered the rest of the spectrum. There was
already a 'friends-of' Tel Aviv University if you'll recall. But that
approach wasn't nearly enough. They wanted dude ranches too! What
Israel and the lobby wanted was that there be NO AMERICAN LIMITS to
the flow of US taxpayer supported "charity" to israel. They wanted no
gates, no stenosis anywhere in the channels. They wanted ISRAEL TO
DECIDE what would be deductible for AMERICAN income tax purposes.
Hence the need for the treaty protocol which finally in 1993 gave them
exactly what they wanted, complete Israeli control over this aspect of
American tax policy.
In fact, Ratner, you are dumb as a post. And now, your argument in a
shambles, you want to quit the issue by declaring victory and
changing the subject:
> Before we call it quits re this issue,
In fact you've done this virtually every time you've been bloodied,
i.e., often. You simply lie about having prevailed and then run.
I hope you won't "forget" to
> inform the group precisely why you asked me to "try" a quote re
> "friends-of" agencies that I provided days earlier in my post in the
> original thread. I am sure everyone is very curious.
If you did cite that tax lawyer's article, and I don't recall right
now and found it independently anyway, it was a blunder of the first
water. Your own cite defeated you. Yes, dumb as a post. You are also
a very nasty creature, Missy. Like our former neoconservative
President Bush, everything you touch turns to merde.
In an effort to ensure that everyone may savour the hypocrisy, I ask
the membership to again read the article below.
HHW
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1077070.html
Netanyahu himself appealing directly to America's Jewish community for
tax deductible donations on the basis that little children are hungry
in Israel--and, by implication, that there is nothing the Israeli
government can do to feed them.
drahcir
> On Apr 7, 6:52 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 12:20 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 7:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > > > depends on it.
>
> > BWAHAHAHA!!!! With the below, poor H is doing his very best imitation
> > of a chicken with its head cut off. Very convincing!!
>
> So you don't see the unpleasant, hypocritical contradiction?
Here's what I see, H. You tried to suggest that the situation with
Israel was unique tax-wise. I proved you wrong on two counts - wrong
in that it's not unique, and wrong in that the treaty provisions are
not necessary for tax-deductible contributions in ANY foreign country.
You then presented me with the very article about "friends-of"
agencies with which I presented you days before - undoubtedly
symptomatic only of your senility. You latest senilization is to post
an irrelevancy from 2004 about some tax dispute. Are you really that
out of your fucking mind, H?
As I scan down the HHWBabble below, it is clear that it serves
absolutely no purpose other than as a desperate and vain ploy to try
to save face. I have better things to do. Adios, senor Alzheimer.
HHW
> On Apr 7, 1:30 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 6:52 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 12:20 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 6, 7:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > > > > depends on it.
>
> > > BWAHAHAHA!!!! With the below, poor H is doing his very best imitation
> > > of a chicken with its head cut off. Very convincing!!
>
> > So you don't see the unpleasant, hypocritical contradiction?
>
> Here's what I see, H. You tried to suggest that the situation with
> Israel was unique tax-wise.
It obviously is. American deductibility is determined by Israeli law
and Israel is the only country east of the Atlantic Ocean with that
privilege.
I proved you wrong on two counts - wrong
> in that it's not unique, and wrong in that the treaty provisions are
> not necessary for tax-deductible contributions in ANY foreign country.
"Friends-of" arrangements are occasionally set up but it is done
according to strict AMERICAN standards one charity at a time. After
the 1993 Protocol to the US-Israel tax treaty which added Article 15a,
the United States gave up all control as to deductibility so long as
the charity was approved in Israel by the Israeli government. That's
the "dude ranch principle." That is not only unique to Israel east of
the Atlantic and west of the Pacific, it is absolutely supine and a
humiliation of the American people. It's just that they don't know
their blood's being sucked or what it costs them.
> You then presented me with the very article about "friends-of"
> agencies with which I presented you days before - undoubtedly
> symptomatic only of your senility.
Fool, I presented you with the specific provision on friends-of
organizations which showed you had been dead wrong as to how they
work. You failed to address them. I then explained them and you now
run after clipping the explanation.
You latest senilization is to post
> an irrelevancy from 2004 about some tax dispute. Are you really that
> out of your fucking mind, H?
The Catholic hospital tax dispute was put up to demonstrate Israeli
hypocrisy and by extension, yours. In that case the Israelis were
doing their best to destroy a Catholic, charitable hospice populated
by dying patients by taxing it to death domestically. On the other
hand Israel's Lobby has succeeded in enshrining the principle that
Israel decides matters of charitable deducdtibility for Americans,
i.e., American Jews, making gifts to Israeli charities, such as dude
ranches. The relevance is so painful you have no choice but to revert
to comments about "senilization," etc. Dumb as a post, Ratner. Here
is the reality of the matter which you neither understand nor can you
escape:
> As I scan down the HHWBabble below, it is clear that it serves
> absolutely no purpose other than as a desperate and vain ploy to try
> to save face. I have better things to do. Adios, senor Alzheimer.
Anyone on usenet can run away when the going gets rough. You do it all
the time. What you can't escape is the FACT that ISRAEL determines the
deductibility of American gifts to Israeli charities for the purposes
of American income tax. Israel is a foreign country. That's shameful,
a humiliation. It's a loss of another piece of sovereignty to a
foreign, hostile state. And the American people don't even know it.
drahcir
> On Apr 7, 1:08 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 1:30 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 6:52 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 7, 12:20 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 6, 7:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > > > > > depends on it.
>
> > > > BWAHAHAHA!!!! With the below, poor H is doing his very best imitation
> > > > of a chicken with its head cut off. Very convincing!!
>
> > > So you don't see the unpleasant, hypocritical contradiction?
>
> > Here's what I see, H. You tried to suggest that the situation with
> > Israel was unique tax-wise.
>
> It obviously is. American deductibility is determined by Israeli law
> and Israel is the only country east of the Atlantic Ocean with that
> privilege.
yes, and canada is the only country north of 46 degrees latitude that
has it. Isn't geography fun?
>
> I proved you wrong on two counts - wrong
>
> > in that it's not unique, and wrong in that the treaty provisions are
> > not necessary for tax-deductible contributions in ANY foreign country.
>
> "Friends-of" arrangements are occasionally set up
LOL! Where do you get that "occasionally" stuff?
but it is done
> according to strict AMERICAN standards one charity at a time.
Right, just like ANY OTHER AMERICAN CHARITY - ONE AT A TIME. I would
ask what your point is, but it is evident you don't have one,
rendering the question pointless.
After
> the 1993 Protocol to the US-Israel tax treaty which added Article 15a,
> the United States gave up all control as to deductibility so long as
> the charity was approved in Israel by the Israeli government. That's
> the "dude ranch principle." That is not only unique to Israel east of
> the Atlantic and west of the Pacific, it is absolutely supine and a
> humiliation of the American people.
Please, I beg of you, stop, I am laughing so hard I may puke.
It's just that they don't know
> their blood's being sucked or what it costs them.
>
> > You then presented me with the very article about "friends-of"
> > agencies with which I presented you days before - undoubtedly
> > symptomatic only of your senility.
>
> Fool,
LOL!!!! You present something for me to "try" which I posted
previously, and in your book I'm the fool. H, I'm sorry, this is
really just you trying to save face. I have better things to do. Senor
Alzheimer, I bid you adios.
I presented you with the specific provision on friends-of
> organizations which showed you had been dead wrong as to how they
> work. You failed to address them. I then explained them and you now
> run after clipping the explanation.
As I have said, you are simply out of your fucking mind, H. Please
take your meds.
HHW
> On Apr 7, 3:01 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 1:08 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 1:30 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 7, 6:52 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 7, 12:20 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 6, 7:59 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > > > > > > depends on it.
>
> > > > > BWAHAHAHA!!!! With the below, poor H is doing his very best imitation
> > > > > of a chicken with its head cut off. Very convincing!!
>
> > > > So you don't see the unpleasant, hypocritical contradiction?
>
> > > Here's what I see, H. You tried to suggest that the situation with
> > > Israel was unique tax-wise.
>
> > It obviously is. American deductibility is determined by Israeli law
> > and Israel is the only country east of the Atlantic Ocean with that
> > privilege.
>
> yes, and canada is the only country north of 46 degrees latitude that
> has it. Isn't geography fun?
Association for the Wellbeing of Israel's Soldiers and Friends of the
Israeli Defense Forces. They're just what Joe Sixpack needs to
support, unknowingly.
drahcir
You lose. Live with it.
HHW
This was the last substantive post:
drahcir
Listen, do you think people around here are blind? You snip away the
points you can't contend with, then pretend you're in command. Go back
to your playpen - that's the place for invalids going through second
childhood.
>
> You simply can't deal with materials of this sort, Ratner. I gave
> them to you silently so to speak to see if you would show any sign of
> actually understanding them. You did not. Instead you shot your mouth
> off without the most elementary comprehension---and still don't
> understand. Advertising your 'friends-of' theory was a stupidly fatal
> impulse designed as an excuse to start the insults which are your
> only
> purpose here.
Yeah, sure. Like a child, you snip away the bad parts where I expose
your lies and idiocies and then pretend they never happened. Calling
you a child is not an insult - it's simply objective.
But that left you open to the fact that that the
> friends-
> of exception was very narrow
You want to call it narrow, be my guest. You can call it pink or
fragrant or melancholy, too. All are unsupported nonsense.
and and hedged in by negative IRS
> hypotheticals which covered the rest of the spectrum.
Above is HHWBabble - by definition making no sense.
There was
> already a 'friends-of' Tel Aviv University if you'll recall. But that
> approach wasn't nearly enough. They wanted dude ranches too! What
> Israel and the lobby wanted
Have you shown ONE IOTA of evidence that "the lobby" had anything to
do with the tax provision? ONE? What this boils down to is what it
ALWAYS boils down to - you don't like jews. End of story. The truth is
that even if the lobby DID urge lawmakers to include the provision, so
what? That's their job! Guess what, asshole. The tax provision is not
unique, and NEITHER IS THE ISRAEL LOBBY. This country is filled with
lobbying groups. That's what our system is about. You don't like it?
Get Mexican citizenship and stay there. Better yet, move to Saudi
Arabia and have some real fun.
was that there be NO AMERICAN LIMITS to
> the flow of US taxpayer supported "charity" to israel. They wanted no
> gates, no stenosis anywhere in the channels. They wanted ISRAEL TO
> DECIDE what would be deductible for AMERICAN income tax purposes.
> Hence the need for the treaty protocol which finally in 1993 gave
> them
> exactly what they wanted, complete Israeli control over this aspect
> of
> American tax policy.
Mounds and mounds of 100% unsupported babble. If you simply type that
you hate jews over and over, it will have exactly the same effect.
From my last post in the original thread from which you fled:
"It is by no means unique, and the only reason you see it as such is
that you are, as we all know by now, an antisemitic pig. Of course,
like all pigs, you have your rationale - Mexico is ok for reason A,
Canada is ok for reason B, but no matter what, you hate Jews, so
Israel is not ok. You must have been one helluva lawyer with that
logic. My guess is that these three provisions were made simply for
drahcir
I love when you say it, ya big lug. Say it again, could ya? next time,
however, try to lay off the tequila so that you stand a better chance
of making the second phrase in your run-on sentence make some sense.
HHW
"A search of IRS records identified 28 U.S. charitable groups that
made
a total of $33.4 million in tax-exempt contributions to settlements
and related organizations between 2004 and 2007.
"Given the fact that U.S. government policy opposes settlements and
finds them “unhelpful” to the peace process, why are we being so
“helpful” to the settlers?"
drahcir
Could you please ask whomever did that search to do a new search to
see how many tax-exempt dollars were contributed to entities that
support organizations that support terrorism? In case you were not
aware of it, US government policy opposes terrorism, too. In the
future, you need to cite stuff like the above. It's not enough to know
that "a search" was done. Also, did you notice that these were
supposedly US groups, meaning that these were not individual
contributions to Israeli charities?
HHW
>
> > > Tell your colleagues, Ratner, that Israel is going to get out of the
> > > West Bank.
>
> > I say it again, Missy, tell your colleagues that Israel is going to
> > she maintains the U. S. relationship. As we speak she is poisoning it.
>
> I love when you say it, ya big lug. Say it again, could ya? next time,
> however, try to lay off the tequila so that you stand a better chance
> of making the second phrase in your run-on sentence make some sense.
It didn't make much sense but it's critical so I improved it. thank
you for pointing it out. I follow-up on it here:
America's Israel policy has become the most serious *global* issue
facing us, by far. The unanticipated consequences of political
cowardice and failure are strewn about us like the wreckage of a mass
pile-up on the first icy freeway of the season. Now the first public
confrontation between Israel and the United States in decades is
taking shape as we speak. Today the neofascist Lieberman is bellowing
at us to stay out of Israeli's oh-so-private criminal endeavors.
Netanyahu comes next month. He says he is drafting a "peace plan," but
we know what that will be like. The settlement building is proceeding
defiantly, funded both directly and indirectly with American money.
Obama isn't waiting. He's telling the world from the dais of the
Turkish Parliament that only the two state solution is acceptable. He
has drawn the line, put down the marker. It's absolutely critical for
his presidency and for America that he succeed.
It's also critical for your country, Israel. It's the ultimate test of
her political maturity and of whether she still values peace and
democracy. It's the test of whether the Israeli people can look past
the overheated, ideologically driven rhetoric to her own long term
interest. Think about this, Ratner. The Russian neofascist Lieberman
is a settler. He holds the second highest office in Israel. Where is
Israel headed?
drahcir
Gosh, you're really confused. You think I'm living in massachusetts,
post from canada and my country is israel. How do you manage to get
through your day?
