Ownership at The new Republic held Feith in the highest regard.

Dougie and Billy (Kristol) could be Siamese bobbleheads.

Wow, Condi actually said that to Mister SFGonFotE’s face? Good for her. Too bad he had more pull with Bush than she did.

And that’s all you need to know about that.

amen.

If Douglas Feith was playing Stratego against that chimpanzee in the Swedish zoo that was stockpiling rocks, I’d bet on the chimp.

Ownership at The new Republic held Feith in the highest regard.

Yet another reason I stopped reading them years ago.

I always wondered, if the chimp was so smart, why didn’t he stockpile poo?

8 to 5 on the chimp, still no takers. Maybe it’ll eat Doug’s face. Bets?

Israel still pulls the strings on US foreign policy..Israeli spies work freely in the US Government.

There used to be a magnificent silverback gorilla at the San Diego Zoo that hurled poo at visitors who taunted him. Dude could have pitched for any MLB team.

Feith is no less a war criminal than Bush or Cheney. His actions led directly to faked intelligence for the purpose of launching an illegal offensive against a sovereign nation. He is an agent of Israel:

Juan Cole busts Feith for TREASON:

On 25 July 2002, Doug Feith’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSDP) issued a statement linking al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein through a Dutch company named Vlemmo NV.

This sort of allegation was typical of Feith, who had been asked in January of 2002 to come up with material on the [imaginary] relationship of Bin Laden and Iraq by his superior (who had hired him apparently for this sort of purpose), Paul Wolfowitz.

Feith had been investigated by the FBI earlier in his career as a possible Israeli intelligence asset and was raised in a fringe, far-rightwing Zionist family. His father was a member of Betar, the organization devoted to teachings of fascist Zionist thinker Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky and to “Greater Israel” expansionism. Persons in this tradition often believe that Israel extends into Iraq itself.

Now it turns out that Feith just made up the Vlemmo firm. According to the Netherlands Foreign Minister, it does not exist.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/0…..qaeda.html

One former intelligence source point to “a bigger can of worms” that a Feith investigation may unravel, pointing to the Israeli spy case — in which Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin passed classified information to a pro-Israeli lobby — and to the Defense Department’s own inability to address security breaches.

The Franklin leak is hardly an isolated incident.

In 1978, the current head of the World Bank and former Deputy Defense Secretary Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was investigated for passing classified information through AIPAC, the same organization that Franklin is charged with passing state secrets to.

Wolfowitz, who at the time was working for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), was himself brought in by yet another high level alleged leaker, Richard Perle. Perle, too, is being investigated in the current AIPAC case.

Perle, who most recently served as chairman of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board and quietly resigned after the AIPAC case broke, was alleged to have passed on highly classified information to the Israeli embassy when he was a foreign policy aide for Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson in 1970.

Perle was instrumental in bringing Feith into several positions, starting in the early 80s. By the mid-1980s Feith was relieved of his clearances for allegations of passing secrets to AIPAC, bringing the question of clearances full circle.

Rumsfeld seen to reinstate clearances

Despite their checkered past, Rumsfeld’s Pentagon reissued clearances to Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz. Clearances were also issued to several of Feith’s consultants, some of whom were major players in the Iran Contra scandal.

The Iran Contra scandal implicated then-President Reagan, Vice President George H. W. Bush, and nearly the entire senior level of the administration in a weapons trafficking operation in which the US sold arms to its avowed enemy Iran. The money was then funneled to the Contras in Nicaragua, a group of anti-communists fighting the then seated regime of the Socialist Sandinistas, in order to subsidize a grassroots uprising. Feith’s team of consultants included such Iran Contra luminaries as Michael Ledeen and his go-to Iran arms merchant, Manucher Gorbanifar.

One former intelligence source said only an official of Rumsfeld’s seniority could reissue clearances after they had been revoked.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/….._0130.html

The attack continues. Per Jake Tapper:

What’s perplexing about this that so much of what critics objected to were Freeman’s statements, in full context. His record was picked apart like that of any other controversial nominee — sometimes fairly, sometimes not so — but only in Freeman’s case does the nominee make an allegation that a foreign power was lurking nefariously somehow behind it all.

Feith’s Pearl Harbor:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m23…..&hd=0

Thursday, May 11th, 2006
Georgetown Faculty Object to Appointment of Iraq War Architect Douglas Feith as Professor in School of Foreign Service

http://www.democracynow.org/ar…..11/1445248

Already, the Senate Intelligence Committee has investigated allegations that the office of the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, subverted normal intelligence channels by sending personnel to Europe in 2001 and 2002 to hold meetings with Iranian exiles. The Pentagon’s Inspector General is currently conducting its own review of Mr. Feith’s office.

Pentagon agencies have also factored into a number of intelligence scandals that have gripped the White House concerning its justifications for the Iraq invasion. Defense Intelligence Agency officers were assessed to have improperly vetted an Iraq exile, code-named “Curveball,” who fabricated information concerning Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons programs, an independent body authorized by the White House found last year. An office of the Pentagon has also been charged by officials in the CIA and State Department with hyping the links between Baghdad and al Qaeda in the run-up to the war.

