Barney Frank’s Pro-War Op-Ed: Remembering Afghanistan

-

Barney Frank gets it. His Boston Globe piece this morning, “Afghanistan Ignored,” reinforces a point I tried to make long ago — those who have opposed Joe Lieberman’s continued tenure are “not anti-war.”
Rather, they are “anti-Iraq War.”
Barney Frank rips up the fiction that Dems are mostly pacifists, a bias carried in too many editorial boards in the country, by writing:

Their argument is that the refusal of many Democrats to support the war in Iraq shows that President Bush’s opposition is unwilling to use force against terrorism.
There is, of course, one factual refutation of this partisan distortion. Every Democratic senator and representative but one voted for the war in Afghanistan. It is this war that represented America’s reaction to the murders of thousands of Americans on Sept. 11 . It was the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that was sheltering Osama bin Laden. The reaction of the overall majority of Americans, including virtually all Democrats, was to support the Afghan war as a necessary act of self-defense.


The Massachusetts 4th Congressman rips the clothes of the emperor with his sensible kicker:

Whether or not one subscribes to the geopolitical aims that motivated the Bush administration’s intervention in Iraq, it is clearly invalid to assert that support for that war is the indispensable badge of one’s willingness to confront terrorism. Only by adopting the techniques of the big lie can the vice president make his case that those opposed to the Iraqi war fail to understand the importance of a firm response to terrorists. In fact, given the deleterious effect it has had on our effort in Afghanistan, and the enormous boost it has given to anti-American forces around the world, the big truth is that the Iraq war has damaged our ability to fight terrorism.
Americans were united in their response to the mass murders of 9/11. The war in Iraq has weakened the United States internationally and divided it domestically, while draining needed resources. It is precisely because the Iraq war is not defensible on any other terms that the Bush/Cheney approach uses the big lie to defend the war in Iraq on grounds that in fact describe the war in Afghanistan.

Barney is exactly on target.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

28 comments on “Barney Frank’s Pro-War Op-Ed: Remembering Afghanistan

  1. guywu says:

    barney frank should be held on charges of treason and sedition he should face 20 years in prison or more remove him from office now

    Reply

  2. xenical without prescription says:

    Xenical (Generic Xenical, Orlistat) blocks some of the fat that you eat from being absorbed by your body. Xenical (Generic Xenical, Orlistat) is used in the management of obesity including weight loss and weight maintenance when used with a reduced-calorie diet. Xenical (Generic Xenical, Orlistat) may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.
    http://www.rxwanted.net/generic-xenical.html

    Reply

  3. ayidt wcpx says:

    mxrg vgtopwfn apth pvghfkbaw jyilg fcxtgmy pjbwk

    Reply

  4. vmwdkqo erjv says:

    utlnemb vnxum cezxgprj sajk pzjk ywsrbm hpijaumgb

    Reply

  5. Pissed Off American says:

    “Excuse me for having an honest opinion, but what the f*ck is wrong with being Anti-War.”
    Well Den, haven’t you heard? Being anti-war means you support our enemies. Simple, right? Man, get with the fucking program. Kinda like being anti-Israel, which means you are anti-semite.
    And hey, whats with the asterix? Good Lord man, we are discussing a fascist regime, masquerading as the Executive Branch of the United States Government, that is responsible for the DEATHS of hundreds of thousands, and will undoubtedly murder AT LEAST that many more in the near future, and you are worried about writing the word “fuck”? Listen man, using “fuck” doesn’t even come CLOSE to being an expression that aptly describes the anger every red blooded American should be feeling and voicing right now.

    Reply

  6. Den Valdron says:

    Excuse me for having an honest opinion, but what the f*ck is wrong with being Anti-War.
    Every sane and sensible person should be anti-war. War has, historically, not solved a lot of problems and not done anyone a lot of good.
    You people think that Afghanistan is a good war? Jesus H. Christ on a Crutch. You’ve taken the most screwed over country on earth and, impossibly, somehow managed to make it worse.
    I am anti-war, and I’ll not apologize for it. I’m not effeminate or gay, there’s nothing unmanly about me. I’m not prepared to make that concession about mincing ninnies who proclaim their ‘pro-war’ bona fides, or spit on people for being anti-war.
    I think that this post of Steve’s is a textbook example of just about everything that’s toxic with the American centre and left.