HHW
> > > > > > > > > > > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > > > > > > > > > > depends on it.
I'm going to snip only frivolities and gratuitous insults:
Snip
> > > > > > > > So you don't see the unpleasant, hypocritical contradiction?
>
> > > > > > > Here's what I see, H. You tried to suggest that the situation with
> > > > > > > Israel was unique tax-wise.
>
> > > > > > It obviously is. American deductibility is determined by Israeli law
> > > > > > and Israel is the only country east of the Atlantic Ocean with that
> > > > > > privilege.
Snip
> > > > Association for the Wellbeing of Israel's Soldiers and Friends of the
> > > > Israeli Defense Forces. They're just what Joe Sixpack needs to
> > > > support, unknowingly.
Snip
> > This was the last substantive post:
Snip
> > You simply can't deal with materials of this sort, Ratner. I gave
> > them to you silently so to speak to see if you would show any sign of
> > actually understanding them. You did not. Instead you shot your mouth
> > off without the most elementary comprehension---and still don't
> > understand. Advertising your 'friends-of' theory was a stupidly fatal
> > impulse designed as an excuse to start the insults which are your
> > only
> > purpose here.
Snip
> But that left you open to the fact that that the
>
> > friends-
> > of exception was very narrow
Snip
> and and hedged in by negative IRS hypotheticals which covered the rest of the spectrum.
Snip
> There was already a 'friends-of' Tel Aviv University if you'll recall. But that
> > approach wasn't nearly enough. They wanted dude ranches too! What
> > Israel and the lobby wanted
>
> Have you shown ONE IOTA of evidence that "the lobby" had anything to
> do with the tax provision?
Can you imagine a situation in which it would not have been involved?
Not a single country in Europe, not even Great Britain, has the treaty
right to determine what local charities will be deductible for
American income tax purposes. Only two western hemisphere countries
have it or something like it and you know nothing about the actual
terms of their treaties.
ONE? What this boils down to is what it
> ALWAYS boils down to - you don't like jews.
I like my homeland. I don't like you. Is it because you are a Jew or
just because you're a miserable, deviant, lying son of a bitch? Please
let us know which.
>End of story.
Haha! Not likely. You want that so badly. Your only gimmick is to
label me. I now take up ALL of your time here and that's your only
resource, to label. You know virtually nothing about the issues
anyway. Even though your only tactic is that mindless and narrow the
opportunities you provide me are vast. You've given me a huge canvas
on which to limn the immense clout which has resulted in giving over
to Israel the exclusive power to determine who gets deductibility for
American gifts to Israeli charities. We now support the IDF's
recreational opportunities. We support dude ranches on a theory that
riding horses is theraputic, for the rider. We support the building of
new settlements on the West Bank. That was a very great victory for
Zionist influence in Washington, but it was the kind of thing that
elementary common sense would not have advertised. Old Ratner's dumb
as a post. He keeps the thread going indefinitely, not even on the
merits mind you but on the definition of the word "unique." And on
whether I have an "iota" of evidence to prove something obvious,
something which could not otherwise have happened.
You largest problem, Ratner, other than your failed education,
hedonistic sloth and general ignorance of the world about you, is the
idee fixe pattern. You have no intellectual flexibility, no instinct
for parsing the human condition. You are totally unable to look at a
field of data and synthesize a useful explanation of it. In your own
words you can't connect the dots. It's actually a form of disability
which is probably a part of the reason you live like a disabled
person, on the charity of others. Family or not, it's the same thing,
charity. Tell us, is supporting you deductible? It wouldn't surprise
me.
The truth is
> that even if the lobby DID urge lawmakers to include the provision, so
> what? That's their job!
"Even if?" Hahaha. Read the damned book, Ratner. We need to
criminalize interference in our democratic system by *all* lobbies for
foreign countries, domestic or not. The ancient evil which requires it
is conflict of interest, dual loyalty. Look what it's done to us!
Guess what, asshole.
No guessing, queer hypocrite.
The tax provision is not
> unique,
Oh, but it is. It certainly is. Israel has the only country with it in
all of Asia, the world's largest, most populous and culturally complex
continent. It is literally unique in all of Asia. There is no such
treaty in all of Africa where the need for philanthropy is tremendous,
so in a sense it is unique in regard to Africa too. There is not one
for the entire Continent of Australia! And those white, waspy Aussies
are our excellent allies. There is none for all of Europe where our
most staunch and natural allies are in the cultural sense. Not even
for Great Britain, our primary cultural motherland. None for South
America. None for Antarctica. As to North America there are only two,
both of which we border upon and with both of which we have long
histories.
You're playing a word game. Unique springs from uni or single, but it
isn't required that the word be applied to the entire world--or not be
used at all. No, no, there would be a vast outflow of charity to India
if she had such a treaty provision. Indian immigrants have enriched
themselves in America too. But she doesn't. Despite the vast
disparity in size and poverty, the India Lobby here in the U.S. is
miniscule and even though her need is far greater than Israel's it
does not occur to American Presidents to help her in this under the
radar fashion. It's basically contrary to our *general policy* which
has only two exceptions and those for good reasons. So, yes indeed,
gifting our tax revenues to Israel in this unpublicized fashion is
unique. Not only is it unique, it could not have been brought about
absent vast influence. Does it occur to us to give such treatment to
Spain (same size economy) or Britain? No. To Israel? Yes. Is it
because we've run out of overt ways to give Israel money? No. Is it
because of the influence of a conflicted lobby? Yes, obviously. There
is no other reason for it.
There was a large scale rationalization of our tax treaty system in
the mid 70s. Israel did not get this treatment then even though her
need for charity was much greater than it is if at all today. It was
treated like everyone else outside of North America. The lobby was
young then, not yet fully fledged in all that lustrous black plumage
we associate with avian omnivores.
and NEITHER IS THE ISRAEL LOBBY.
Just look at those nervously self-conscious capital letters. And just
look at how stupidly you emphasize the fact that the lobby represents
the interests of a foreign country. You always crank up the volume
when protecting one of your sacred scams, Ratner. The Israel lobby is
sui generis in all of American history. It too is unique. You are
absolutely incapable of finding a parallel. I've offered you
opportunites repeatedly. Never before has such a minority of a tiny
*ethnic* minority among the American people wielded such immense
financial and thus unparalleled political power. Never before has an
ethnic lobby been willing to use it so brutally and with such
disregard for the national interest. Never before has a lobby *for a
foreign country* succeeded in so corrupting our congress and
intimidating our administrations. Never before have the American
people suffered so much and for so long due to the conflict of
interest of such a tiny ethnic minority. It is true, no matter how
much you may scramble to obfuscate and intimidate, no matter how much
you may attempt to change the subject from foreign policy to ad
hominem insults.
This country is filled with
> lobbying groups. That's what our system is about.
The lobby is for a foreign country, not domestic chemical or gun
manufacturers. Accordingly the stakes are immense. The most dangerous
aspect of governance, foreign policy, is at stake. It's not as if a
polluter which manufactures gizmos comes to the Congress to get more
favorable treatment under the Clean Water Act. Our losses because of
the concentrated and narrowly focused activities of the Israel Lobby
have been immense. In any rational system we would simply amend the
relevant laws to prevent the behavior and move on. In this case it has
become virtually impossible to do that. What really reeks is that few
of the Jewish people are assisting us openly. To those heroic few,
thank you! But generally American Jews too are intimidated.
You don't like it?
No I don't. Had you been confused about that?
> Get Mexican citizenship and stay there. Better yet, move to Saudi
> Arabia and have some real fun.
Look at this conflicted and, speaking most kindly, dually loyal son of
a bitch telling me, whose ancestors have been here since before the
American Revolution, and who fought in it under Washington, to leave
the United States because I oppose its having been betrayed by a
domestic lobby for a foreign country. How's that for hypocrisy! Back
to the Pale, Ratner. You're a calculating ingrate. That's a real
hasbara medal winner! Of course they'll have to issue it to you in a
private ceremony sorta like the one where we gave the Commander of the
Liberty the Congressional Medal of Honor to avoid offending American
Jews. Your "vicious" hostility to individual Americans who disagree
with you on Israeli policy and the lobby is not longer proof against
detractors. The changes are irretrievable. And Israel is going to be a
normal country.
And you can't even master context when you mention these two
countries. Mexico has no international enemies. Not a single one.
That's the result of an enlightened foreign policy. Would that Israel
could emulate Mexico, but the latter's leadership is far too civilized
and her charitable needs are in our interest to supply. Saudi Arabia
is a very conservative monarchy which fears other Arab states far more
than it does Israel and wants a settlement in Palestine so as to
placidly focus on the business of selling oil. In all her history I
can't think of a single territorially aggressive move made by the
government of Saudi Arabia. Can you? Accordingly, whether you affect
to dislike her internal arrangements is just another of your stinking,
essentially racist tactics. As if you gave a damn about the oppression
of women anywhere in Asia. Remember, Ratner, you "don't like girls."
> was that there be NO AMERICAN LIMITS to
>
> > the flow of US taxpayer supported "charity" to israel. They wanted no
> > gates, no stenosis anywhere in the channels. They wanted ISRAEL TO
> > DECIDE what would be deductible for AMERICAN income tax purposes.
> > Hence the need for the treaty protocol which finally in 1993 gave
> > them
> > exactly what they wanted, complete Israeli control over this aspect
> > of
> > American tax policy.
>
> Mounds and mounds of 100% unsupported babble.
Fool, i've posted the relevant provision and advisories. You don't
read them, don't understand them or won't admit that you do because
you know I've got it right.
If you simply type that
> you hate jews over and over, it will have exactly the same effect.
I detest what Israel and her lobby have done to the United States.
They have taken obscene advantage of our natural sympathy and
generosity and perverted our foreign policy. You're a perfect exemplar
of that pattern.
> From my last post in the original thread from which you fled:
>
> "It is by no means unique, and the only reason you see it as such is
> that you are, as we all know by now, an antisemitic pig. Of course,
> like all pigs, you have your rationale - Mexico is ok for reason A,
> Canada is ok for reason B, but no matter what, you hate Jews, so
> Israel is not ok. You must have been one helluva lawyer with that
> logic. My guess is that these three provisions were made simply for
> expediency - as I have shown very clearly above, deducting donations
> to Mexican, Israeli, or Canadian entities would be no problem without
> them, via "Friends" organizations, Probably the sheer quantity of
> Mexican Americans, Jewish Americans, and Canadian Americans making
> such contributions made it easier to include the reciprocal provisions
> in the treaty, obviating the necessity of "Friends" organizations. "
I've dealt with this elsewhere.
HHW
One problem at a time, Ratman. Right now I'm absorbed with subversion
of our democratic system. One has to prioritize.
drahcir
> On Apr 8, 6:49 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Read this very, very carefully, Missy. Your reputation as a tax lawyer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > depends on it.
>
> I'm going to snip only frivolities and gratuitous insults:
Thank you for reinforcing in everyone's mind that you are nothing but
a child.
> And you can't ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
The subversion is only in your, ahem, "mind".
Gary Renzetti
It's just another Ratface attempt at obfuscation. Due to an inability to
answer your question with anything approximating the truth, she goes for
the smoke and mirrors gambit.
{sigh!} So, what else is new?
HHW
>
> read more »
I invite the readership to look at what I snipped.
HHW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 5, 2007
Contact: Senator Levin's Office
Phone: 202.224.6221
Levin Releases Newly Declassified Pentagon Inspector General Report on
Intelligence Assessment Activities of the Office of Under Secretary of
Defense Doug Feith
WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, today released the newly declassified report [PDF] of the
Department of Defense Inspector General on its “Review of the Pre-
Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy.” The report was declassified at Levin’s request.
In releasing the report, Levin said: “It is important for the public
to see why the Pentagon’s Inspector General concluded that Secretary
Feith’s office ‘developed, produced and then disseminated alternative
intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,’ which
included ‘conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the
Intelligence Community,’ and why the Inspector General concluded that
these actions were ‘inappropriate.’ Until today, those details were
classified and outside the public’s view.”
The Feith office alternative intelligence assessments concluded that
Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating and had a “mature, symbiotic”
relationship, a view that was not supported by the available
intelligence, and was contrary to the consensus view of the
Intelligence Community. These alternative assessments were used by the
Administration to support its public arguments in its case for war. As
the DOD IG report confirms, the Intelligence Community never found an
operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda; the report
specifically states that,“the CIA and DIA disavowed any ‘mature,
symbiotic’ relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.”
Senator Levin also released today the declassified briefing slides
[PDF] used by Secretary Feith’s office in its presentation to senior
White House officials, “Assessing the Relationship Between Iraq and al
Qaida,” which concluded incorrectly that “Intelligence indicates
cooperation in all categories; mature, symbiotic relationship,” and
also asserted incorrectly that an alleged meeting in April 2001 in
Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and lead 9/11 hijacker
Mohammed Atta was a “known” contact.
“The very title of the Feith briefing slides contradicts his claim on
February 16 that “we didn’t do intelligence assessments,” as well as
his claim on February 14 that the briefing was simply “a critique of
the CIA’s work on the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship” and no more than an
effort to “raise questions about CIA work,” said Levin. The briefing
slides were an important element in the Inspector General’s inquiry
and its conclusions.
