-Caveat Lector-

Interesting how the corporate media deals with this issue. AIPAC has long been
an angry embarrasment to most DC politicians too fearful to speak out. Will the
latest AIPAC spy scandal (Pollard was the first) finally permit the corporate
media and DC Pols talk about the unmentionable? Where is Caspar Weinberger when
he is most needed?
flw


NY TIMES
September 6, 2004
Spy Case Renews Debate Over Pro-Israel Lobby's Ties to Pentagon
By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON

ASHINGTON, Sept. 5 - It began like most national security investigations, with a
squad of Federal Bureau of Investigation agents surreptitiously tailing two men,
noting where they went and whom they met. What was different about this case was
that the surveillance subjects were lobbyists for the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, and one of their contacts turned out to be a policy analyst
at the Pentagon.

The ensuing criminal investigation into whether Aipac officials passed
classified information from the Pentagon official to Israel has become one of
the most byzantine counterintelligence stories in recent memory. So far, the
Justice Department has not accused anyone of wrongdoing and no one has been
arrested.

Aipac has dismissed the accusations as baseless, and Israel has denied
conducting espionage operations in the United States.

Behind the scenes, however, the case has reignited a furious and long-running
debate about the close relationship between Aipac, the pro-Israel lobbying
organization, and a conservative group of Republican civilian officials at the
defense department, who are in charge of the office that employs Lawrence A.
Franklin, the Pentagon analyst.

Their hard-line policy views on Iraq, Iran and the rest of the Middle East have
been controversial and influential within the Bush administration.

"They have no case,'' said Michael Ledeen, a conservative scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute and a friend of Mr. Franklin. "If they have a
case, why hasn't anybody been arrested or indicted?''

Nearly a dozen officials who have been briefed on the investigation said in
interviews last week that the F.B.I. began the inquiry as a national security
matter based on specific accusations that Aipac employees had been a conduit for
secrets between Israel and the Pentagon. These officials said that the F.B.I.,
in consultation with the Justice Department, had established the necessary legal
foundation required under the law before beginning the investigation.

A half dozen people sympathetic to Aipac and the civilian group at the defense
department said they viewed the investigation in different terms, as a
politically motivated attempt to discredit Aipac and the Pentagon group.
Supporters of Aipac have said the organization is being dragged into an
intelligence controversy largely because of its close ties to a Republican
administration and the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Friends and associates of the civilian group at the Pentagon believe they are
under assault by adversaries from within the intelligence community who have
opposed them since before the war in Iraq. The Pentagon civilians, led by Paul
D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Douglas J. Feith, the
undersecretary for policy, were among the first in the immediate aftermath of
the Sept. 11 attacks to urge military action to topple the regime of Saddam
Hussein in Iraq, an approach favored by Aipac and Israel.

Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Feith were part of a larger network of policy experts
inside and out of the Bush administration who forcefully made the case that the
war with Iraq was part of the larger fight against terrorism.

The Pentagon group circulated its own intelligence assessments, which have since
been discredited by the Central Intelligence Agency and by the independent Sept.
11 commission, arguing that there was a terrorist alliance between the Hussein
regime and Al Qaeda.

The group has also advocated that the Bush administration adopt a more
aggressive policy toward Iran, and some of its members have quietly begun to
argue for regime change in Tehran. The administration has not yet adopted that
stance, however, and the Pentagon conservatives have been engaged in a debate
with officials at the State Department and other agencies urging a more moderate
approach to Iran.

To Israel, Iran represents a grave threat to its national security. Pushing the
United States to adopt a tougher line on Tehran is one of its major foreign
policy objectives, and Aipac has lobbied the Bush administration to support
Israel's policies.

Mr. Franklin was an expert on Iran in the office of Mr. Feith and among the
material he is suspected of turning over to Aipac is a draft presidential policy
directive on Iran, which would have provided a glimpse at the Bush
administration's early plans.

But skeptics of the case have said that the United States and Israel routinely
share highly sensitive information on military and diplomatic matters under an
officially sanctioned understanding. In addition, most of the contents of policy
drafts affecting either country are well known to people outside the government
who follow American-Israeli affairs.

As a result, some of Mr. Franklin's associates regard his efforts as an attempt
to obtain Aipac's help to influence the Bush administration rather than an
effort to provide Israel with information. They believe the case is the latest
in a series of assaults by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, who they
believe are determined to diminish the influence of conservative civilians at
the Pentagon.

In their view, there have been other attempts to embarrass them. In May,
American officials said that Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National
Congress and a longtime ally of the Pentagon conservatives, had told Iranian
intelligence officials that the United States had broken Iran's communications
codes.

The F.B.I. began a still-open investigation to determine who in the government
had told Mr. Chalabi about the secret code-breaking operation. The
investigation, which has included the use of polygraph examinations, has focused
on Defense Department employees who both knew Mr. Chalabi and knew of the highly
classified code-breaking operation.

The F.B.I.'s inquiry of the Chalabi leak may overlap with the Franklin case
because some of the same Defense Department officials had access to information
that was believed to be compromised.

But officials who have briefed on the case say they remain two separate
inquiries being conducted by separate teams of investigators, one with
jurisdiction over Iranian matters and one with jurisdiction over Israel issues.

The focus and direction of the Franklin investigation, which was publicly
disclosed Aug. 27, remains unclear. The officials said the inquiry first focused
on Aipac, but later became more intense after F.B.I. agents gathered evidence
indicating that Aipac officials had obtained classified information from Mr.
Franklin, which was turned over to Israel.

But it is unclear who, if anyone, is likely to be charged with wrongdoing and
whether the government is more interested in Aipac, Mr. Franklin or the Israelis
who may have received the classified material. Officials say Mr. Franklin has
been cooperating with the F.B.I. since being confronted by agents several weeks
ago.

Two officials at Aipac, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, have also been
interviewed by the bureau.

"I know that this is part of a campaign against us,'' said Michael Maloof, a
former Pentagon analyst who worked in a special-intelligence unit created by Mr.
Feith after Sept. 11. Mr. Maloof lost his security clearances because of an
investigation that he believed was unfair.

He now believes that Mr. Franklin is being unfairly targeted as well. "They are
picking us off, one by one,'' Mr. Maloof said.

But leading critics of the Pentagon hard-liners have repeatedly argued that Mr.
Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith and others have used the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext to
pursue issues that in some ways mirror the interests of Israel's conservative
Likud government.

One piece of evidence repeatedly cited by the critics is a 1996 paper issued by
the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think
tank, calling for the toppling of Saddam Hussein in order to enhance Israeli
security. Entitled "A Clean Break," the 1996 paper was intended to offer a
foreign policy agenda for the new Likud government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

The paper argued: "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."

Among those who signed the paper were Mr. Feith; David Wurmser, who later worked
for Mr. Feith at the Pentagon and now works for Vice President Dick Cheney; and
Richard Perle, a leading conservative who previously served as chairman of the
Defense Policy Board, a group of outside consultants to Secretary of Defense
Donald H. Rumsfeld.

In the Reagan administration, Mr. Feith served as Mr. Perle's deputy at the
Pentagon.

www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to