    Reply

  7. Carroll says:

    Does this help? If you are interested in this sort of thing you might want to save it. And er…btw…I don ‘t recommend clicking on any Israeli gov or business sites within Isr…unless you want to see a picture of your own computer files.
    Jonathan Kaplan
    Abramoff helped Israeli wireless company “tap” congress
    Tue Jan 10, 2006 23:05
    Abramoff also allegedly convinced Congressman Robert Ney, House Administrative Committee chairman, to award a contract worth $3 million to a start-up Israeli telecommunications firm called Foxcom Wireless. The contract was for the installation of antennas in House of Representatives buildings to improve cell-phone reception. Not surprisingly, such equipment can be designed to have what is known as a “back door” to enable a third party, in this case Mossad, to listen in. That an Israeli firm should be given such a contract through a selection process that was described as “deeply flawed and unfair” is explicable, particularly as there were American suppliers of the same equipment, and it suggest that the private conversations of some of our Congressmen might not be so private after all.
    In a previous scandal in 2001, FBI investigators strongly suspected that two Israeli companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, which had been allowed to obtain U.S. government telecommunications contracts, were able to use back-door technology to compromise the security of DEA, Pentagon, and White House phones.
    AND…..
    By James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Tuesday, October 18, 2005; A01
    Ney approved a 2002 license for an Israeli telecommunications company to install antennas for the House. The company later paid Abramoff $280,000 for lobbying. It also donated $50,000 to a charity that Abramoff sometimes used to secretly pay for some of his lobbying activities.
    AND…….
    Despite Coverup, Israel Caught Spying in Washington Again
    By Richard H. Curtiss
    Israel has been caught spying in Washington again, this time on the White House and other sensitive telephone systems. But Americans have to look and listen very hard to learn the details. The damage could be as great as that sustained during spy-for-pay Jonathan Jay Pollard’s blatant military codes, plans and secret-stealing rampage of the 1980s. And probably greater than Israel’s stealing not only of U.S. nuclear secrets in the 1960s, but even of American enriched uranium via an Israel-controlled contracting firm in Apollo, Pennsylvania.
    Predictably, on the record the White House, Department of Justice and the FBI all are minimizing the damage, saying that although the investigation into Israeli eavesdropping on White House telephones “remains open,” no one has been charged because no crime can be proved. But off the record FBI officials have confirmed to journalists not only the espionage, but details about the operation and the perpetrators. They are a married Israeli couple, at least one of them a Mossad member stationed in the Israeli Embassy in Washington and enjoying diplomatic immunity from arrest.
    The story was broken May 5 in Insight magazine, a weekly supplement to the daily Washington Times, and on Fox News, a national television network. The Washington Times and Insight are controlled by the World Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and Fox News is controlled by Australian-born media mogul and U.S. citizen Rupert Murdoch. Both are identified with conservative causes and provide a more hospitable platform for Republican Party ideas and personalities than the other three major U.S. networks or the congressionally supported Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
    However, unlike Moon, Murdoch is at least as careful not to offend Israel or to carry stories unfavorable to the Jewish state as are the other networks. Therefore, after printing the lengthy May 5 report by journalists J. Michael Waller and Paul Rodriguez on its Web site, it is not clear how zealously Insight or Fox News, or any other major media organizations, plan to follow up.
    Washington, DC’s other major daily newspaper, The Washington Post, has carried only a May 6Associated Press report quoting “two senior federal law enforcement officials…who requested anonymity” as saying “the FBI had identified no one to arrest during its investigation.”
    Because of the Israeli involvement, “no government official would speak for the record.”
    The AP also quoted “Capitol Hill Republican sources” as saying the allegation centered on a telecommunications contractor. AP reported also that spokesman Mark Regev of the Israeli Embassy in Washington called the allegation “outrageous,” saying, “Israel does not spy on the United States.” This is an astonishing claim given the number of Israeli spies who have fled Washington over the years in connection with the Pollard and other cases.
    According to the Insight report, the investigation was launched after a local telephone company manager in the U.S. raised suspicions in late 1996 or early 1997 about an employee of Amdocs, an Israeli companythat sells billing software for telephone companies. The Israeli employee worked as a subcontractor on a program for telephone billing for the CIA, and is married to an Israeli woman employed in a diplomatic position in the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
    The Insight reporters said it is not clear whether the husband as well as his wife is a Mossad employee, but noted that husband-and-wife assignments abroad by Mossad are common. The American telephone company manager’s suspicions came to the attention of the CIA, the reporters said, which turned the matter over to the FBI. It was an FBI search of the husband’s workplace that discovered in his possession what Waller and Rodriguez called “a list of the FBI’s most sensitive telephone numbers, including the Bureau’s ‘black’ lines that FBI counterintelligence used to keep track of the suspected Israeli spy operation.” In the words of the Insight investigators, “the hunted were tracking the hunters.”
    Wrote Waller and Rodriguez: “More than two dozen U.S. intelligence, counterintelligence, law-enforcement and other officials have told Insight that the FBI believes Israel has intercepted telephone and modem communications on some of the most sensitive lines of the U.S. government on an ongoing basis. The worst penetrations are believed to be in the State Department. But others say the supposedly secure telephone systems in the White House, Defense Department and Justice Department may have been compromised as well. The problem for FBI agents in the famed Division 5, however, isn’t just what they have uncovered, which is substantial, but what they don’t know yet.”
    Installation Assistance
    According to Fox News, the Israeli Amdocs software company, which now has a base in Chesterfield, Missouri, “helped Bell Atlantic install new telephone lines in the White House in 1997.” Although Fox News noted that “for the past 18 months the FBI has been investigating Bell Atlantic and Amdocs,” Amdocs spokesman Dan Ginsburg said the company has not been notified of any FBI investigation and only heard of the probe from news reporters on May 4.
    Bell Atlantic officials declined comment, but Fox News reported that “in 1997 the White House had a new, state-of-the-art phone system installed by Bell Atlantic.” Fox News said investigators told President Clinton “that a senior-level employee of Amdocs had a separate T1 data phone line installed from his base outside of St. Louis that was connected directly to Israel.”
    Reported Fox: “Investigators are looking into whether the owner of the T1 line had a ‘real time’ capacity to intercept phone calls from both the White House and other government offices around Washington, and sustained the line for some time, sources said. Sources familiar with the investigation say FBI agents on the case sought an arrest warrant for the St. Louis employee but Justice Department officials quashed it.”
    Similarly, Waller and Rodriguez noted that because of the Israeli involvement, “no government official would speak for the record.” They quoted “a senior U.S. official familiar with the super-secret counterintelligence operation” as saying “we’re not even sure we know the extent of it,” and another “senior government official who would go no further than to admit awareness of the FBI probe” as saying, “It is a politically sensitive matter. I can’t comment on it beyond telling you that anything involving Israel on this particular matter is off-limits. It’s that hot.”