The declassified Inspector General report can be found here. [PDF]
The declassified briefing slides can be found here. [PDF]
HHW
Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
driving us to war on behalf of israel. It the url doesn't work let me
know. I'll find you another:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf
HHW
She's an obsessive, disloyal SOB.
I'm glad you're keeping up with this, Gary. I know these threads
probably tend to make the eyes glaze over but I think they are worth
while. I just wish the quality of the Zionist opposition were better.
It would be a hell of a lot more interesting.
Gary Renzetti
Thanks, H. And I can't argue...the lack of snippage and the repetition
tends to wear somewhat. Sadly, much of the oppo's tactics seems to be
attrition. I've considered dropping the thread numerous times, but I'll
be "double godamned" if I'll let this bunch of AIPAC shills drive me
off. I just wish that Ben would ease up on the racial stuff. He's a
knowledgeable bloke and not unintelligent, but he blows it with many
readers when he resorts to the anti-semitic stuff. As for the oppo, they
really don't have many aces left up their sleeves. I honestly miss Jake
Garbuz. He is somewhere to the right of Himmler, but at least he is
honest and his posts were worth reading. he only remaining one with a
brain seems to be the shoveari thug, and she's totally evil IMO but at
least possesses a semblance of intelligence.
drahcir
Well, looks like HHW is totally, completely out of his mind. Mission
accomplished.
drahcir
LOL! Hey H, I've got to hand it to you, you're pretty good at one
thing: fantasizing.
drahcir
H, pull some quotes from the report that support the "behalf of
israel" claim or be proven a liar once again.
It the url doesn't work let me
> know. I'll find you another:
>
> http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithrepor...
HHW
> On Apr 8, 9:26 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 4:22 pm,drahcir<justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 8, 5:00 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Apr 8, 12:08 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 6, 11:00 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 3:58 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
The IG report is on Feith's "activities". The "on behalf of Israel"
part of it comes from many places. Here's just one of them. Another,
from a woman Airforce Officer who worked for Feith describes the
"stovepiping" of false intelligence from Sharon's operation in Israel
through Feith directly to senior policy makers without being seen by
the intelligence community. I'll look around for you. Wolfie and Feith
were very close you know.
January 20, 2006
"Fixed" Intelligence from Feith's "Gestapo Office," the CIA and the
Bush Administration's Impeachable Lies about Iraq's Prewar Links to al
Qaeda
By Walter C. Uhler
Except in the cynical, zealous or spiritually clouded minds of his
right wing devotees, it's become a well-established (if under
reported) fact that President George W. Bush is a serial liar, if not
a congenital liar.1 For example, after The New York Times very
belatedly leaked Mr. Bush's unconstitutional order permitting the
National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without
obtaining the required court-approved warrants, Bush defended his
directive as a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.
But, as liars commonly do, Bush seems to have forgotten that in April
2004 he told an audience in Buffalo, New York: "When we're talking
about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court
order before we do so." He also told the audience that precisely
because it was "the United States government talking about wiretap,"
Americans could rest assured that "constitutional guarantees are in
place." 2
Obviously, that specific lie pales when compared with Bush's willful
violation of the Bill of Rights, and thus his oath to defend the
Constitution -- clearly an impeachable offense. But, even that
impeachable offense pales when compared with the heinous crime of
spewing lies to scare Americans into supporting war against an
enfeebled Iraq. Yet, Americans have failed to impeach him for that
crime, in part, because more lies are being told to cover it up.
In fact, Bush lied on December 14, 2005, when discussing what
intelligence was available to Congress, when it voted to support his
decision to invade Iraq. Bush lied when he asserted: "Some of the most
irresponsible comments - about manipulated intelligence - have come
from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to
authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein." 3
Mr. Bush, of course, was referring to the hastily crafted classified
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002, the classified
briefings to Congress that accompanied the NIE and the declassified
White Paper, issued a few days after the NIE. All were made available
to Congress. (The extremely alarmist White Paper lacked the caveats
and doubts found in the NIE, which became understandable, once people
learned that the White Paper had its origins in the White House's
desire to mobilize the public for war. Fabrication of the White Paper
actually commenced prior to and independent of the NIE.)
Yet, Bush knew his assertion was false. And so do readers of Bob
Woodward's book, Plan of Attack. For, as Woodward tells us, President
Bush received additional briefings both before and after the October
NIE and Congressional vote, including the now infamous briefing on
December 21, 2002.
It was after the CIA presented him with "The Case on WMD as it might
be presented to a jury with Top Secret security clearances," on
December 21st, that Bush said: "Nice try…I don't think this is quite--
it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a
lot of confidence from." 4 According to Woodward, "Bush turned to
Tenet. 'I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this
is the best we've got?'" 5 Infamously, Tenet assured Bush, "It's a
slam dunk case!" 6
That entire episode raises a host of questions about both the value of
the October NIE, as well as the formal post-invasion investigations
that focused on the NIE. It also lends plausibility to the assertion
made by former CIA agent, Ray McGovern, that, when Tenet requested the
White House's permission to conduct a NIE, he "got the go-ahead - on
one condition: that the estimate's judgments had to parallel those in
Cheney's August speech." 7
But, for those needing more proof that Bush lied on December 14, 2005,
note that the Congressional Research Service (CSR) released a report
the next day that concluded: "The President and a small number of
presidentially designated cabinet-level officials, including the vice
president …have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence
and to more sensitive information, including intelligence sources and
methods." 8 In all, the report identified "nine key U.S. intelligence
'products' not generally shared with Congress." 9
Presumably, that CSR report did not count the intelligence "products"
-- falsely linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda -- that were concocted
for the Bush administration by Douglas Feith's "rogue" intelligence
cell, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCEG).
"Falsely linking?" Yes, on July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission
published its comprehensive "Final Report of the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." Although it acknowledged
some evidence of contacts between Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorists, it emphasized, "To date we have
seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed
into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen
evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaeda in developing
or carrying out any attacks against the United States" 10
Thus, the 9/11 Commission punched a gaping hole in the Bush
administration's repeated prewar assertions that America faced a grave
and growing danger from the looming possibility that Saddam Hussein,
given his significant ties to al Qaeda, might provide weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) to a terrorist organization committed to attacking
the United States. We now know that Saddam had no significant ties to
al Qaeda.
Nevertheless, on 17 June 2004, in order to minimize the devastating
impact of that impending 9/11 Commission Report, Bush lied again. He
insisted, "there was a relationship." 11 But, remember, this is the
same inveterate liar and dissembling weasel who was exposed by ABC's
Diane Sawyer on December 2003. Then, as you probably recall, Sawyer
pressed Bush about justifying a war to the American public by stating
"as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as
opposed to the possibility that he [Saddam] could move to acquire
those weapons." Bush weaseled out by asking: "So what's the
difference?" 12
Two months later, Bush weaseled again, when he justified his illegal,
immoral invasion (to Tim Russert, of Meet the Press) by asserting:
"Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and so I'm not going [sic] leave him in
power and trust a madman…He had the ability to make weapons, at the
very minimum." 13 In other words, America now invades countries simply
because they have the "ability" to make weapons - if you take the
words of our Commander-in-Chief at face value.
The 9/11 Commission's Report specifically rebutted Vice President
Cheney's favorite canard: that one of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed
Atta, met with an Iraqi diplomat at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague on
April 9, 2001. The report noted: "The FBI has gathered evidence
indicating that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 (as evidenced by
a bank surveillance camera photo), and in Coral Springs, Florida on
April 11, where he …leased an apartment. On April 6, 9, 10 and 11,
Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call various
lodging establishments in Florida from cell sites within Florida." 14
We now know that, as early as May 2002, FBI and CIA analysts had
"scoured thousands of travel records" before concluding, "There was no
evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S." 15 Moreover, on June 21,
2002 the CIA published Iraq and al-Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky
Relationship, which concluded that the meeting "likely never
occurred." 16
So why, in September 2002, was Vice President Cheney falsely asserting
on Meet the Press that evidence of Atta in Prague with "a senior Iraqi
intelligence official," was deemed "credible" by the CIA? 17
The brief answer is: Because Douglas Feith's PCEG (which would merge
into the Office of Special Plans) was still feeding him the bogus
intelligence that confirmed what he already "knew." The PCEG did not
simply "study the policy implications of relationships among terrorist
organizations and their sources of support," as Feith falsely
testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), but
also "reviewed both raw and finished intelligence and did undertake
their own intelligence analysis after looking at the IC [Intelligence
Community] products and discovering that what they needed had not been
produced by the IC." 18
What's worse, without exception, Feith's PCEG produced intelligence
products that consistently exaggerated the number, type, significance
and danger of the ties it found between Iraq and al Qaeda. And
although it was wrong on every one of its assessments, not one of its
errors resulted in underestimating the threat. This pattern of errors
in one direction suggests fraud and the 'fixing" of intelligence, not
mere incompetence.
But, thanks to the intervention of Feith's boss, Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the politicized intelligence gathered by this
rogue "Iraqi intelligence cell in the OUSD(P)" 19 -- "rogue," because
it was operating outside the established intelligence agencies funded
by Congress and subject to congressional oversight -- was presented to
(and impressed) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, briefed to Director
of Central Intelligence, George Tenet (but minus the slide disparaging
the CIA), and ultimately presented to Condoleezza Rice's deputy
(Stephen Hadley) and Cheney's Chief of Staff, "Scooter" Libby. That
last briefing took place without the knowledge of Tenet.
Moreover, as Senator Carl Levin reported in October 2004, "one slide,
omitted from the [PCEG] version presented to the CIA, but included in
the version presented to the White House [on September 16, 2002],
discussed the alleged meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and
an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001." 20
Consequently, when it came to Iraq's links to al Qaeda, a chasm
separated the Intelligence Community's evidence from the alarmist
rhetoric expressed by Cheney and other senior officials in the Bush
administration. PCEG reporting was used to create and fill that chasm.
But only because senior Bush administration officials demanded
evidence -- any evidence -- that could be used to persuade Americans
that Bush's war of choice was a war of necessity.
We now absolutely "know" that the Bush administration sought to fix
the intelligence to support war, but only because a British patriot
leaked a document marked, "Secret and Strictly Personal - UK Eyes
Only." This Downing Street Memo was written in July 2002 and contains
the details of a secret meeting between British Prime Minister, Tony
Blair, and his top officials.
It was at this meeting that the Chief of British Intelligence
"reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. BUSH
WANTED TO REMOVE SADDAM, THROUGH MILITARY ACTION JUSTIFIED BY THE
CONJUNCTION OF TERRORISM AND WMD. BUT THE INTELLIGENCE AND FACTS WERE
BEING FIXED AROUND THE POLICY" 21(my emphasis).
But that's not all. Recently disclosed evidence now clearly
demonstrates that the Bush administration could not use the reports
issued by the Intelligence Community (IC) to fix the facts about
Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, because the IC repeatedly and steadfastly
expressed doubts about the existence and significance of such ties.
Those doubts were expressed in at least five reports, beginning with
the President's Daily Brief on September 21, 2001 and continuing up to
and including the report, Iraqi Support for Terrorism, published in
January 2003, just two months before President Bush gave the order to
invade.
Moreover, the IC held to its doubts, notwithstanding intense and
repeated questioning by senior officials in the Bush administration,
especially Vice President Cheney. As the CIA's Deputy Director for
Intelligence told the SSCI, "the Vice President had visited CIA about
five to eight times between September 2001 and February 2003."
Moreover, the instances "of repeated questioning were related to
terrorism issues, and not about Iraq's WMD capabilities." 22
More specifically, according to the SCCI: "The CIA Ombudsman
interviewed about two dozen analysts and managers involved in the
preparation of the CIA's June 2002 document entitled Iraq and al-
Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship…The Ombudsman told the
committee that he felt the 'hammering' by the Bush Administration on
Iraq intelligence was harder than he had witnessed in his 32-year
career with the agency. Several analysts he spoke with mentioned
pressure and gave the sense that they felt the constant questions and
pressure to reexamine issues were unreasonable." 23
Although the IC never repudiated its doubts, those doubts never found
their way into alarmist speeches delivered to the American public by
senior Bush administration policy makers. Why?
Why was the Bush administration's rhetoric about Iraq's ties to al-
Qaeda so consistently and flagrantly over the top, when compared with
the cautious and sober intelligence it was receiving from the IC? Now
that we know that the IC got it right and Bush administration got it
wrong, one needs to ask: "Who was supplying the 'fixed' facts?" Again,
the brief answer is: Feith's PCEG
Here's the detailed answer:
On the very afternoon of September 11, 2001, the day al Qaeda attacked
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld told an aide that he wanted the "best info fast; judge
whether good enough [to] hit S. H." Then he added: "Go massive. Sweep
it all up. Things related, and not." 24 Thus commenced the dishonest
campaign by high level officials in the administration of George W.
Bush to go to war with Iraq - and, thus, the exertion of pressure on
agents in America's duly established intelligence agencies to embrace
fabrications provided by anti-Saddamist Iraqi émigrés about Saddam
Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda.