All of this has fed the perception that the Pentagon hasn’t put in place the proper standards and procedures to match its growing foray into intelligence matters. “You don’t want them running operations without the full control of the [Director of National Intelligence] and CIA,” said Gary Berntsen, a recently retired CIA case officer who worked closely with Pentagon Special Forces during the Afghanistan war.

http://online.wsj.com/public/a…..in_tff_top

Why the United States Invaded Iraq and is
Now Thinking About Invading Iran
by Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
May 12, 2006

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May06/Bakhtiar12.htm

Israel

In 1996 the newly elected prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu commissioned a study group called “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″ to craft a strategy for Israel in the coming decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, created the Israel’s strategy paper titled: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” [11]

The paper contains six pages of recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu and some of the more relevant suggestions are presented below:

* We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behaviour of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading “land for peace” will not secure “peace now.” Our claim to the land — to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years — is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, “peace for peace,” is a solid basis for the future.

* Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including:

* striking Syria ’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon , all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

* paralleling Syria ’s behaviour by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces. * striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon , and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

* Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, “comprehensive peace” to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

* Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self-defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

* Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan “comprehensive peace” and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting “land for peace” deals on the Golan Heights.

* Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Assad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signalled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

It is interesting to note that many of the co-authors of this strategy paper are Jewish Americans and not Israelis.

Let’s not forget *cuk Schumer was a big fan of Mukasey, but was “concerned” about Freeman.

I am afraid that Obama is going to rolled by these belligerent assholes over and over again.

-G

That would be a smart thing to do?

Feith, in confidential reports concerning the rocks, alleged that the chimp was actually gathering “yellowcake”

Here is who Juan Cole sunk his chances

Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Did Schumer and Emanuel Sink Freeman?

My interpretation of Chas Freeman’s withdrawal from appointment as the chairman of the National Intelligence Council is that it was provoked primarily by Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel. Schumer’s call to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was probably the decisive event, though we don’t know what Emanuel’s reaction was.

That is, the original charge against Freeman was led by the spy for Israel, Steve Rosen, whose hiring by Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum/ Campus Watch is excellent evidence of what those operations really are. Rosen, when he was a head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s Middle East bureau, handed over classified Pentagon documents to the Israeli embassy in Washington DC, which were given to him by the agent Larry Franklin, a high-level Pentagon employee who reported to Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.

As long as the criticisms were coming from the looney Likudnik fringe and from the Weekly Standard etc. (i.e. from the Rupert Murdoch right wing of the Republican Party, which is now about as central to Washington politics as the French Foreign Legion is to Paris’s), Freeman hung tough.

But when the Democratic Party movers and shakers intervened, that move completely undermined Freeman. Because he is the guy who would have to come up to the Hill and defend those portions of the National Intelligence Estimates that are made public. He would be the public face of the 16 US intelligence agencies, which Congress funds at an alleged $40 billion a year. And while he could have weathered snarky comments and ad hominem criticisms from the handful of marginalized Neoconservatives left in Congress, he could not have thrived, nor could the agencies whose conclusions his office distilled into the NIEs, if heavy hitters like Schumer were unalterably hostile.

Schumer angered some of his constituents with his defense of the Israeli total war on Gaza’s civilian population this winter, and you wonder if his isn’t the last AIPAC generation in US politics. I like Schumer and loved the way he stood up to Bush, but he and other admirable people like Mike Bloomberg just have this moral black hole in their souls when it comes to supporting far rightwing Israeli policies (policies that they would unalterably oppose if pursued by the US government).

What happened to Freeman is further evidence for the resilience of the Israel lobbies and their enormous power in US politics. The Neoconservatives were roundly defeated on the budget, and even had to swallow George Mitchell as a special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But they still have the power to exclude a Washington Arabist such as Freeman even from an appointive position.

Israeli Apartheid will continue unabated under Obama.

Larry Johnson pissed off about Charles Freeman being smeared too

http://www.noquarterusa.net/bl…..nt-1156586

Good grief! Chuck Schumer stood up to Bush? Who knew?

Seriously, that is absurd. The Democrats did nothing of genuine substance to oppose Bush, and thus he did just about whatever he wanted to do.

And the Democrats are now conveniently allowing Bush to escape without ever being held to account for his crimes. What does they tell you about the highly prized two-party system?

Democrats and Republicans, above all else, protect each other and the corrupt political system from whence their power derives.

Feith is JEWISH?!! I thought he was some pasty-complected Episcopalian from the Main Line. I knew intermarriage was a problem, but there are far too many poseurs joining the tribe….

Yiddish has a great many words that describe people like Feith.
The Scots have their own problems and certainly don’t need an extra putz.

True. The Scots already have Mel Gibson.

But “feching scremp!” describes Feith so well….