    The Insight reporters noted FBI dismay at learning that discovery of the FBI phone list “called into question the entire operation. We had been compromised. But for how long?”
    Insight also quoted a former U.S. intelligence officer as explaining: “When it has anything to do with Israel, it’s something you just never want to poke your nose into. But this one had too much potential to ignore because it involved a potential system-wide penetration.”
    Explained David Major, a retired FBI supervisory special agent and a former White House director of counterintelligence, to the Insight reporters: “The Israelis conduct intelligence as if they are at war…There are a lot less handcuffs on intelligence for a nation that sees itself at war. But that doesn’t excuse it from our perspective.”
    Fox reported that “the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Shelby (R-AL), was briefed along with Sen. Richard Bryan (D-NV), a ranking Democrat on the committee,” and that “several other lawmakers on key committees with jurisdiction over these matters have never been briefed.”
    A week after the first revelations, most Americans probably still had not heard of either the penetration of White House and possibly other sensitive telephones, or of the FBI investigation. But Israeli journalists had reported it. However, instead of describing how the perpetrators were detected, Israeli media speculated that the news was “leaked” by the Clinton administration and that the purpose was to send a message to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak after his revelation that he intended to ignore President Bill Clinton’s disapproval and continue with the planned sale of at least one Israeli-configured AWACs-type airborne-warning system to China.
    The Tel Aviv daily Ha’aretz noted that first the Pentagon had complained that an Israeli ballistic missile test had endangered an American naval craft in the Mediterranean, and then “another such leak came from the White House and Defense Department, raising suspicions of wiretapping against Israel. The administration is using every possible opportunity to convey its message to Jerusalem’s policymakers.”
    Whether the Clinton administration orchestrated the leak, as Israel journalists claim, or, as it appears to this writer, is frantically seeking to cover up in a presidential election year a grave security breach that the Republicans could use for their political benefit—all readers will be reminded of the telephone tapping story that emerged from Monica Lewinsky’s testimony to U.S. government investigators. She told them that President Clinton had warned her that he believed “a foreign embassy” was tapping their steamy telephone conversations.
    The speed with which the contents of those calls were leaked to Israel-friendly U.S. journalists when Clinton and then-Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu clashed over a Middle East land-for-peace agreement not only gave credence to Clinton’s voiced suspicions at the time, but also made clear which foreign embassy was doing the listening. What the newest revelations add is exactly how the Israelis did it, and may still be doing it.
    Readers may find the complete text of the article from Insight Magazine on its Web site: . The full text of the Fox report may be found on .
    Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
    AND…….
    Original source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40684,00.html (File no longer available on Fox News.) Transcript here.
    BRIT HUME, HOST: It has been more than 16 years since a civilian working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence. At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but later took responsibility for his work.
    Now Fox News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the U.S., who may have known things they didn’t tell us before Sept. 11. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron has details in the first of a four-part series.
    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
    CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.
    There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are “tie-ins.” But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, “evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.”
    Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to Sept. 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States.
    Investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that’s been compiling evidence since the mid ’90s. These documents detail hundreds of incidents in cities and towns across the country that investigators say, “may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity.”
    The first part of the investigation focuses on Israelis who say they are art students from the University of Jerusalem and Bazala Academy. They repeatedly made contact with U.S. government personnel, the report says, by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork.
    Documents say they, “targeted and penetrated military bases.” The DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, “stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units.”
    Another part of the investigation has resulted in the detention and arrests of dozens of Israelis at American mall kiosks, where they’ve been selling toys called Puzzle Car and Zoom Copter. Investigators suspect a front.
    Shortly after The New York Times and Washington Post reported the Israeli detentions last months, the carts began vanishing. Zoom Copter’s Web page says, “We are aware of the situation caused by thousands of mall carts being closed at the last minute. This in no way reflects the quality of the toy or its salability. The problem lies in the operators’ business policies.”
    Why would Israelis spy in and on the U.S.? A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as country A and said, “According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally.”
    A defense intelligence report said Israel has a voracious appetite for information and said, “the Israelis are motivated by strong survival instincts which dictate every possible facet of their political and economical policies. It aggressively collects military and industrial technology and the U.S. is a high priority target.”
    The document concludes: “Israel possesses the resources and technical capability to achieve its collection objectives.”
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    A spokesman for the Israeli embassy here in Washington issued a denial saying that any suggestion that Israelis are spying in or on the U.S. is “simply not true.” There are other things to consider. And in the days ahead, we’ll take a look at the U.S. phone system and law enforcement’s methods for wiretaps. And an investigation that both have been compromised by our friends overseas.
    HUME: Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?
    CAMERON: It’s very explosive information, obviously, and there’s a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected — none of it necessarily conclusive. It’s more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have know? Almost a direct quote.
    HUME: Going into the fact that they were spying on some Arabs, right?
    CAMERON: Correct.
    HUME: All right, Carl, thanks very much.
    ——————————————————————————–
    Part 2 of 4
    Could information that fell into an Israeli-based private communications company impeded the Sept. 11 inquiry
    BRIT HUME, HOST: Last time we reported on the approximately 60 Israelis who had been detained in connection with the Sept. 11 terrorism investigation. Carl Cameron reported that U.S. investigators suspect that some of these Israelis were spying on Arabs in this country, and may have turned up information on the planned terrorist attacks back in September that was not passed on.
    Tonight, in the second of four reports on spying by Israelis in the U.S., we learn about an Israeli-based private communications company, for whom a half-dozen of those 60 detained suspects worked. American investigators fear information generated by this firm may have fallen into the wrong hands and had the effect of impeded the Sept. 11 terror inquiry. Here’s Carl Cameron’s second report.
    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
    CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):
    Fox News has learned that some American terrorist investigators fear certain suspects in the Sept. 11 attacks may have managed to stay ahead of them, by knowing who and when investigators are calling on the telephone. How?