On the evening of September 12th, President Bush told counterterrorism
expert, Richard Clarke: "I want you, as soon as you can, to go back
over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's
linked in any way…" 25 When Clarke responded: "but Mr. President, al
Qaeda did this," President Bush replied: "I know, I know, but…see if
Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" 26
When Clarke replied, "We have looked several times for state
sponsorship of al Qaeda and have not found any real linkages," Bush
testily retorted, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."27 According to Clarke,
Bush never said, "'Make it up,' but the entire conversation left me in
absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a
report that said, 'Iraq did this.'" 28
In fact, Clarke's office quickly issued a memo to National Security
Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, which concluded "the case for links between
Iraq and al Qaeda was weak…bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam
Hussein's regime." 29 But, according to Clarke, "it got bounced by the
national-security advisor, or deputy. It got bounced and sent back,
saying, 'Wrong answer… Do it again.'" 30
Just three days later, during a September 15, 2001, meeting of Bush's
'war cabinet" at Camp David, a few members discussed the possibility
of the war on terrorism getting bogged down in Afghanistan. Ms. Rice
suggested "that they think about launching military action elsewhere
as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad...They
would need successes early in any war to maintain domestic and
international support." 31
That suggestion "perked up" Wolfowitz. It was Wolfowitz (along with
coauthor Zelmay Khalizad) who, in late 1997, wrote a piece for the
neoconservative magazine, The Weekly Standard, titled Overthrow Him -
"Him," of course, meaning Saddam Hussein. As George Packer has
observed, Saddam was Wolfowitz's "white whale." 32
So, jumping on Rice's suggestion, Wolfowitz told the gathering: "Iraq
was a brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily. It was
doable. He estimated that there was a 10 to 50 percent chance Saddam
was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The U.S. would
have to go after Saddam at some time if the war on terrorism was to be
taken seriously." 33
On September 17, 2001, Bush told the National Security Council that he
believed "Iraq was involved, " but he would not "strike them now. I
don't have the evidence at this point." 34 He never would get real
evidence. Nevertheless, on that same day Bush signed a Top Secret
directive that not only 'spelled out the plan to go to war against
Afghanistan," but also "ordered the Pentagon to begin preparing
military options for an invasion of Iraq." 35
On September 19, 2001, Richard Perle convened a meeting of the Defense
Policy Board (DPB). Perle is the notorious neoconservative zealot and
"Likud Zionist" 36 who, acting as an unregistered foreign agent,
signed a 1996 report, titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm -- for Israel's prime minister! It advised him to
topple Saddam and launch preemptive strikes on other Arab states. 37
(Note well this endnote.)
Perle's contempt for the CIA was well known. In 2002 he told Knight
Ridder, "The CIA's analysis isn't worth the paper it's written on." 38
On another occasion, Perle asserted: "I think the people working on
the Persian Gulf at the CIA are pathetic…They have a record over 30
years of being wrong." 39
Perle placed greater value on the intelligence provided by the anti-
Saddamist émigrés of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), headed by his
friend, Ahmad Chalabi. In January 2001, the INC began receiving funds
from the U.S. State Department "for an effort called the 'Information
Collection Program.'" Under the program, "defectors from Saddam's
military and secret police…[were made] available to American
intelligence." 40
But, according to former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, Patrick
Lang, "What the program really did was to provide a steady stream of
raw information useful in challenging the collective wisdom of the
intelligence community." 41 Lang's claim was supported by Perle who,
in January 2003, told Judith Miller that "until recently, CIA
officials were so hostile to defectors brought out of Iraq by the
Iraqi National Congress …that they refused to interview them and even
tried to discredit their information. 'But ultimately, the flow of
information was so vital and so overwhelming that they could no longer
ignore it'" 42
Moreover, "one internal Pentagon memorandum from December 2001, went
so far as to suggest terrorism experts in the government and outside
it had 'deliberately downplayed or sought to disprove' the link
between al Qaeda and Iraq." 43
(The information flow was, indeed, "overwhelming," - coming, as it
did, from the top of the Bush administration down to the IC -- but it
caused no significant changes in the IC's reporting on Iraq's ties to
al-Qaeda.)
Attending Perle's DPB meeting were Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Feith and
William Luti "drifted in and out." 44 "The speakers at the event, who
aggressively advocated U.S. military action to overthrow Saddam
Hussein, were Ahmad Chalabi and Princeton professor Bernard Lewis." 45
According to Lang, "One consequence of the DPB meeting was that former
CIA Director [James R.] Woolsey was secretly dispatched to London to
seek out evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks…Part
of Woolsey's mission involved making contact with INC officials to get
their help in further substantiating the link between hijacker
Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. " 46
On September 20, 2001, Rumsfeld "raised the possibility that weapons
of mass destruction could be used against the United States." But not
in the context one normally would imagine. Instead, he saw it as "an
energizer for the American people." 47 Psy-ops to be waged against the
American public!
However, "Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the
Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Counterterrorism Center (CTC)
and the CIA Near East and South Asia office (NESA) collaborated on a
paper on Iraqi links to the September 11th attacks." 48 And, as the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence noted (in its July 9, 2004
Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence
Assessments on Iraq), "The paper was disseminated to President's Daily
Brief (PDB) principals on September 21, 2001. The Committee was not
informed about the existence of this paper until June 2004," 49 and
was denied permission to examine it, even in classified form.
But, thanks to very recent reporting by Murray Waas of National
Journal, we now know that the September 21, 2001 President's Daily
Brief advised Bush and his principals that the "U.S. intelligence
community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein
to the attacks [on 9/11] and that there was scant credible evidence
that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties to al Qaeda." 50
According to Waas, "The highly classified document was distributed to
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national
security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries
and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior
Bush administration policy makers." 51 Thus, virtually every senior
official in the Bush information received information from the CIA in
September 2001, which ultimately would prove to be definitive.
"Definitive?" Yes. For, as the post-invasion investigation conducted
by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "The Central
Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several
instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s,
but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal
relationship." 52
Nevertheless, within days of receiving this unwelcome CIA
intelligence, the Defense Department's third ranking official, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSDP), Douglas Feith,
established the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCEG).
Why? First, because Wolfowitz suggested it. 53 Wolfowitz had long been
skeptical of the CIA and had, in fact, participated in two "Team B"
exercises - one to determine whether the CIA was underestimating the
Soviet threat(see my article,"Misreading the Soviet Threat," (http://
www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/Misreading.html) and another, under the
leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, to determine whether the CIA was
underestimating the threat posed by rogue states developing ballistic
missiles (see my article "National Missile Defense and Russian
American Relations, http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/publications/uhler1.htm).
In each instance, the Team B egregiously exaggerated the threat. The
first exaggeration caused America to engage in an arms race with
itself, which, if it had any effect at all on the Soviet Union,
probably prolonged the Cold War. The second exaggeration resulted in
the rushed deployment (at exorbitant expense) of a largely untested
missile defense system that probably doesn't work and, perhaps, is
technologically incapable of defending America.
Such egregious errors, in a just world, would have disqualified both
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld from further public service - for life! Yet,
unfortunately, in September 2001, Wolfowitz was urging Feith to form
still another "Team B," with Rumsfeld's enthusiastic support.
According to James Risen, writing in his recent book, State of War:
"Israeli intelligence played a hidden role in convincing Wolfowitz
that he couldn't trust the CIA."54 Mossad's "intelligence officials
frequently traveled to Washington to brief top American officials, but
CIA analysts were often skeptical of Israeli intelligence reports,
knowing that Mossad had very strong -- even transparent -- biases
about the Arab world." 55
One might ask why Wolfowitz failed to detect these same obvious
biases. Presumably, he was neither a Likud Zionist or an "Israel-
firster." Yet, according to Risen, "After each Israeli briefing, the
CIA would issue reports that were circulated throughout the
government, but they often discounted much of what the Israelis had
provided. Wolfowitz and other conservatives at the Pentagon became
enraged by this practice; they had begun meeting personally with top
Israeli intelligence officials and knew which elements of the Mossad
briefings the CIA was downplaying."56
Risen adds that "Wolfowitz personally complained to Tenet about the
CIA's analytical work on Iraq and al Qaeda."57 Tenet dismissed his
complaint. But Wolfowitz was not to be denied. After all, according to
Francis Brooke (Chalabi's lobbyist in Washington), in February 2001,
Wolfowitz called Brooke to say that he was so committed to removing
Saddam Hussein, "he would resign if he couldn't accomplish it." 58 "So
Paul set up his own unit" 59 to find Iraq's links to al Qaeda. "And
then that really pissed off people at the CIA." 60
For his part, Likud Zionist and "Israel-firster" Feith needed to prove
his assumption "that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda and was likely to
hand off WMD to terrorists" 61 Feith, you'll recall, was one of the
unregistered foreign agents, who co-authored the 1996 report advising
Israel's prime minister to topple Saddam and launch preemptive strikes
against specific Arab states. He "got his current position…only after
Perle personally intervened with Rumsfeld, who was skeptical about
him." 62 It must have been his pro-Israel and anti-Saddam zealotry
that moved Perle, for if we are to believe General Tommy Franks, Feith
was "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."63
Feith staffed the PCEG with his co-author of the 1996 report (and
fellow unregistered agent for Israel) David Wurmser, as well as
Michael Maloof. Wurmser and Maloof would be "working deductively, not
inductively: The premise was true; facts would be found to confirm
it." 64 As the authors of Vanity Faire write in their exceptional
expose, The Path to War, "the advocates of regime change in Iraq
realized that, for any American invasion to enlist support, both
domestically and internationally, links between Saddam Hussein and al
Qaeda needed to be proved." 65 Thus, in light of the CIA's September
21, 2001 President's Daily Brief, somebody needed to fix the facts!
At this point, one might ask, as George Packer does in his highly
acclaimed book, The Assassin's Gate: "Does this mean that a pro-Likud
cabal insinuated its way into the high councils of the U.S. government
and took hold of the apparatus of American foreign policy to serve
Israeli interests?" In general, Packer's answer is no. But "For Feith
and Wurmser," Packer answers yes: "the security of Israel was probably
the prime mover." 66
However, as my good friend, noted Russia scholar and proud Zionist,
George Enteen, recently warned: "These people had influence but not
power; that belonged and belongs to Cheney and Rummy." 67 Officially,
the PCEG was responsible for studying "…the policy implications of
relationships among terrorist groups and their sources of support." 68
But according to Lang, "a dedicated apparatus centered in the Office
of the Vice President created its own intelligence office, buried in
the recesses of the Pentagon, to 'stovepipe' raw data to the White
House." 69
Thus, although an INC letter, written to the Senate Appropriations
Committee in June 2001 claimed, "information gathered by the group
went directly to the Defense Department and Vice President Dick
Cheney's office," 70 George Enteen is correct. Until the Cheney/
Rumsfeld "cabal" (as Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence B.
Wilkerson has called it) decided to adopt the radical policies urged
by fanatics like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Wurmser, the latter were
fighting a drawn out, if not losing, bureaucratic battle.
Consequently, Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas --
writing in the November 17, 2003 issue of Newsweek -- were correct
when they concluded: "It is important to note that at this early stage
[summer of 2001], the neocons did not have the enthusiastic backing of
Vice President Cheney." Instead, "What changed Cheney was not Chalabi
or his friends from AEI [American Enterprise Institute], but the 9/11
attacks." 71
Yet, the Newsweek authors failed to capture fully the environment in
which Cheney made his leap into the neocon camp. First, it wasn't a
long jump. They should have noted that Cheney had been scripting the
National Security Council's principals meetings from the very
beginning of Bush's presidency and that the focus of those meetings
was on "regime change" in Iraq, but not necessarily by an American
military invasion. 72
It wasn't until January 3, 2002, that "Director Tenet and other CIA
officials brief[ed] the Vice President and his staff on the
limitations of covert operations in bringing down Saddam Hussein and
explained that only a military operation and invasion would succeed."
73
The Newsweek reporters also should have recalled that, in May 2001,
"President Bush announced that Vice President Cheney would himself
lead an effort looking a preparations for managing a possible attack
by weapons of mass destruction and at more general problems of
national preparedness." 74 Thus, when the 9/11 Commission Report
noted, "The Vice President's task force was just getting under way
when the 9/11 attacked occurred," 75 it certainly understated Cheney's
monumental failure and the well-deserved humiliation he must have
felt.
Moreover, when one recalls that both Cheney's immersion in the
crafting of his anti-environment energy policy and his scripting of
NSC principals meetings for regime change in Iraq took him away from
his task force, it brings to mind his five draft deferments and
failure to serve during the Vietnam War. In both instances, he "had
other priorities."
But Risen excoriates Rumsfeld, even more than Cheney. "'There were
many times the Pentagon just did what it wanted'...An effective
network of officials with long-standing ties to Cheney, some
neoconservative, others simply conservative, scattered throughout key
jobs in the administration, provided crucial support to Rumsfeld. It
was Rumsfeld's force of personality, his willingness to act as an
enabler for the neoconservatives within the Department of Defense and
elsewhere in the administration, combined with the enthusiastic
support he received from Cheney, that did so much to break down the
normal checks and balances in the national security apparatus." 76
Risen concludes: "To others in the administration, mystified by the
process -- or lack of process --it eventually became evident that
Cheney and Rumsfeld had a back channel where real decision making was
taking place, and that larger meetings were often irrelevant. The
result was that the Bush administration was the first presidency in
modern history in which the Pentagon served as the overwhelming center
of gravity for U.S foreign policy." 77
One of Rumsfeld's goals was to gain control over intelligence. Thus,
it was with the backing of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney that Maloof
and Wurmser began their PCEG work in October 2001. They would commence
briefing Feith's deputy, Stephen A. Cambone, on a weekly basis. 78 As
Risen reported in The New York Times, "the team's conclusions were
alarming: old barriers that divided the major Islamic terrorist
groups, including al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, were coming down, and
these groups were forging ties with one another and with secular Arab
governments in an emerging terrorist war against the West." 79
In late 2001, at Maloof's request, Perle asked Chalabi to supply
Maloof with information provided by Iraqi defectors.80 That very
request demonstrates that the PCEG was operating as a rogue
intelligence gathering operation.
Thus, Wolfowitz probably lied when he claimed: "They are not making
independent intelligence assessments." 81 Yet, he admitted: "The lens
through which you're looking for facts affects what you look for." 82
In addition, Rumsfeld probably lied when he asserted: "Any suggestion
that it is an intelligence-gathering activity or an intelligence unit
of some sort, I think, would be a misunderstanding of it." 83
According to Risen, "The CIA and the DIA believed that Feith's team
had greatly exaggerated the significance of reported contacts among
extremist groups and Arab states." Moreover, "there was little proof
that Mr. Hussein was working on terror plots with Mr. Bin Laden, a
religious extremist who viewed the Baghdad regime as a corrupt,
secular enemy." 84
In fact, building upon its input into the September 21, 2001 PDB, the
CIA's NESA "drafted a paper [in October 2001] that broadened the scope
of the issue by looking at Iraq's overall ties to terrorism." 85 Thus,
it would dovetail, if not necessarily agree, with the scope of
investigation being pursued by the PCEG. But, because the report was
requested by a recipient of the September 21, 2001 PDB, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence was denied access to it.
One can guess, however, that it too contained no significant Saddam-al
Qaeda links, if only because, when the PCEG gave its far more alarmist
briefing to Wolfowitz in November, the Deputy Secretary asked: "How
come I'm not hearing this from anybody else?" 86
If, indeed the CIA's NESA paper found no significant ties, perhaps
that explains why "several senior policy makers" expressed interest in
having the CIA's CTC draft another paper that was "purposefully
aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumption that any
indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could
carry great dangers to the United States." 87 (The Deputy Director for
Intelligence directed that the analysis, titled Iraq and al-Qaeda:
Interpreting a Murky Relationship, be published on June, 21, 2002.88 )
Moreover, when the Senate Select Committee staff asked the Deputy
Director for Intelligence why the CTC "analysts' approach was
purposively aggressive…She explained that: "What happened with the
'murky paper' was that I was asking the people who were writing it to
lean far forward and do a speculative piece. If you were going to
stretch to the maximum the evidence you had, what would you come up
with?" 89
In January 2002, the PCEG completed a 150-page briefing and slide
presentation for Feith. 90 By then, Maloof had lost his security
clearance. And soon after the report's completion, Wurmser was
transferred to the State Department (he subsequently would move to
Cheney's staff). Nevertheless, during their short tenure they briefed
Rumsfeld twice, Feith numerous times and Samantha Ravich at least
three times. Ms. Ravich was Cheney's national security adviser for
terrorism. 91
Two Naval Reserve officers replaced Maloof and Wurmser. In addition,
Ms. Christina Shelton was detailed into Feith's Policy Support
Staff. . Ms. Shelton had been working for the DIA (which,
subsequently, rejected her research on Saddam ties to al-Qaeda 92)
until Feith specifically requested that she be detailed to his staff.
Moreover, Shelton had no sooner arrived at the OUSD(P) before she tore
into the CTC's aggressive report: Iraq and al-Qaeda: Interpreting a
Murky Relationship. Shelton would conclude that the CTC's "aggressive"
reporting wasn't aggressive enough.
According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Shelton's
analysis stated: "The report provides evidence from numerous
intelligence sources over a decade on the interaction between Iraq and
al-Qaeda. In this regard, the report is excellent. Then in its
interpretation of this information, CIA attempts to discredit,
dismiss, or downgrade much of the reporting, resulting in inconsistent
conclusions in many instances. Therefore, the CIA report should be
read for content only - and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored."
93
Feith sent Shelton's critique to Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, 94 which
might explain the CIA's subsequent "'hammering' by the Bush
Administration," that the CIA's Ombudsman viewed to be "harder than he
had witnessed in his 32-year career with the agency." 95
Nevertheless, while Shelton was deconstructing the CTC's report and
making a strong pitch for significant interaction between Saddam and
al-Qaeda, the DIA had issued a February 2002 report that specifically
cast doubt on reports suggesting "that Iraq trained al-Qaeda to use
biological and chemical weapons." 96 The report, DITSUM No. 044-02,
stated, "it was probable that the [al-Qaeda] prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh
al-Libi 'was intentionally misleading debriefers in making claims
about Iraqi support for al-Qaeda's work with illicit weapons." 97
The report noted, "Mr. Libi's claims lacked specific details about the
Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the
training was to have taken place." 98 And it added: "It is possible he
does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual
is intentionally misleading the debriefers." 99 In fact, Mr. Libi
recanted his claims after America's invasion of Iraq. And the CIA
withdrew them in March 2004.
Subsequent reporting for The New York Times by Douglas Jehl revealed
that the DIA's doubts about Mr. Libi were based, in part, on its
knowledge that he commenced providing "his most specific and elaborate
accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda only after he was
secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002."
100 In fact, Mr. Libi subsequently claimed that he fabricated claims
about Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda "to escape harsh treatment" 101 at the
hands of the Egyptians. So much then for the U.S. policy of rendition/
torture.
Equally significant, however, was the DIA's general skepticism about
close cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Two of the report's
declassified sentences read as follows: (1) "Saddam's regime is
intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements," and
(2) "Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it
cannot control." 102
Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that the DIA's February 2002
report -- like the September 21, 2001 President's Daily Brief and
October's CIA (NESA) elaboration on it -- was ignored. For example,
during Bush's major speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, he still
falsely asserted: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda
members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
His claim was based upon information provided by Mr. Libi. Yet, the
DIA had discounted Mr. Libi's assertions eight months earlier. Where
was Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz? Feith? The incompetent national security
adviser? Moreover, one full year after the DIA issued its report, Bush
falsely claimed: "Iraq has provided al-Qaeda with chemical and
biological weapons training." 103
What cannot be overemphasized is the fact that evidence to support
Bush's specific claims, as well as his administration's numerous,
generally alarmist assertions about Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, WAS NOT
coming from the Intelligence Community. Neither the September 18, 2002
CIA report, Iraqi Support for Terrorism (which was distributed to but
twelve senior Bush administration officials), nor the more widely
distributed updated version, dated January 2003, provided any evidence
to support such claims.
Instead, note what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found
in these reports:
1 "The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad
had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda
strike."
2 "This paper's conclusions - especially regarding the difficult and
elusive question of the exact nature of Iraq's relations with al-Qaeda
- are based on currently available information that is at times
contradictory and derived from sources with varying degrees of
reliability…"
3 "The CIA did not assert in any of its assessments that Iraq had
committed to a formal arrangement permitting al-Qaeda members to
transit and live within Iraq."
4 "The CIA refrained from asserting that the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda
were cooperating on terrorist operations. DCI Tenet, in his testimony
before the Committee, summarized the intelligence reporting on Iraqi-
al Qaeda operational cooperation stating: "these sources do not
describe Iraqi complicity in, control over, or authorization of
specific terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda."
5 Concerning Mohammed Atta's April 2001 trip to Prague, "the CIA
judged that other evidence indicated that these meetings likely never
occurred." The FBI agreed.
6 "Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was
little useful intelligence collected that help analysts determine the
Iraqi regime's possible links to al Qaeda." 104
Bogus intelligence, however, was percolating up to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld
and Cheney from what Secretary of State, Colin Powell, called "Feith's
'Gestapo office.'" 105
On July 22, 2002, Ms. Shelton sent an email to Mr. Cambone that
recounted the events of a meeting held with Feith that day. Feith, it
appears, asked an assistant "to prepare an intel briefing on Iraq and
links to al-Qaeda for the SecDef and that he was not to tell anyone
about it." 106
During the summer of 2002, a special assistant to Wolfowitz created a
set of briefing slides that incorporated Ms. Shelton's work, as well
as the work of the PCEG's two naval reservists. The intent of the
slides was to outline Rumsfeld's "views of the relationship between
Iraq and al-Qaeda." 107 The slides also "criticized the Intelligence
Community…for its approach to the issue." 108
According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, these
briefing slides continued to claim that Mohammed Atta met with an
Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001. A "findings" slide summed up the
briefing by claiming: (1) "More than a decade of numerous
contacts," (2) "Multiple areas of cooperation," (3) "Shared interest
and pursuit of WMD," and (4) "One indication of Iraq coordination with
al-Qaeda specifically related to 9/11." 109
Very telling was the slide that criticized the IC's handling of its
Iraq-al Qaeda intelligence. It blamed the IC for "consistent
underestimation" of efforts by Iraq and al Qeada to hide their
relationship and faulted the IC for its "assumption that secularists
and Islamists will not cooperate." 110 Most telling, however, was the
criticism that the IC required "juridical evidence" for its findings.
111
Juridical indeed! Who, except for the dishonest and reckless, would
refuse to acknowledge the immense moral obligation to get the
intelligence right, when contemplating preemptive war (see my article
on preemption, http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/preemption.html
).
Consequently, on the matter of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, who
best understood the moral obligation to get it right? The agents of
the IC or the scattershot Rumsfeld gang operating under his
instructions to "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related, and
not?" Then, ask yourself, who actually got it right?
Nevertheless, as we now know, the slides were presented to Rumsfeld in
early August 2002. According to Wolfowitz, it "was an excellent
briefing. The Secretary was very impressed." 112 Wolfowitz also
recommended that the briefing be presented to the CIA, where, perhaps,
"each side might make an assessment" 113 of the evidence.
On August 15, 2002 Feith and staff took their briefing to the CIA,
except for the slide critical of the agency. Following the briefing,
Mr. Tenet " requested that the two OUSD(P) briefers speak with the CTC
and the NESA experts on Iraq and terrorism."114 According to one
member of the PCEG, "Tenet agreed to postpone the release" of what
would become September's report (Iraqi Support for Terrorism) "until
analysts from the CTC, NESA, NSA, and the DIA could meet with the OUSD
(P) briefers to discuss the issue." 115
That meeting took place on August 20, 2002. According to the IC's
analysts, members of Feith's staff "were concerned about 'too many
caveats in the reporting' and the 'tone' of the draft IC report.
Feith's staff also pressed dubious information, including criticizing
the draft IC report for omitting reference to the 'key issue of
Atta.'" 116
Moreover, Senator Carl Levin has obtained documents demonstrating
"that Feith's staff requested, both verbally and in written form, at
least 32 changes to the IC draft, including inserting raw intelligence
reports that had previously been omitted, deleting others, and
altering the characterization of certain issues and raw reporting."
117 In all, "16 changes were made, 14 were not, and for 2 the outcome
is indeterminate." 118
Thus, Levin concludes, "even though the IC analysts refused to
incorporate information which they believed was dubious into their
judgments about the Iraq-al Qeada relationship, and the IC analysts
remained skeptical of that relationship, nonetheless raw, questionable
intelligence reports were incorporated in the IC document because of
advocacy of Under Secretary Feith and his staff." 119
Unbeknownst to the CIA at the time, Feith took his act to the White
House on September 16, 2002, where his staffers briefed Condoleezza
Rice's deputy, Stephen Hadley, and Cheney's chief of staff, the now
indicted "Scooter" Libby. The briefing contained the slides presented
to Rumsfeld, including the slide criticizing the IC, but with
"additional information" about Atta's alleged meeting in Prague,
"potential common procurement intermediaries shared by Iraq and al
Qaeda, and other possible connections." 120
"'The briefing went very well and generated further interest from Mr.
Hadley and Mr. Libby,' who requested a number of items, including a
'chronology of Atta's travels.'" 121
Cheney had long been wired (through Ravich, Libby and Rumsfeld) to
Feith's group. Moreover, as Murray Waas has reported, Cheney wrote in
the margins of one of Feith's reports about ties between Saddam and al
Qaeda: "this is very good … Encouraging … Not like the crap we are all
so used to getting out of the CIA." 122
Speaking on "Meet the Press" on September 9, 2002, Cheney claimed
"We've seen in connection with the hijackers of course, Mohammed Atta,
who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number
of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that
places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few
months before the attack on the World Trade Center." 123
But, if Cheney was not basing his assertions about Saddam's ties to al
Qaeda on the "crap" from the Intelligence Community, but from Feith's
rogue intelligence cell, then Cheney lied when he claimed that
evidence of Atta in Prague with "a senior Iraqi intelligence
official," was deemed "credible" by the CIA. 124
Continuing the drumbeat for war on the eve of an October Congressional
vote in support of the war, Bush warned on September 25th about the
danger "that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness." 125
That same day, National Security Adviser Rice told PBS's News Hour
with Jim Lehrer: "Yes, there clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and
Iraq that can be documented. There clearly is testimony that some of
these contacts have been important contacts and there's a relationship
here."126
Finally, who can forget Donald Rumsfeld's claim, made two days later,
"that American intelligence had 'bulletproof' evidence of links
between al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of
Iraq." 127 And speaking as though the February 2002 DIA report didn't
exist, Rumsfeld asserted: "We have what we consider to be very
reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and
of possible chemical- and biological-agent training."128
"American intelligence" did not have "bulletproof" evidence. In fact,
"American intelligence," construed to mean the established
Intelligence Community funded by and responsible to the U.S. Congress,
found no "bulletproof" evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda.
Instead it was "un-American intelligence," that supported the
"bulletproof" evidence claimed by Rumsfeld. And it was "un-American
intelligence" about Iraq's links to al Qaeda that was used by Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice to beat the drums for war on the eve of the
Congressional vote.
The "un-American intelligence" came from a rogue intelligence cell set
up by a leading member of the Bush administration's war party, Saddam-
obsessed Paul Wolfowitz, who believed Mossad's biased intelligence and
not American intelligence. And it was headed by Feith, who General
Tommy Franks called "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the
earth," and whose primary loyalty was to Israel (see Notes number 37
and 66.)