    By obtaining and analyzing data that’s generated every time someone in the U.S. makes a call.
    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What city and state, please?
    CAMERON: Here’s how the system works. Most directory assistance calls, and virtually all call records and billing in the U.S. are done for the phone companies by Amdocs Ltd., an Israeli-based private telecommunications company.
    Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.
    In recent years, the FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs more than once. The firm has repeatedly and adamantly denied any security breaches or wrongdoing. But sources tell Fox News that in 1999, the super secret National Security Agency, headquartered in northern Maryland, issued what’s called a Top Secret sensitive compartmentalized information report, TS/SCI, warning that records of calls in the United States were getting into foreign hands ­ in Israel, in particular.
    Investigators don’t believe calls are being listened to, but the data about who is calling whom and when is plenty valuable in itself. An internal Amdocs memo to senior company executives suggests just how Amdocs generated call records could be used. “Widespread data mining techniques and algorithms…. combining both the properties of the customer (e.g., credit rating) and properties of the specific ‘behavior….’” Specific behavior, such as who the customers are calling.
    The Amdocs memo says the system should be used to prevent phone fraud. But U.S. counterintelligence analysts say it could also be used to spy through the phone system. Fox News has learned that the N.S.A has held numerous classified conferences to warn the F.B.I. and C.I.A. how Amdocs records could be used. At one NSA briefing, a diagram by the Argon national lab was used to show that if the phone records are not secure, major security breaches are possible.
    Another briefing document said, “It has become increasingly apparent that systems and networks are vulnerable.…Such crimes always involve unauthorized persons, or persons who exceed their authorization…citing on exploitable vulnerabilities.”
    Those vulnerabilities are growing, because according to another briefing, the U.S. relies too much on foreign companies like Amdocs for high-tech equipment and software. “Many factors have led to increased dependence on code developed overseas…. We buy rather than train or develop solutions.”
    U.S. intelligence does not believe the Israeli government is involved in a misuse of information, and Amdocs insists that its data is secure. What U.S. government officials are worried about, however, is the possibility that Amdocs data could get into the wrong hands, particularly organized crime.
    And that would not be the first thing that such a thing has happened. Fox News has documents of a 1997 drug trafficking case in Los Angeles, in which telephone information, the type that Amdocs collects, was used to “completely compromise the communications of the FBI, the Secret Service, the DEA and the LAPD.”
    We’ll have that and a lot more in the days ahead ­ Brit.
    HUME: Carl, I want to take you back to your report last night on those 60 Israelis who were detained in the anti-terror investigation, and the suspicion that some investigators have that they may have picked up information on the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and not passed it on.
    There was a report, you’ll recall, that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, did indeed send representatives to the U.S. to warn, just before 9/11, that a major terrorist attack was imminent. How does that leave room for the lack of a warning?
    CAMERON: I remember the report, Brit. We did it first internationally right here on your show on the 14th. What investigators are saying is that that warning from the Mossad was nonspecific and general, and they believe that it may have had something to do with the desire to protect what are called sources and methods in the intelligence community. The suspicion being, perhaps those sources and methods were taking place right here in the United States.
    The question came up in select intelligence committee on Capitol Hill today. They intend to look into what we reported last night, and specifically that possibility ­ Brit.
    HUME: So in other words, the problem wasn’t lack of a warning, the problem was lack of useful details?
    CAMERON: Quantity of information.
    HUME: All right, Carl, thank you very much
    Part 3 of 4
    Carl Cameron
    Friday, December 14, 2001
    This partial transcript of Special Report with Brit Hume, Dec. 13, was provided by the Federal Document Clearing House. Click here to order the complete transcript.
    Part 3 of 4
    BRIT HUME, HOST: Last time we reported on an Israeli-based company called Amdocs Ltd. that generates the computerized records and billing data for nearly every phone call made in America. As Carl Cameron reported, U.S. investigators digging into the 9/11 terrorist attacks fear that suspects may have been tipped off to what they were doing by information leaking out of Amdocs.
    In tonight’s report, we learn that the concern about phone security extends to another company, founded in Israel, that provides the technology that the U.S. government uses for electronic eavesdropping.
    Here is Carl Cameron’s third report.
    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
    CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):
    The company is Comverse Infosys [lawful interception solutions], a subsidiary of an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm, with offices throughout the U.S. It provides wiretapping equipment for law enforcement. Here’s how wiretapping works in the U.S.
    Every time you make a call, it passes through the nation’s elaborate network of switchers and routers run by the phone companies. Custom computers and software, made by companies like Comverse, are tied into that network to intercept, record and store the wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators.
    The manufacturers have continuing access to the computers so they can service them and keep them free of glitches. This process was authorized by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. Senior government officials have now told Fox News that while CALEA made wiretapping easier, it has led to a system that is seriously vulnerable to compromise, and may have undermined the whole wiretapping system.
    Indeed, Fox News has learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were both warned Oct. 18 in a hand-delivered letter from 15 local, state and federal law enforcement officials, who complained that “law enforcement’s current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALEA was enacted.”
    Congress [sic, probably Comverse] insists the equipment it installs is secure. But the complaint about this system is that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties.
    Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade. But investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Comverse is considered career suicide.
    And sources say that while various F.B.I. inquiries into Comverse have been conducted over the years, they’ve been halted before the actual equipment has ever been thoroughly tested for leaks. A 1999 F.C.C. document indicates several government agencies expressed deep concerns that too many unauthorized non-law enforcement personnel can access the wiretap system.
    And the FBI’s own nondescript office in Chantilly, Virginia that actually oversees the CALEA wiretapping program, is among the most agitated about the threat. But there is a bitter turf war internally at F.B.I.
    It is the FBI’s office in Quantico, Virginia, that has jurisdiction over awarding contracts and buying intercept equipment. And for years, they’ve thrown much of the business to Comverse. A handful of former U.S. law enforcement officials involved in awarding Comverse government contracts over the years now work for the company.
    Numerous sources say some of those individuals were asked to leave government service under what knowledgeable sources call “troublesome circumstances” that remain under administrative review within the Justice Department.
    (END VIDEOTAPE)
    And what troubles investigators most, particularly in New York, in the counter terrorism investigation of the World Trade Center attack, is that on a number of cases, suspects that they had sought to wiretap and survey immediately changed their telecommunications processes. They started acting much differently as soon as those supposedly secret wiretaps went into place ­ Brit.