Inspired by Mossad, Feith's rogue intelligence cell appears to have
solicited, reexamined, digested and regurgitated evidence from the
programmed liars put forward by Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress -
evidence that the Intelligence Community already had considered,
before dismissing as unreliable. Then, as Seymour Hersh has noted: "A
routine settled in: the Pentagon's defector reports, classified
'secret,' would be funneled to newspapers, but subsequent analyses of
the reports by intelligence agencies - scathing but also classified -
would remain secret."129
Perhaps, that explains why even Secretary of State Colin Powell
privately referred to Feith's intelligence cell as "Feith's Gestapo
office." How ironic! Neocon Jews running a "Gestapo office." Finally,
and most significantly, let's not forget that this "un-American
intelligence" got it wrong!
Can the United States still be called a "democracy," if a majority of
its citizens fails to recognize and redress such "un-American"
behavior? ("Un-American," at least according to our ideals, if not our
actual history.)
Unfortunately, some Americans seek to dismiss this shameful episode.
Others simply want to "move on." Still others want to cover it up.
Thus, the question: "Do we bring the perpetrators to justice or do we
simply let history record their dishonest march to war?"
I, for one, agree with the renowned conservative Israeli military
historian, Martin van Creveld: "For misleading the American people,
and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C.
sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be
impeached and, once removed from office, put on trial along with the
rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time
to mull over their sins." 130
ENDNOTES:
1. Mr. Yoshi Tsurumi, who attempted to teach Bush macroeconomic
policies and international business during the 1973-74 academic year
at the Harvard Business School, has observed that our worst president
in American history "showed pathological lying habits and was in
denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases." Mary Jacoby,
"The Dunce," Salon.com, 16 September 2004
2.President Bush, "Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland
Security," April 20, 2004
3.Jonathan S. Landay, "Bush gets intelligence data lawmakers do not,"
The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 16, 2005.
4.Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, pp. 247-49.
5.Ibid. p. 249.
6.Ibid.
7.Ray McGovern, "Sham Dunk: Cooking Intelligence for the President,"
NEOCONNED AGAIN, p. 294.
8.Landay, Inquirer, Dec. 16, 2005
9.Ibid.
10.The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 66.
11.CNN.com, "Bush insists Iraq, al Qaeda had 'relationship,'" June 17,
2004
12.ABC News, "Excerpts From Interview With President Bush," Dec. 16,
2003.
13.Washingtonpost.com, "Text: President Bush on NBC's 'Meet the
Press,'" February 8, 2004
14.The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 228.
15.Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, "Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney,"
Washington Post, 29 September 2003
16.Part XII. "Iraq's Links to Terrorism," Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar
Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," July 9, 2004, p. 340. One reaches
this conclusion by inference, given the SSCI's statement that it used
the January 203 version of "Iraqi Support for Terrorism," and noting
only when earlier versions differed with it. (See p. 314)
17.Senator Carl Levin, "Report of an Inquiry into Alternative Analysis
of the Issue of an Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship," October 21, 2004, p.
38.
18.Part XII. "Iraq's Links to Terrorism," Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar
Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, July 9, 2004, p. 311.
19.Ibid. p. 309. Feith was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, thus
his office was the OUSD(P).
20.Senator Carl Levin, "Report of an Inquiry…" p. 17.
21."The Secret Downing Street Memo," The Sunday Times UK, 01 May 2005
22.Part IX. "Pressure On Intelligence Community Analysts Regarding
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Capabilities," Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence Report, July 9, 2004, respectively p. 276
and p. 275.
23."Additional Views of Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, Senator
Carl Levin and Senator Richard Durbin, Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Report, July 9, 2004, p. 456.
24.James Bamford, A Pretext for War, p.285.
25.Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies, p. 32
26.Ibid.
27.Ibid.
28.Bryan Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, David Rose, and David Wise, "The
Path to War: Special Report: The Rush to Invade Iraq; The Ultimate
Inside Account," Vanity Faire, May 2004, p. 236.
29.Senator Carl Levin, "Report of an Inquiry…, p 9.
30.Vanity Faire, "The Path to War," p. 238.
31.Bob Woodward, Bush at War, p. 83.
32.George Packer, The Assassins' Gate, p. 115.
33.Woodward, Bush at War, p. 83.
34.Ibid., p 99.
35.Col. W. Patrick Lang, USA (Ret.), "Drinking the Kool-Aid: Making
the Case for War with Compromised Integrity and Intelligence, neo-
CONNED! Again, p. 258
36.Dilip Hiro, Secrets and Lies, p. 40.
37.As James Bamford has written; "It was rather extraordinary for a
trio [Perle, Douglas Feith and James Wurmser] of former, and
potentially future high-ranking American government officials to
become advisors to a foreign government. More unsettling still was the
fact that they were recommending acts of war in which Americans could
be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks
from the American public." Bamford, p. 263
38.Jonathan S. Landay, John Wolcott and Warren P. Strobel, "Faulty
intelligence continues to plague U.S. efforts in Iraq," Knight Ridder
Newspapers, March 19, 2004.
39.James Risen, "How Pair's Finding on Terror Led to Clash on Shaping
Intelligence," New York Times, April 28, 2004.
40.Col. W. Patrick Lang, USA (Ret), p. 253.
41.Ibid.
42.Judith Miller, "Threats and Responses: Intelligence; Defectors
Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq, Officials Say," New York Times,
January 24, 2003
43.Seymour M. Hersh, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu
Ghraib, p. 211.
44.Vanity Faire, "The Path to War," p. 236.
45.Lang, p. 258
46.Ibid., pp 258-59.
47.Woodward, Bush at War, p. 106.
48.Part XII. "Iraq's Links to Terrorism," Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar
Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, July 9, 2004. p. 304.
49.Ibid.
50.Murray Waas, Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel,
National Journal.com, Nov. 22, 2005.
51.Ibid.
52.Part XII. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, p. 346.
53.Packer, p. 106.
54.James Risen, State of War:The Secret History of the CIA and the
Bush Administration, p. 72.
55.Ibid.
56.Ibid., pp. 72-73.
57.Ibid., p. 73.
58.Jane Mayer, "The Manipulator," The New Yorker, June 7, 2004.
59.Risen, State of War, p. 73.
60.Ibid.
61.Packer, p. 107
62.Seymour M. Hersh, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu
Ghraib, p. 193.
63.Woodward, Plan of Attack, p. 281. Rumsfeld disagrees.
64.Packer, p. 107
65.Vanity Faire, "The Path to War," p. 238.
66.Packer, p. 32.
67.Email dated December 5, 2005.
68.Part XII. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, p. 307.
69.Lang, p. 253.
70.Landay, Walcott and Strobel, "Faulty Intelligence…"
71.Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas, "Cheney's Long
Path to War," Newsweek, November 17, 2003.
72.See Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty, and Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill's assertions about Cheney's scripted NSC
meetings and their obsessive focus on regime change in Iraq. Pp.
70-76, 85-86, 96-97, and 127.
73.Additional Views, Rockefeller, Levin & Durbin, SSCI Report, p. 452
(quoting Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack).
74.The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 204.
75.Ibid.
76.Risen, State of War, p. 66.
77.Ibid., p. 64.
78.James Risen, "How Pair's Finding on Terror…" New York Times, April
28, 2004
79.Ibid
80.Ibid
81.Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, "Threats and Responses: A C.I.A.
Rival; Pentagon Sets Up Intelligence Unit," New York Times, October
24, 2002.
82.Ibid.
83.Warren Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, "Some in Bush
administration have misgivings about Iraq policy," Knight Ridder
Newspapers, October 27, 2002.
84.Risen, "How Pair's Finding on Terror…"
85.Part XII. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, p. 304.
86.James Risen, "How Pair's Finding on Terror….
87.Part XII. P. 305
88.Ibid.
89.Ibid. pp. 306-307.
90.Ibid.
91.Waas
92.Part XII. P. 308.
93.Ibid..
94.Ibid.
95.See note 11.
96.Douglas Jehl, "Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts,"
New York Times, November 6, 2005.
97.Ibid.
98.Ibid.
99.Ibid.
100.Douglas Jehl, "Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied To Coercion
Claim," New York Times, December 9, 2005.
101.Ibid.
102.Jehl, "Report Warned Bush Team… Nov. 6, 2005
103.Carl Levin, "Levin Says Newly Declassified Information Indicates
Bush Administration's Use of Pre-War Intelligence Was Misleading,"
November 6, 2005.
104.For each specific quotation, see Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Report, respectively p. 322, p. 322, p. 334, p. 338, p.
340 and p. 355.
105.Woodward, Plan of Attack, p. 292.
106.Part XII. "Iraq's Links To Terrorism," SSCI Report, July 9, 2004
p. 309.
107.Ibid.
108.Ibid.
109.Ibid.
110.Ibid.
111.Ibid.
112.Ibid.
113.Ibid, p. 310
114.Ibid.
115.Ibid.
116.Carl Levin, Report of an Inquiry into…, Oct. 21, 2004, p. 15.
117.Ibid.
118.Ibid. p. 16.
119.Ibid.
120.Part XII. SSCI Report, July 9, 2004. p. 311.
121.Ibid.
122.Murray Waas, National Journal, Nov. 22, 2005
123.Carl Levin, Report of an Inquiry…, Oct. 21, 2004, p. 38
124.See Note 17 above.
125.Eric Schmitt, "Threats and Responses: Intelligence; Rumsfeld Says
U.S. Has 'Bulletproof' Evidence of Iraq's Links to Al Qaeda," New York
Times, September 28, 2002.
126.Carl Levin, Report of an Inquiry, p. 34.
127.Eric Schmitt, New York Times, September 28, 2002.
128.Ibid.
129.Hersh, p. 218.
130.Martin Van Creveld, "Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for
a Foolish War," Forward, November 25, 2005.
Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose
work has been published in numerous publications, including The
Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military
History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is
President of the Russian-American International Studies Association
(RAISA).
HHW
Here's another which is pretty compelling:
June 22, 2008
Doug Feith Has the Best Reasons in the World to Be a Zionist, But Is
Too Afraid to Own It
I'm reading Douglas Feith's book War and Decision. As I said the other
day, Feith is afraid of the rageful spirit directed toward him and
other people who got us into this war, and that fear is written
throughout this book, whose basic idea seems to be: George Bush went
to war because Iraq had been at war with the United States for 10
years and was going to attack us again, sooner or later, with nerve
gas. And neocons had nothing to do with it. We were just along for the
ride. And democratizing the Middle East was not a real reason for the
war, though yes we thought about it a lot. Oh and by the way, Israel/
Palestine had nothing to do with it either.
The fascinating thing about this book is that it is written to attack
the alternative narrative that is to be found on the blogosphere, and
among realists like Walt and Mearsheimer and Lawrence Wilkerson.
Written to attack ideas like mine. Feith is afraid that these ideas
are going to come into the mainstream. So his book is this bizarre
denial that anything we say is true. Bizarre because he never directly
addresses us, lest he give us power. Neocons? They were just a strong
brand of conservative.
Feith's book is deceptive and lawyerly (he's a lawyer) for a number of
reasons. First of all, Feith is a Zionist. If anyone has legitimate
reason to be a Zionist, it's Douglas Feith. His father barely survived
the Holocaust, he informs us in the mingy "personal trajectory"
section of the book. Escaped a concentration camp.imprisonment by the
Nazis. But his whole family was murdered. His whole family. Three
brothers, four sisters, and both parents. Unbelievable. Dalck Feith
then went to serve in the Merchant Marine, helping defeat the Nazis.
Great man. He raised his son in Philadelphia. So I understand why
Douglas Feith is a Zionist. The whole point of Zionism is that Jews
are unsafe in western lands. Feith has all the reason in the world to
believe this, based on his family's experience in eastern Europe 60
years ago. I think he's wrong, but the point is, He's a Zionist for
good personal reasons. When Jeffrey Goldberg visited him for the New
Yorker years ago, Goldberg pointed out the portrait of Theodor Herzl
hanging on the wall of Feith's study.
And then there's Feith coauthorship of an infamous paper for
rightwinger Israeli P.M. Netanyahu a few years before he came into the
Bush Administration called "A Clean Break," that advised Netanyahu to
turn his back on the peace process and hinted that when Iraq falls,
Jordan can have Iraq and the Palestinians can have Jordan.
I bring all this up to say that I believe that Zionism and love of
Israel are at the bottom of Douglas Feith's political beliefs. And
fine, that's what he believes. When he was in his teens he was writing
letters to the New York Times on behalf of Israel (as Jacob Heilbrunn
reported) and at 23 he was helping to found the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs, a branch of the Israel lobby, which Colin
Powell has said was behind the Iraq war plans. But though he honors
the Holocaust background of his family (and acknowledges his role in
JINSA's formation), Feith gives no indication at all of these deeply-
held views in the book. In fact, when Richard Armitage of the State
Department basically explodes at Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter
Libby during a strategy meeting re Iraq, saying that we have to deal
with the Palestinian problem first, the sphinx Libby pipes up for once
and tells Armitage to cool off, and Feith implies in this book that
Armitage is guilty of anti-Jewish feeling. Our feelings about the Arab-
Israeli problem, he says, repeatedly describing it in terms of the
Arab world, had no bearing on the Iraq war. Yes and Armitage is
sitting in a war planning session with three Jewish neocons.
I don't believe Feith. I think that his feelings about Israel played
an important part in his thinking about the war. In fact he quotes
Wolfowitz saying that knocking out Saddam is going to help the peace
process. Not that Wolfowitz and the neocons were hellbent on knocking
out Saddam. Oh no, that was just the last option. We are peaceful
people. George Bush made the determination to go to war. I don't
believe Feith because I've known a neocon or two and I've read Jacob
Heilbrunn's book, They Knew They Were Right, and I know how deep
ethnic/religious feelings go in these rightwingers. Heilbrunn said the
neocons had resentment as outsiders in the American establishment and
crashed in under Scoop Jackson and Ronald Reagan. Feith clearly had
similar feelings. He hired rightwing hotheads like David Wurmser, and
he told Goldberg, sitting under the portrait of Herzl, that most
American Jews ought to support the Iraq war because it had helped
Israel, or words to that effect. Nothing about that meeting in this
book either.
Feith is also deceptive about how he got into government. He had
worked for Reagan till '86, when he was a neocon wunderkind, and then
been a managing partner at a law firm for 15 years. His only American
political activities were chairing "a Middle East policy team" for Bob
Dole in '96. Middle East again. Wonder why Dole even hired him. Did
money have anything to do with it? Fundraising. Nothing about his work
for Netanyahu. Then as soon as Bush got the presidency, "I began
receiving feelers, direct and indirect, from the Defense Department."
The next thing we know he's Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, a
big job. How did this happen to a gopherlike managing director of a
law firm? Feith gives no window at all on the real political forces in
American society that have lifted him up: the neocon connections in
Washington, the think tanks, the huge donors. His book draws the
curtain on all this.
Feith is a hurt and angry man. That comes through in his lawyer's
letter to the House Judiciary subcommittee the other day, refusing to
testify because Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, has
accused Feith of being pro-Israel. Feith is outraged at the dual-
loyalty suggestion. He sputters and fumes and walks off. No; he has no
desire to soul-search about the fact that so many rightwing Jews, who
rationalize everything Israel does to destroy the future of
Palestinian Arabs, played such important roles in the greatest
disaster of the last 50 years. He wants the issue to go away by
writing a 650-page book that all but erases the Israel angle and
suppresses his own Zionist inclinations. War and Deception.
HHW
This one's rather choice. He was a Betar member:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005
Douglas Feith and Betar
We know that Douglas Feith was one of the authors of the "Clean Break"
paper generated for the Likud party in 1996. We also know that he is
law partners with an Israeli settler.
What I was not aware of, but which was listed in a previous GIR post,
is that his father, Dalck Feith, was active in a territorial
maximalist group called "Betar". Betar is a 'revisionist Zionist'
group that has youth/campus organizations in the US and UK.
Betar - The love of the entire land of Israel. Betar supports the
concept of a Jewish state with a Jewish Majority in its biblical-
homeland. The entire land of Israel as given to the Jewish people by G-
d with it's eternal capital Jerusalem. We therefore wholeheartedly
support the settlement of all of Israel including Judea, Samaria, Gaza
and the Golan Heights, and support the rights of all Jews to live
anywhere in Israel.
If you go through the Betar website it is clear this is an extreme
organization. One has to wonder if Douglas attended these "camps" as a
child?
Either way, it is just beyond the pale that a man with these
associations went on to become the number three man at the Pentagon in
charge of gathering information about Iraq during the build up to the
invasion. It would have been difficult to find anyone more bias.
We know the results. Feith formed the Office of Special Plans (OSP)
which generated the WMD data on Iraq that we now know to be false.
This led us to invade Iraq and cost the US hundreds of billions of
dollars and seventeen hundred (1700) American lives with no end in
sight.
UPDATE:
More on Betar from this source:
Dalck Feith was a militant in Betar, a Zionist youth movement founded
by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini. Betar, whose members
wore dark brown uniforms and spouted militaristic slogans modeled
after other fascistic movements, was associated with the Revisionist
Movement, which evolved in Poland to become the Herut Party, which
later became the Likud Party.
People would laugh if you tried to pass this off as plausible fiction.
Unfortunately, it is reality.
drahcir
Sorry, H, you can take your "many places" and shove them up your
withered ass. This is what you wrote:
> > > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
You need to cite from ONE PLACE - the report. You clearly say that the
report details "Feith's activities in driving us to war on behalf of
Israel". You need to cite evidence THAT THE REPORT SAYS FEITH DROVE US
TO WAR ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL or you are yiet again PROVEN a liar.
HHWBabble below is clearly designed to avoid the inevitable conclusion
that HHW lied YET AGAIN.
> "Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and so ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
Sorry, H, you can take your "many places" and shove them up your
withered ass. This is what you wrote:
> > > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
You need to cite from ONE PLACE - the report. You clearly say that the
report details "Feith's activities in driving us to war on behalf of
Israel". You need to cite evidence THAT THE REPORT SAYS FEITH DROVE US
TO WAR ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL or you are yiet again PROVEN a liar.
HHWBabble below is clearly designed to avoid the inevitable conclusion
that HHW lied YET AGAIN.
>
drahcir
Sorry, H, you can take your "many places" and shove them up your
withered ass. This is what you wrote:
> > > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
You need to cite from ONE PLACE - the report. You clearly say that the
report details "Feith's activities in driving us to war on behalf of
Israel". You need to cite evidence THAT THE REPORT SAYS FEITH DROVE US
TO WAR ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL or you are yiet again PROVEN a liar.
HHWBabble below is clearly designed to avoid the inevitable conclusion
that HHW lied YET AGAIN.
>
Count 1
> > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
>
> H, pull some quotes from the report that support the "behalf of
> israel" claim or be proven a liar once again.
This one's rather choice. He was a Betar member:
*****
He stipulated 'from the report' because that was your claim. Any fool can go
find online material about Feith.
But I want you to know I am in partial agreement with you. I believe Feith
did manipulate and overstate intelligence causing Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a
host of others to make the most ridiculous statements in otherwise solid
careers.
Did he do it 'for Israel'? I think there is enough circumstantial evidence,
including the very real threat Iraq posed to Israel, to suggest with
confidence that is the case. However obviously there is not enough evidence
for a prosecution on criminal charges.
He responds to his critics on his website;
http://www.dougfeith.com/facts.html
But I don't find his answers particularly convincing.
However an even stronger case can be made based on the Iraqi threat model
that any manipulation of US intelligence that lead to war was done mainly
'for' Kuwait and other small gulf nations. Iraq was far more belligerent
towards them then Israel.
Of course the real driving force behind the Iraq war was *not* Israel or her
'agents' in the US but rather oil and the geopolitical implications of rogue
states in a post 9/11 world (not to mention a fair dose of machismo on those
who felt the US didn't complete the job in GW1) so obviously there is no
real reason to continue attacking Feith over unproven allegations that
amount to an irrelevancy.
HHW
Bullshit, the report's on his activities. I deal with his motivations
and do it from many sources.
You clearly say that the
> report details "Feith's activities in driving us to war on behalf of
> Israel". You need to cite evidence THAT THE REPORT SAYS FEITH DROVE US
> TO WAR ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL or you are yiet again PROVEN a liar.
Ha! Your alter ego says Feith did it on behalf of Kuwait. That's rich,
Rich. Those Betar guys go all soft and fuzzy when the need to protect
Arabs is concerned.
> HHWBabble below is clearly designed to avoid the inevitable conclusion
> that HHW lied YET AGAIN.
>
>
>
> > WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005
>
> > Douglas Feith and Betar
> > We know that Douglas Feith was one of the authors of the "Clean Break"
> > paper generated for the Likud party in 1996. We also know that he is
> > law partners with an Israeli settler.
Got any further problem as to who's interest he was protecting when he
produced "intelligence" lies designed to drive us to war against Iraq?
>
> > What I was not aware of, but which was listed in a previous GIR post,
> > is that his father, Dalck Feith, was active in a territorial
> > maximalist group called "Betar". Betar is a 'revisionist Zionist'
> > group that has youth/campus organizations in the US and UK.
>
> > Betar - The love of the entire land of Israel. Betar supports the
> > concept of a Jewish state with a Jewish Majority in its biblical-
> > homeland. The entire land of Israel as given to the Jewish people by G-
> > d with it's eternal capital Jerusalem. We therefore wholeheartedly
> > support the settlement of all of Israel including Judea, Samaria, Gaza
> > and the Golan Heights, and support the rights of all Jews to live
> > anywhere in Israel.
>
> > If you go through the Betar website it is clear this is an extreme
> > organization. One has to wonder if Douglas attended these "camps" as a
> > child?
>
> > Either way, it is just beyond the pale that a man with these
> > associations went on to become the number three man at the Pentagon in
> > charge of gathering information about Iraq during the build up to the
> > invasion. It would have been difficult to find anyone more bias.
The number three man in the Pantagon, Ratman. Doug's just the guy we
need there as it's a high US priority that Israelis be able to live
anywhere and everywhere in Palestine, i.e., Israel, right?
>
> > We know the results. Feith formed the Office of Special Plans (OSP)
> > which generated the WMD data on Iraq that we now know to be false.
> > This led us to invade Iraq and cost the US hundreds of billions of
> > dollars and seventeen hundred (1700) American lives with no end in
> > sight.
This is a bit dated. It's now well above 4,000
>
> > UPDATE:
>
> > More on Betar from this source:
>
> > Dalck Feith was a militant in Betar, a Zionist youth movement founded
> > by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini. Betar, whose members
> > wore dark brown uniforms and spouted militaristic slogans modeled
> > after other fascistic movements, was associated with the Revisionist
> > Movement, which evolved in Poland to become the Herut Party, which
> > later became the Likud Party.
Delightful, Jabotinsky, whose portrait hung in Sharon's office, an
admirer of Benito Mussolini.
drahcir
<snip>
>
> > > > > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > > > > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
>
> > > > H, pull some quotes from the report that support the "behalf of
> > > > israel" claim or be proven a liar once again.
>
> > > This one's rather choice. He was a Betar member:
>
> > Sorry, H, you can take your "many places" and shove them up your
> > withered ass. This is what you wrote:
>
> > > > > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > > > > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
>
> > You need to cite from ONE PLACE - the report.
>
> Bullshit, the report's on his activities. I deal with his motivations
> and do it from many sources.
You said what you said. It's a lie. I caught you, as I nearly always
do.
>
> You clearly say that the
>
> > report details "Feith's activities in driving us to war on behalf of
> > Israel". You need to cite evidence THAT THE REPORT SAYS FEITH DROVE US
> > TO WAR ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL or you are yiet again PROVEN a liar.
>
> Ha! Your alter ego says Feith did it on behalf of Kuwait. That's rich,
> Rich. Those Betar guys go all soft and fuzzy when the need to protect
> Arabs is concerned.
I am not concerned with anything other than your lie. You can sort
Feith's motivation out with Count 1.
>
> > HHWBabble below is clearly designed to avoid the inevitable conclusion
> > that HHW lied YET AGAIN.
>
> > > WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005
>
> > > Douglas Feith and Betar
> > > We know that Douglas Feith was one of the authors of the "Clean Break"
> > > paper generated for the Likud party in 1996. We also know that he is
> > > law partners with an Israeli settler.
(Sheesh, who would write "he is law partners with..." but a third
grader?)
>
> Got any further problem as to who's interest he was protecting when he
> produced "intelligence" lies designed to drive us to war against Iraq?
I caught you in yet another lie. Simple fact. You'd fare better here
if you tried your best to be honest, but that's like asking a pig to
fly. And now, since you are, in you tizzied state, replying to
yourself, I will bid you adios.
HHW
> On Apr 9, 12:05 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > > > > > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
>
> > > > > H, pull some quotes from the report that support the "behalf of
> > > > > israel" claim or be proven a liar once again.
>
> > > > This one's rather choice. He was a Betar member:
>
> > > Sorry, H, you can take your "many places" and shove them up your
> > > withered ass. This is what you wrote:
>
> > > > > > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > > > > > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
In your Count 1 sock mode you admit that he did it on behalf of
Israel. Get it together, Ratman.
>
> > > You need to cite from ONE PLACE - the report.
>
> > Bullshit, the report's on his activities. I deal with his motivations
> > and do it from many sources.
>
> You said what you said. It's a lie. I caught you, as I nearly always
> do.
How can it be a "lie" when Feith is a proved traitor on behalf of the
Israelis? Where do you think he got the faked "intelligence"? You
affect dishonestly not to know. You think that shouldn't matter. But
it does, Ratner. Feith is a walking, talking, dishonest, traitorous
security risk. He should NEVER have been given any Middle East policy
position. The same is true in spades for Wolfowitz. If there were any
justice in this world they would both be in prison, not teaching at
Georgetown, screwing-up at the World Bank or writing lying, self-
serving books designed to further confuse the American people. Why the
hell do you suppose Senator Levin demanded the IG investigation in the
first place? What happened became public knowledge long before the
investigation.
> > You clearly say that the
>
> > > report details "Feith's activities in driving us to war on behalf of
> > > Israel". You need to cite evidence THAT THE REPORT SAYS FEITH DROVE US
> > > TO WAR ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL or you are yiet again PROVEN a liar.
>
> > Ha! Your alter ego says Feith did it on behalf of Kuwait. That's rich,
> > Rich. Those Betar guys go all soft and fuzzy when the need to protect
> > Arabs is concerned.
>
> I am not concerned with anything other than your lie. You can sort
> Feith's motivation out with Count 1.
Still lying every day and in every way possible, Ratner. You are Count
1.
> > > HHWBabble below is clearly designed to avoid the inevitable conclusion
> > > that HHW lied YET AGAIN.