    HUME: Carl, is there any reason to suspect in this instance that the Israeli government is involved?
    CAMERON: No, there’s not. But there are growing instincts in an awful lot of law enforcement officials in a variety of agencies who suspect that it had begun compiling evidence, and a highly classified investigation into that possibility ­ Brit.
    Part 4 of 4
    Original source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40981,00.html (File no longer available on Fox News.)
    TONY SNOW, HOST: This week, senior correspondent Carl Cameron has reported on a longstanding government espionage investigation. Federal officials this year have arrested or detained nearly 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to an “organized intelligence-gathering operation.” The Bush administration has deported most of those arrested after Sept. 11, although some are in custody under the new anti-terrorism law.
    Cameron also investigates the possibility that an Israeli firm generated billing data that could be used for intelligence purpose, and describes concerns that the federal government’s own wiretapping system may be vulnerable. Tonight, in part four of the series, we’ll learn about the probable roots of the probe: a drug case that went bad four years ago in L.A.
    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
    CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Los Angeles, 1997, a major local, state and federal drug investigating sours. The suspects: Israeli organized crime with operations in New York, Miami, Las Vegas, Canada, Israel and Egypt. The allegations: cocaine and ecstasy trafficking, and sophisticated white-collar credit card and computer fraud.
    The problem: according to classified law enforcement documents obtained by Fox News, the bad guys had the cops’ beepers, cell phones, even home phones under surveillance. Some who did get caught admitted to having hundreds of numbers and using them to avoid arrest.
    “This compromised law enforcement communications between LAPD detectives and other assigned law enforcement officers working various aspects of the case. The organization discovered communications between organized crime intelligence division detectives, the FBI and the Secret Service.”
    Shock spread from the DEA to the FBI in Washington, and then the CIA. An investigation of the problem, according to law enforcement documents, concluded, “The organization has apparent extensive access to database systems to identify pertinent personal and biographical information.”
    When investigators tried to find out where the information might have come from, they looked at Amdocs, a publicly traded firm based in Israel. Amdocs generates billing data for virtually every call in America, and they do credit checks. The company denies any leaks, but investigators still fear that the firm’s data is getting into the wrong hands.
    When investigators checked their own wiretapping system for leaks, they grew concerned about potential vulnerabilities in the computers that intercept, record and store the wiretapped calls. A main contractor is Comverse Infosys, which works closely with the Israeli government, and under a special grant program, is reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by Israel’s Ministry of Industry and Trade.
    Asked this week about another sprawling investigation and the detention of 60 Israeli since Sept. 11, the Bush administration treated the questions like hot potatoes.
    ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I would just refer you to the Department of Justice with that. I’m not familiar with the report.
    COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I’m aware that some Israeli citizens have been detained. With respect to why they’re being detained and the other aspects of your question ­ whether it’s because they’re in intelligence services, or what they were doing ­ I will defer to the Department of Justice and the FBI to answer that.
    (END VIDEOTAPE)
    CAMERON: Beyond the 60 apprehended or detained, and many deported since Sept. 11, another group of 140 Israeli individuals have been arrested and detained in this year in what government documents describe as “an organized intelligence gathering operation,” designed to “penetrate government facilities.” Most of those individuals said they had served in the Israeli military, which is compulsory there.
    But they also had, most of them, intelligence expertise, and either worked for Amdocs or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping. Earlier this week, the Israeli embassy in Washington denied any spying against or in the United States ­ Tony.
    SNOW: Carl, we’ve heard the comments from Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell. What are officials saying behind the scenes?
    CAMERON: Well, there’s real pandemonium described at the FBI, the DEA and the INS. A lot of these problems have been well known to some investigators, many of who have contributed to the reporting on this story. And what they say is happening is supervisors and management are now going back and collecting much of the information, because there’s tremendous pressure from the top levels of all of those agencies to find out exactly what’s going on.
    At the DEA and the FBI already a variety of administration reviews are under way, in addition to the investigation of the phenomenon. They want to find out how it is all this has come out, as well as be very careful because of the explosive nature and very political ramifications of the story itself ­ Tony.
    SNOW: All right, Carl, thanks.
    Excerpted from: Economic Espionage: Information on Threat from U.S. Allies (Testimony, 02/28/96, GAO/T-NSIAD-96-114).
    COUNTRY A
    ——————————————————– Chapter 0:1.1
    According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of Country A
    conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United
    States of any U.S. ally. Classified military information and
    sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the
    intelligence agencies of this country. Country A seeks this
    information for three reasons: (1) to help the technological
    development of its own defense industrial base, (2) to sell or trade
    the information with other countries for economic reasons, and (3) to
    sell or trade the information with other countries to develop
    political alliances and alternative sources of arms. According to a
    classified 1994 report produced by a U.S. government interagency
    working group on U.S. critical technology companies,\2 Country A
    routinely resorts to state-sponsored espionage using covert
    collection techniques to obtain sensitive U.S. economic information
    and technology. Agents of Country A collect a variety of classified
    and proprietary information through observation, elicitation, and
    theft.
    The following are intelligence agency examples of Country A
    information collection efforts:
    An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization
    responsible for collecting scientific and technological
    information for Country A paid a U.S. government employee to
    obtain U.S. classified military intelligence documents.
    Several citizens of Country A were caught in the United States
    stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery
    gun tubes.
    Agents of Country A allegedly stole design plans for a classified
    reconnaissance system from a U.S. company and gave them to a
    defense contractor from Country A.
    A company from Country A is suspected of surreptitiously monitoring
    a DOD telecommunications system to obtain classified information
    for Country A intelligence.
    Citizens of Country A were investigated for allegations of passing
    advanced aerospace design technology to unauthorized scientists
    and researchers.
    Country A is suspected of targeting U.S. avionics, missile
    telemetry and testing data, and aircraft communication systems
    for intelligence operations.
    It has been determined that Country A targeted specialized software
    that is used to store data in friendly aircraft warning systems.
    Country A has targeted information on advanced materials and
    coatings for collection. A Country A government agency
    allegedly obtained information regarding a chemical finish used
    on missile reentry vehicles from a U.S. person.
    Report on U.S. Critical Technology Companies, Report to Congress
    on Foreign Acquisition of and Espionage Activities Against U.S.
    Critical Technology Companies (1994).

    Reply

  8. parrot says:

    All I’m asking for is an honest, above board investigation of how exactly the cell system in the US Congress building was given to an Israeli contractor–that’s all I want. It’s really that simple.

    Reply

  9. Carroll says:

    Some good news:..because our congressional dems and repubs can’t make ME policy without AIPAC anyway.
    AIPAC case asks, ‘Who is a foreign agent?’
    By NATHAN GUTTMAN
    Washington
    In a ruling relating to the AIPAC classified information case, a US judge found that government had every right to treat the two former staffers of the pro-Israel lobby as “foreign agents” when asking to eavesdrop on their conversations and phone calls.
    Judge T.S. Ellis of the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, denied this week a motion by defendants Steve Rosen – the former policy director for AIPAC and Keith Weissman who was a Middle East analyst for the lobby, to throw out the evidence achieved by wiretaps since it was illegal to eavesdrop on the defendants under the law which was meant to enable surveillance of foreign agents.
    In his ruling, Judge Ellis writes that there is “ample probable cause to believe” that Rosen and Weissman were acting as agents of a foreign power, not specifying the name of the foreign power. Other court documents point to Israel as the country to which the two former AIPAC staffers passed on information they obtained from former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin.
    The judge did acknowledge the fact that lobbying activity does enjoy First Amendment protection in some cases, but nevertheless ruled that for the purpose of obtaining approval for wiretapping under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Rosen and Weissman’s activity can be seen as that of a foreign agent. This ruling is relevant only to the issue of issuing wiretap
    warrants and is not a final court decision on whether the two former AIPAC employees were
    actually acting as foreign agents for the purpose of the legal registration required for agents of a foreign nation.
    Apart from the legal implications this ruling has for the case itself, it may also have repercussions concerning the future lobbying activity of AIPAC and other lobbying organizations in the US, since it could imply that the daily activity of lobby groups working on foreign policy issues can be seen as serving a foreign nation and thus require strict registration under the Department of Justice register of foreign agents.
    AND..I further suggest that AIPAC and the ZOA and CANF all other “foreign” lobbies and their membership list be rounded up and deported, and all the Chr$st$an Z$onst be given their own country in the Congo. They can take their bought politicans with them. It will save us the cost of future trials when the majority of the public figures all this out.
    AIPAC’s Dangerous Grip on Washington
    By Ari Berman, TheNation.com. Posted July 31, 2006.
    The congressional reaction to Hezbollah’s attack on Israel and Israel’s retaliatory bombing of Lebanon provide the latest example of why AIPAC’s lock on US foreign policy in the Middle East must be examined.
    In early March, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its forty-seventh annual conference in Washington. AIPAC’s executive director spent twenty-seven minutes reading the “roll call” of dignitaries present at the gala dinner, which included a majority of the Senate and a quarter of the House, along with dozens of Administration officials.
    As this event illustrates, it’s impossible to talk about Congress’s relationship to Israel without highlighting AIPAC, the American Jewish community’s most important voice on the Hill. The Congressional reaction to Hezbollah’s attack on Israel and Israel’s retaliatory bombing of Lebanon provide the latest example of why.
    On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution “condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel’s exercise of its right to self-defense.” After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging “all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure,” the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8.
    AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. “They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC,” said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. “They didn’t prepare one.”
    AIPAC is the leading player in what is sometimes referred to as “The Israel Lobby” — a coalition that includes major Jewish groups, neoconservative intellectuals and Christian Zionists. With its impressive contacts among Hill staffers, influential grassroots supporters and deep connections to wealthy donors, AIPAC is the lobby’s key emissary to Congress. But in many ways, AIPAC has become greater than just another lobby; its work has made unconditional support for Israel an accepted cost of doing business inside the halls of Congress. AIPAC’s interest, Israel’s interest and America’s interest are today perceived by most elected leaders to be one and the same. Christian conservatives increasingly aligned with AIPAC demand unwavering support for Israel from their Republican leaders. (In mid-July, 3,000-plus evangelicals came to town for the first annual “Christian United for Israel” summit.) And Democrats are equally concerned about alienating Jewish voters and Jewish donors — long a cornerstone of their party. Some in Congress are deeply uncomfortable with AIPAC’s militant worldview and heavyhanded tactics, but most dare not say so publicly.
    “The Bush Administration is bad enough in tolerating measures they would not accept anywhere else but Israel,” says Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress and a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. “But the Congress, if anything, is urging the Administration on and criticizing them even at their most accommodating. When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups, like AIPAC, that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics.”
    There are a few internationalist Republicans in the Senate and progressive Democrats in the House who occasionally dissent. Representative Dennis Kucinich and twenty-three co-sponsors have offered a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire and a return to multiparty diplomacy between the United States and regional powers, with no preconditions. But even the resolution’s supporters admit it isn’t likely to go anywhere. Another bill introduced by several Arab-American lawmakers that stressed the need to minimize civilian casualties on both sides was “politically swept under the rug,” according to Representative Nick Rahall, a Lebanese-American Democrat from West Virginia who voted against the House resolution. Dovish American-Israeli groups, such as Americans for Peace Now, have largely stayed out of the fight.
    The latest hawkish Congressional activity is primarily intended to show voters and potential donors that elected officials are unwavering friends of Israel and enemies of terrorism. “It’s just for home consumption,” said Representative Charlie Rangel, a powerful New York Democrat who signed on to Kucinich’s resolution. “We don’t have the support of countries that support us! What the hell are we going to do, bomb Iran? Bomb Syria?” His colleagues, said Rahall, “were trying to out-AIPAC AIPAC.”
    Discussion in Congress quickly widened beyond Israel to include a broader policy of confrontation toward the entire Middle East. Congressmen sent a flurry of “dear colleague” letters to one another, hoping to pressure the Administration into tightening sanctions on Syria and Iran, Hezbollah’s two main state sponsors. Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross addressed a packed AIPAC-sponsored luncheon on the Hill, where, according to one aide present, Ross told the room: “This is all about Syria and Iran … we shouldn’t be condemning Israel now.” Said Representative Robert Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey and co-chair of the Iran Working Group, which this week hosted an official from the Israeli embassy: “I concur completely with that approach.”
    Democrats, as they did during the Dubai ports scandal, used the crisis to score a few cheap, easy political points against the Bush Administration. The new prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, found himself engulfed in a Congressional firestorm after he denounced Israel’s attacks on Lebanon as an act of “aggression.” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel, who volunteered in Israel during the first Gulf War, called on Maliki to cancel his planned address before Congress. Asked Senator Chuck Schumer, who skipped Maliki’s July 26 speech: “Which side is he on when it comes to the war on terror?” Howard Dean one upped his colleagues, labeling Maliki an “anti-Semite” during a speech in Palm Beach, Florida.
    Ironically, during the 2004 campaign Dean called on the United States to be an “evenhanded” broker in the Middle East. That position enraged party leaders such as House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who signed a letter attacking his remarks. “It was designed to send a message: No one ever does this again,” says M.J. Rosenberg of the center-left Israel Policy Forum. “And no one has. The only safe thing to say is: I support Israel.” In April a representative from AIPAC called Congresswoman Betty McCollum’s vote against a draconian bill severely curtailing aid to the Palestinian Authority “support for terrorists.”
    Not surprisingly, most in Congress see far more harm than reward in getting in the Israeli lobby’s way. “There remains a perception of power and fear that AIPAC can undo you,” says James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. He points to the defeats of Representative Paul Findley and Senator Charles Percy in the 1980s and Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard in 2002, when AIPAC steered large donors to their opponents. Even if AIPAC’s make-you-or-break-you reputation is largely a myth, in an election year that perception is potent. Thirty-six pro-Israel PACs gave $3.14 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Rahall said his opponent for re-election issued his first press release of the campaign after Rahall voted against the House resolution. “Everybody knew what would happen if they didn’t vote yes,” he says.
    AIPAC continues to enjoy deep bipartisan backing inside Congress even after two top AIPAC officials were indicted a year ago for allegedly accepting and passing on confidential national security secrets from a Defense Department analyst. “The US and Israel share a lot of basic common values. The vast majority of the American people not only support Israel’s actions against Hezbollah but also the fundamental US-Israel relationship, and the bipartisan support in Congress reflects that,” says AIPAC spokesman Josh Block. Rosenberg, himself a former AIPAC staffer, puts it another way: “This is the one issue on which liberals are permitted, even expected, by donors to be mindless hawks.”
    By blindly following AIPAC, Congress reinforces a hard-line consensus: Criticizing Israeli actions, even in the best of faith, is anti-Israel and possibly anti-Semitic; enthusiastically backing whatever military action Israel undertakes is the only acceptable stance.
    Recent Gallup polls show that half of Americans support Israel’s military campaign, yet 65 percent believe the United States should not take sides in the conflict. But it’s hard to imagine any Congress, or subsequent Administration, returning to the role of honest broker. What the region needs now, according to Brzezinski, is an American leader brave enough to say: “Either I make policy on the Middle East or AIPAC makes policy on the Middle East.” One can always dream.
    Ari Berman is a contributing writer for The Nation and a Ralph Shikes Fellow at the Public Concern Foundation. He’s currently based in D.C.

    Reply

  10. me & POA says:

    Alec, alec, alec,
    You should know this. The male can be effeminate and not be a homosexual. All poa is saying is that the Dems act like girls while the Rethugs act like Real Men. All poa is criticizing is the sissified nature of the Dems, not that they are necessarily homosexual. Get it! Now go, run along, and be a Real Man, if you can, if that is your nature. Or, fake it if you have to, and feel the pain as the truth is reviled.

    Reply

  11. me & POA says:

    Alec, alec, alec,
    You should know this. The male can be effeminate and not be a homosexual. All poa is saying is that the Dems act like girls while the Rethugs act like Real Men. All poa is criticizing is the sissified nature of the Dems, not that they are necessarily homosexual. Get it! Now go, run along, and be a Real Man, if you can, if that is your nature. Or, fake it if you have to, and feel the pain as the truth is reviled.