>
> > > > WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005
>
> > > > Douglas Feith and Betar
> > > > We know that Douglas Feith was one of the authors of the "Clean Break"
> > > > paper generated for the Likud party in 1996. We also know that he is
> > > > law partners with an Israeli settler.
>
> (Sheesh, who would write "he is law partners with..." but a third
> grader?)
Who cares. You understood it and don't deny the fact.
> > Got any further problem as to who's interest he was protecting when he
> > produced "intelligence" lies designed to drive us to war against Iraq?
>
> I caught you in yet another lie. Simple fact.
You don't actually think that the IG failed to investigate Feith's
active back door connection to Israeli intelligence, do you?
You'd fare better here
> if you tried your best to be honest, but that's like asking a pig to
> fly. And now, since you are, in you tizzied state, replying to
> yourself, I will bid you adios.
You're scrambling to escape me. ratman. The only way you can do it is
to leave these ngs.
>
>
>
> > > > What I was not aware of, but which was listed in a previous GIR post,
> > > > is that his father, Dalck Feith, was active in a territorial
> > > > maximalist group called "Betar". Betar is a 'revisionist Zionist'
> > > > group that has youth/campus organizations in the US and UK.
>
> > > > Betar - The love of the entire land of Israel. Betar supports the
> > > > concept of a Jewish state with a Jewish Majority in its biblical-
> > > > homeland. The entire land of Israel as given to the Jewish people by G-
> > > > d with it's eternal capital Jerusalem. We therefore wholeheartedly
> > > > support the settlement of all of Israel including Judea, Samaria, Gaza
> > > > and the Golan Heights, and support the rights of all Jews to live
> > > > anywhere in Israel.
>
> > > > If you go through the Betar website it is clear this is an extreme
> > > > organization. One has to wonder if Douglas attended these "camps" as a
> > > > child?
>
> > > > Either way, it is just beyond the pale that a man with these
> > > > associations went on to become the number three man at the Pentagon in
> > > > charge of gathering information about Iraq during the build up to the
> > > > invasion. It would have been difficult to find anyone more bias.
>
> > The number three man in the Pantagon, Ratman. Doug's just the guy we
> > need there as it's a high US priority that Israelis be able to live
> > anywhere and everywhere in Palestine, i.e., Israel, right?
What? You don't want to ruminate on whether it was a good idea to
appoint this radical Zionist to a ME policy position? Can't face that,
eh?
> > > > We know the results. Feith formed the Office of Special Plans (OSP)
> > > > which generated the WMD data on Iraq that we now know to be false.
It wasn't just false. A lot of it came from Sharon in Israel. Feith
subverted the American decision-making process on a matter of war and
peace. He should be sharing a cell with Jonathan Pollard.
> > > > This led us to invade Iraq and cost the US hundreds of billions of
> > > > dollars and seventeen hundred (1700) American lives with no end in
> > > > sight.
>
> > This is a bit dated. It's now well above 4,000
>
> > > > UPDATE:
>
> > > > More on Betar from this source:
>
> > > > Dalck Feith was a militant in Betar, a Zionist youth movement founded
> > > > by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini. Betar, whose members
> > > > wore dark brown uniforms and spouted militaristic slogans modeled
> > > > after other fascistic movements, was associated with the Revisionist
> > > > Movement, which evolved in Poland to become the Herut Party, which
> > > > later became the Likud Party.
>
> > Delightful, Jabotinsky, whose portrait hung in Sharon's office, an
> > admirer of Benito Mussolini.
>
> > > > People would laugh if you tried to pass this off as plausible fiction.
> > > > Unfortunately, it is reality.
Where'd you go, Ratner?
Gary Renzetti
thinks that your rebuttal must be limited to a single source, and that
she gets to select the source. If someone were to witness a say, murder
from an apartment window that no one else was aware of at the time would
Ms Ratpoop demand that all proof that a murder had been committed be
only evidence obtained from the witness who saw the crime?
>
> You clearly say that the
>> report details "Feith's activities in driving us to war on behalf of
>> Israel". You need to cite evidence THAT THE REPORT SAYS FEITH DROVE US
>> TO WAR ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL or you are yiet again PROVEN a liar.
>
> Ha! Your alter ego says Feith did it on behalf of Kuwait. That's rich,
> Rich. Those Betar guys go all soft and fuzzy when the need to protect
> Arabs is concerned.
>
(misspelling deliberate!)
entity's creation, this shouldn't really come as much of a shock to
anyone. After all, they used the Shoah as a training exercise in their
dealings with the Palestinians? Does the term "untermenchen" strike a
familiar chord?
HHW
> HHW wrote:
Snip
> >>>>> Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> >>>>> driving us to war on behalf of israel.
> >> You need to cite from ONE PLACE - the report.
>
> > Bullshit, the report's on his activities. I deal with his motivations
> > and do it from many sources.
>
> It also begs the question as to why it is that the nasty little queen
> thinks that your rebuttal must be limited to a single source,
She's a faded queen, nearly sixty.
and that
> she gets to select the source. If someone were to witness a say, murder
> from an apartment window that no one else was aware of at the time would
> Ms Ratpoop demand that all proof that a murder had been committed be
> only evidence obtained from the witness who saw the crime?
Exactly. Ratner has only one goal, to defame and deflect from
successful criticism of Israel and the Lobby.
>
> > You clearly say that the
> >> report details "Feith's activities in driving us to war on behalf of
> >> Israel". You need to cite evidence THAT THE REPORT SAYS FEITH DROVE US
> >> TO WAR ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL or you are yiet again PROVEN a liar.
>
> > Ha! Your alter ego says Feith did it on behalf of Kuwait. That's rich,
> > Rich. Those Betar guys go all soft and fuzzy when the need to protect
> > Arabs is concerned.
>
> But they did, Hunter! They are great humanitarians, don'tcha know?
> (misspelling deliberate!)
Humanitarians? I'm doubting it. It appears that their charitable
giving, for example, is restricted almost exclusively to other Jews. I
was surprised to discover this little cultural quirk after coming
here. For example, advertisements for tax deductible gifts to an
Israeli orphanage for girls discloses in some little corner that it's
for Jewish orphans only. That would violate the Constitution in the
U.S. Yet the gifts to such a racially exclusive organization are tax
deductible because we've given over control of what qualifies to
Israeli rather than American law. We've done it in a treaty which
almost no one in America even know exists outside of the lobby and a
few permanently cowed Senators.
Being a slave holder is not a happy circumstance. .
HHW
> On Apr 9, 1:37 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
HHW
I can't hear you. I need to what? Really? I don't think so.
HHW
> On Apr 9, 4:31 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
You're repeating yourself ratner.
Snip
HHW
> > > Here is the DoD Inspector General report on Feith's activities in
> > > driving us to war on behalf of israel.
You're screwing around with the attribution marks, Ratner'
Snip
HHW
More repetition of asked and answered material, Ratner
Snip
drahcir
drahcir
drahcir
drahcir
drahcir
You're senile and raving.
>
> Snip
HHW
Oh, then you weren't screwing around with the attribution marks, eh?
HHW
“Look at the New York Times; it’s almost an extension of Israel”
January 31, 2009
“You Can’t Talk About The Reality Of Israel”
01.27.2009 | informationclearinghouse.info | Inter Press Service
Omid Memarian interviews former CIA operative ROBERT BAER
January 27, 2009 “IPS” — In an interview with IPS, Baer discussed the
regional implications of the Gaza conflict and his take on Iran’s
Revolutionary Guard, Hamas and Hezbollah, three major groups in the
Middle East which have been called terrorist organisations.
Excerpts from the interview follow.
IPS: Some analysts believe that attacking Hamas in Gaza, two years
after the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah, is a part of a
bigger plan which will end with attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Is Israel walking this path?
Robert Baer: No. I think that there is a military veto in attacking
Iran. It’s just not possible.
IPS: Why is that impossible?
RB: Well, for one thing, we know there will be an Iranian reaction in
the Gulf. Iran will not be attacked like Hamas and just respond
locally. It will respond internationally. It has no choice. This is
their deterrence power. In Iran, it is very important to understand a
lot of lessons.
If you look on the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] website,
you see the lessons they learned from the Iran-Iraq War. These wars
are wars of attrition; they go on forever. You just can’t win them,
especially against the United States. So they have developed secondary
asymmetrical warfare ability, guerilla warfare, which is very
effective.
You know some of the best minds in Iran went into the Pasdaran
[Revolutionary Guards], and they weren’t necessarily fanatics. In a
sense, they were much more nationalists. And in my experience, these
people in the Pasdaran, in the operational level, are probably the
most capable, intelligent/guerilla force/political thinkers in the
Middle East, including Israel and Jordan. And they knew exactly what
they were doing. And they do not clearly fit in to any political
definitions in Iran.
IPS: Is the possibility of a limited attack on Iran’s nuclear
facilities by Israel also out of question? Especially given what we
learned in a recent New York Times article that last year, Israeli
leaders asked President Bush to carry out such an attack, though the
president did not accept.
RB: Totally out of the question. Even Bush understood this. The New
York Times is right when it says that Bush vetoed an Israeli attack,
simply because there is a balance of power in the Middle East between
the U.S. and Iran, and it’s a fairly even balance of power. I mean not
in terms of aircraft tanks or submarines, but in a monopoly of
violence, there is equality.
There is no question there is equality. We could bomb Tehran, but what
does that get you? Nothing. It’s sort of like bombing the U.N.
compound in Gaza by Israel. What does that give the Israelis? Nothing.
Yeah they could destroy it, but what does that give them? Hamas still
is going to exist.
You can bomb all military bases in Iran over a period of two weeks,
but Iran is still there - it still has the ability to project power,
project its will and maybe even come out of that type of conflict even
stronger. And Iran’s power is so economical, the price of oil is not
going to make any difference, simply because the idea of arming
Hezbollah or supporting Hamas in Damascus is nothing in terms of
money. I mean the price of oil could go down to 10 dollars, and it’s
still an affordable defence for Iran.
IPS: Obama has repeatedly mentioned talking to Iranian leaders and
bringing change to U.S. foreign policy. How could the designation of
Dennis Ross as a key advisor on Iran policy contribute to his
promises?
RB: Dennis Ross - the important thing is the Israelis are comfortable
with him. If a dialogue with Iran occurs, they know he won’t betray
them. I mean they have had years and years of testing this guy. He’s
Jewish, he’s been honest with the Israelis; he’s gone along with their
projects, even the crazy ones. If a dialogue is open, the Israelis
know they won’t be surprised. If Obama had brought someone new in,
some professor from Harvard that the Israelis didn’t know, they would
immediately freeze him out and there would be huge political
blowbacks.
IPS: Regarding Ross’s positions on certain issues in the Middle East
and particularly Iran over the past decade, how will Obama be able to
adopt a new foreign policy path in the region?
RB: Well, he [Obama] needs the backing of the Democratic Party to get
these things through politically, and that’s why he has brought in
people like Dennis Ross and Denny Blair, the Director of National
Intelligence, simply because he needs that political backing. He
cannot bring in untried people and run them against the Democratic
Party, because if there is an opening with Iran, there will be a
connivance of Israel, maybe a silent one, simply because the Israelis
have to go along.
In American politics, you can’t do anything in the Middle East without
the approval of Tel Aviv, at least on some level. It’s impossible. I
mean, I cannot think of a country that is so beholden to a small
country like this, even a superpower, in all of history. I can’t even
think of it.
IPS: And why is that?
RB: Look at New York City. Look at the major newspapers. They have a
Zionist agenda. They do. I’m not Jewish. I’m not anything. I don’t
care about the Israelis. And I’m not anti-Semitic. It’s just a fact. I
suggested to my publisher writing a book on Israel, and he said forget
it. You can’t talk about the reality of Israel. The only place you can
talk about the reality of Israel is in Israel. They tell you things
you will never hear in the United States.
IPS: Like what?
RB: For instance, why are people on Gaza so unhappy? Well, if you had
to live in a prison, wouldn’t you be unhappy? You would never get that
in the New York Times. Look at the New York Times; it’s almost an
extension of Israel.
IPS: What is the impact of the Gaza conflict on the future of Iran-
Israel and United States relations? Have the recent attacks destroyed
Hamas entirely?
RB: No, it’s impossible. Hamas is an idea. Hamas is not an
organisation. Hamas is an idea, and unless the Israelis go in and
force 1.5 million people into Egypt, they will never subdue Gaza. They
can go in and they can slaughter the leadership and put 10,000 people
in jail, and Hamas will come out stronger. The losers in this will be
Fatah.
IPS: What are the main characteristics of Hamas and Hezbollah’s
military and political behaviour?
RB: They redefined the idea of warfare in geography. The fact that
Hezbollah dug into caves or the fact that they use fiber optics to
communicate shows enormous sophistication and primitive warfare in
combination. I mean, what army in the world uses fiber optics except
Hezbollah? You can’t intercept fiber optics. There is nothing you can
do.
You look at [Hebollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, and he has redefined
Islamic politics because he’s gone into an alliance with a Christians.
Bin Laden wants to kill Christians; I’m going to reduce it to that.
Nasrallah is looking at them as allies.
Count 1
“Look at the New York Times; it’s almost an extension of Israel”
Your own posts put the skewer to that line.
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.lebanon/msg/47940cef0e3826da?hl=en
C'mon Hunter, can't you do better than 'observations' you know can't be
accurate given the fact of your contributions to these forums just 6 days
ago?
drahcir
Um, no. Maybe the pink elephant sitting on your shoulder did it. Ask
him.