    Reply

  12. me & POA says:

    Alec, alec, alec,
    You should know this. The male can be effeminate and not be a homosexual. All poa is saying is that the Dems act like girls while the Rethugs act like Real Men. All poa is criticizing is the sissified nature of the Dems, not that they are necessarily homosexual. Get it! Now go, run along, and be a Real Man, if you can, if that is your nature. Or, fake it if you have to, and feel the pain as the truth is reviled.

    Reply

  13. me & POA says:

    Alec, alec, alec,
    You should know this. The male can be effeminate and not be a homosexual. All poa is saying is that the Dems act like girls while the Rethugs act like Real Men. All poa is criticizing is the sissified nature of the Dems, not that they are necessarily homosexual. Get it! Now go, run along, and be a Real Man, if you can, if that is your nature. Or, fake it if you have to, and feel the pain as the truth is reviled.

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    Heeeeeeerrrrr..’s Uncle Sammy! The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. BARF!..we have turned into a land of mini Van mommy lites and ball-less daddies who are more interested in their offspring’s sport activities than they are in the fact they are setting them up to go die in wars for MafiaUSA/Isr, Inc.
    71-Year-Old Gitmo Detainee Released
    By BEN FOX, Associated Press Writer
    Monday, August 28, 2006
    The oldest detainee at Guantanamo Bay — an Afghan man who is at least 71 and hobbled around the U.S. prison in Cuba using a walker — has been sent home, his lawyer said Monday.
    Haji Nasrat Khan was among five men from Afghanistan transferred over the weekend, said attorney Peter Ryan, who received the news in an e-mail from the U.S. Department of Justice.
    Ryan was not told why Khan was transferred, and was trying to determine whether he would be held in custody in Afghanistan or allowed to return home.
    The U.S. military did not disclose the names of the five men sent back to Afghanistan and declined to comment.
    Khan was not charged with a crime and Ryan said the government never said why he was detained.
    “We couldn’t figure out why he was there,” Ryan said. “He could barely walk and he could barely hear.”
    Khan told his lawyers he believes he’s around 78, but doesn’t know his exact age. He is at least 71, according to military records obtained by The Associated Press.
    With the latest transfers, the military now holds about 445 men on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban, including about 115 who the U.S. has determined are eligible for release or transfer.
    To be eligible for release, the U.S. must conclude the detainee no longer poses a threat to the United Sates, has no further intelligence value and does not merit criminal prosecution, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.
    Ryan had been scheduled to visit Guantanamo this week to meet with Khan and Khan’s adult son — who was captured with Khan and remains in custody — along with other Afghan prisoners represented by his law firm, Dechert LLP.
    U.S. forces captured the elderly detainee’s son, Hiztullah Nasrat Yar, in a compound with some 700 weapons, including small arms and rockets, according to military records.
    Khan and his son told the military panel that the younger man was guarding the weapons for the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The father had said he was arrested while complaining about his son’s capture several days later.
    “How could I be an enemy combatant if I was not able to stand up?” he asked, according to transcripts released to the AP.
    Defense Contractors
    As soldiers have died in displaying personal patriotism, the pay gap between soldiers and defense CEOs has exploded. Before 9/11, the gap between CEOs of publicly traded companies and army privates was already a galling 190 to 1. Today, it is 308 to 1. The average army private makes $25,000 a year. The average defense CEO makes $7.7 million.
    The top CEO profiteers after 9/11 were the CEOs of United Technologies ($200 million), General Dynamics ($65 million), Lockheed Martin ($50 million), and Halliburton ($49 million). Other firms where CEO pay the last four years added up to $25 million to $45 million were Textron, Engineered Support Systems, Computer Sciences, Alliant Techsystems, Armor Holding, Boeing, Health Net, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh Truck, URS, and Raytheon.
    While Army privates died overseas earning $25,000 a year, David Brooks, the disgraced former CEO of body-armor maker DHB, made $192 million in stock sales in 2004. He staged a reported $10 million bat mitzvah for his daughter.
    The 2005 pay package for Halliburton CEO David Lesar, head of the firm that most symbolizes the occupation’s waste, overcharges, and ghost charges on no-bid contracts, was $26 million, according to the report’s analysis of federal Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
    “Those examples take the cake, especially because it’s all related to their government contracts, which is money straight out of the taxpayer’s pocket,” Leondar-Wright said.
    The Executive Excess report, with the help of the Wall Street Journal’s 2006 survey of executive compensation, made similar observations of oil executives as their firms enjoy record profits during war. The pay gap between the average oil and gas CEO and the average oil worker is 518 to 1. The general national CEO to worker gap is 411 to 1. The report said that the typical oil construction laborer would have to work 4,279 years to match the $95 million pay last year for Valero Energy CEO William Greehey.
    This is so out of line that the authors of the Executive Excess report recommend wartime pay restraints for defense CEOs and a permanent congressional watchdog panel for contract fraud and waste. Companies that cannot adhere to restraints should be ineligible for contracts, they said.
    The report said “democracies decay when one segment of society flourishes at another’s expense.” Leondar-Wright said, “It is now at the point where we have lost any sense of proportion. There is no sense of shared sacrifice, no sense that we’re all in this together.” Spreading democracy to Iraq is far-fetched when defense and oil CEOs speed its decay at home. They are all in it for themselves, at our expense.
    ©2006 Boston Globe
    ###

    Reply

  15. eCAHNomics says:

    I thought the use of force wrt Afghanistan allowed W to rage war all over the world (although heavily concentrated against oil-rich Muslims in the Middle East), without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress or the U.N. That’s how I remember Afghanistan. Come-on. Get with the reality-making program you out-of-touch-pacifist Ds.

    Reply

  16. alec says:

    poa wrote:
    “When are these limp wristed mewling critics of the Bush Administration going to grow some gonads”
    limp wristed? great, so now poa outs himself as homophobic too?

    Reply

  17. Carroll says:

    Neither the dem nor the republican party speaks for or represents the American people.
    90% of BOTH of them represent AIPAC, Israel, Halliburton, Citbank, the Drug industry, the Weapons industry, the Cuban exiles, the media conglomerates and any group and interest that puts money in their campaign chest.
    America and Americans are not on their agenda. You can cling to false hope and run from abuser Mommy to abuser Daddy or you can get rid of 90% of BOTH of them and start over.
    When I see a dem start talking about sending the
    serial traitors and international murders in this adm to the ICC then I will take them seriously. Until then they are just more of same talky-talky blah,blah,blah….”oh plez mess up bad GOP so we don’t have to actually do anything to get elected”
    Bullshit.

    Reply

  18. karthik says:

    Hi,
    You present many interesting articles on your blog. I happened to read the Frank piece already.
    Did you catch this one on Iraq:
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.wildfire30aug30,0,5420249.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
    It’s well written and more importantly, it sets up the stage for a downgrading of over-ambitious US goals for Iraq.
    Karthik

    Reply

  19. John B. says:

    jonst, I agree with your assessment. The Democrats, or whomever proposes to speak for the american people and for the 65+% of the folks that strongly disagree with this regime ought to speaking and stating the facts as you suggest
    loud and clear. If not the Democarts, than some other group with the will and the clarity.

    Reply

  20. plink says:

    “At absoultely no time was it represented that a vote for the resolution was like siging a permission slip to start a war.”
    And WTF did you do when it was clear that war was the only thing they ever had in mind?

    Reply

  21. TheMan says:

    “At absoultely no time was it represented that a vote for the resolution was like siging a permission slip to start a war.”
    WTF did you think they were gonna do?

    Reply

  22. jonst says:

    This is the Dems, STILL on the defensive. They have to attack the GOP. They have to say “you have presided over the worst strategic defeat the nation has suffered since Bull Run”. (or whatever Civil War battle you want to fill in)
    Further, “you are detached from reality and you are the most corrupt and incompetent government in memory. You have brought us increased poverty at home… and scorn from around the world. You have rewarded incompetence, in both the civilian and military branches of government. You let our worst enemy escape from Tora Bora. You talk to no govt but the shrinking list of govts that have traditionally been friendly to us. You have made it difficult and increasingly dangerous to travel around the world. You have engaged in torture, officially sanctioned, you have by passed laws, in the most scornfully manner. You have purposefully set about to divide the nation, at a time of conflict. You have made yourselves, and your friends richer at a time when the middle class is shrinking.
    We owe you no apologies or defensive explanations regarding our patriotism, or our commitment to keep America, and its citizens and allied safe�. and you will get none.
    You are a stain on the American tapestry and you are the gravest threat to our Republic, and freedom, that the nation has ever faced. And we oppose you at every level.�

    Reply

  23. e says:

    Inthe end Decent men and women will choose their country and it’s people over party for they are the ones who suffer most under the present conditions.

    Reply

  24. beth says:

    This has been so obvious for so long now to most Washington Note readers.
    I find it bizarre that when Cheney, Rumsfeld, Liberman et al. use that big lie, the media blindly reports it. The grown-ups had better take the reins soon.

    Reply

  25. shmoopatties says:

    No one, Republican nor Democrat, “voted for the war”. They voted to authorize the use of force. Bush was still claiming they would try to avoid the use of force, at the time of the vote. We all know how that worked out. At absoultely no time was it represented that a vote for the resolution was like siging a permission slip to start a war. When Kerry et al say “I’m sorry I voted for the war” it plays right into Repubs hands retorically. NO ONE “VOTED FOR THE WAR”. We need to destroy that meme.
    Here is the money quote from W Bush clipped from the White House web site 2 seconds ago:
    “With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. Yet, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is necessary, by whatever means that requires. Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime.”
    Although the general point of Frank’s article is very valid, I think this “he voted for the war” phrase is another fiction that Liberals allow the media to perpetuate, and Frank’s piece emphasises this and (again) solidifies it in the minds of all Americans.

    Reply

  26. Pissed Off American says:

    To the Bush Administration terrorists are nothing more than than convienient boogie men, used to rationalize and justify policies that have very little, if anything, to do with actually making the United states safer. The terrorists are far more useful to the Bush Administration if they are activelly killing Americans. The 9/11 event was a CRIME, not an act of war. In truth, it is the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that has committed the acts of war……in Haiti, in Venezuela, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Lebanon, (through the arming of the Israelis during their illegal invasion).
    You cannot wage “war” on terrorism anymore than you can wage “war” on drugs. The Bush Administration IGNORED the Pakistani ISI general Mahmoud Ahmed’s role in financing Mohammed Atta, and declared Pakistan as a “valuable ally in the fight against terrorism”. Is that how one wages war, by ignoring the enemy? The Bush Administration, during the midst of the Afghanistan “war” charade, allowed Pakistan to airlift Pakistani Taliban, and reportedly, Al Qaeda, out of Afghanistan. Is that the way you wage “war”?? Meanwhile, Pakistani nuclear weapons technology was being sold to both Iran and N.Korea. Yet still to this day Mahmoud Ahmed has not been pursued for his role in financing Atta, nor has Pakistan been removed from the “valued ally” status Bush bestowed upon them, DESPITE the fact that they are widely believed to be harboring Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives in the border regions.
    This whole friggin’ mess is misrepresented, lied about, ignored, and distorted. And there is FAR MORE that the Dems need to do than to act forcefully to show America they are part of this FARCE called the “Global War On Terrorism”. For starters, when these political “business as usual assholes” want to write these pseudo critical essays about Bush’s handling of Afghanistan or Iraq, they need to AT LEAST mention the volumes of evidence that exist that PROVE these treasonous bastards LIED us into this mess. Where does Frank mention the Downing Street Memo? Nowhere. Where does he call attention to the missing Phase Two Report that Rogers has hid up Reid’s ass?
    When are these limp wristed mewling critics of the Bush Administration going to grow some gonads and start calling a spade a spade, and start using terms like “LIARS”, “LIES”, “CRIMINALS”, “TRAITORS”, “TREASON”, etc?????

    Reply

  27. PUBLIUS says:

    This perspective must be conveyed forcefully and systematically across the nation between now and November if the curtailment of Republican power is to be achieved through the Congress. Confining this perspective to the newsletters of the East Coast intelligentsia does not suffice if public opinion is to be shifted concerning the vital question of which party is better able to protect the nation from UBL and other religious totalitarians. Progressives must do their part to promote Frank’s view in Texas and the other key states, notably through heightened attention to the Radnofsky Senate campaign. http://www.radnofsky.com/

    Reply

  28. S Brennan says:

    In fact Steve,
    Many of us were calling the administrations attention to the Taliban’s bad behavior, “honor” killing of woman, destruction of thousand year old religious monuments, hiding Osama after he blew up the African embassies…et. al
    And what pray tell was the Republicans response?
    In 2001, the Bush administration sent millions to the Taliban to reward them for their behavior.
    My refusal to endorse the ruling Republican party’s Iraq war [all three branches of government, don’t you know] has nothing to do with an unwillingness “to use force against terrorism.”. Just the opposite, on this issue terrorism, the Republicans were asleep, had the wrong address and didn’t dress appropriately for the war against a small troop of Muslim wingnuts. When it come to National security issue the ruling Republican party has been wrong, and wrong.
    I should include Democrats such as Biden, Lieberman, Hillary, Shumer who’s desire to be President exceeded their desire to perform their oversight duties.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *