Good stuff. Just to clarify from comments on the previous post, you think that Franklin's name was leaked by people doing the investigation in order to prevent it from being squashed, even though Franklin might not have much of anything important to do with it, and/or was already cooperating with them?

Laura,
This article is about an interview you and or Veat had with Green about an interview with the FBI Green had in June. Green seems to have spent many of his years chasing what he believes are illegal Israli activities.This man wrote 2 books.

Nothing resulted from his research. It appears you and Vest and Green and all busy leaking the same unsubstaniated materials.

You article expands the circle of the suspected guilty to include Wolferitz and others..

Smells like a particular kind of witch hunt to me.

Or to say it another way: The suspicions that this leaking activity was set up to damage US Israli relations (damn the individuals involved) is not put to rest by your article only given more credence by it.

Ivan

" the Justice Department had been preparing a request to the State Department to have an Israeli diplomat -- by implication Gilon -- declared persona non grata for allegedly having received classified U.S. intelligence from AIPAC sources. "

So when is it going to be finished ?

What does "had been" mean here ? Seems oddly vague.

Ivan, thou dost protest too much. If you are an American, please, America First.

This is all very perplexing. Why the leaks? Is the FBI really serious or is this misdirection? Is it a phony show of independence from Israel? Someone have a vendetta against the neocons?

Or is this just a subtle way to start building the case against Iran? "Oh, my - look, our secret scary Iran documents have gotten out. Boy, we really wish no one realized just how _dangerous_ Iran really is."

Ron,
"Had been" probably means that Gilon was in the process of being asked to leave the country when McNulty (see below), via Ashcroft, stepped in on Friday, Aug. 27, to halt actions the FBI was preparing to execute that same day. I suspect the McNulty/Ashcroft actions percipatated a leak of the investigation to Lesley Stahl by FBI personnel interested bringing their investigation to fruition, suspecting McNulty/Ashcroft of moving to quash it, although concerns about the timing, before the convention, probably was Ashcroft's main concern..

See below a run down of events that transpired Friday, Aug. 27. Also check out McNulty's bio.

1. "On Friday, F.B.I. agents visited the two officials of the group [AIPAC], Steven Rosen, the organization's director of foreign policy issues, and Keith Weissman, one of its experts on Iran, said Nathan Lewin, a lawyer for the pro-Israel lobbying group, known as Aipac. The interviews took place about the same time that news organizations began reporting the existence of the F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation, officials said. The F.B.I. interviews were halted when each of the men asked to be represented by a lawyer before answering more questions." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/01/national/01inquire.html

2. "According to sources familiar with the investigation, the U.S. district attorney
in charge of the probe, Paul McNulty, has ordered the FBI not to move forward with arrests that they were prepared to make last Friday when the story broke on CNN and CBS. 'He put the brakes on it in order to look at it,' a source
familiar with the investigation told the Sun. 'To see what was there. Basically the FBI wanted to start making arrests and McNulty said ''whoah, based on what? Let's look at this before you do anything.''" (NY Sun, Thursday 9/2)

3. "Mr. McNulty was only assigned the case by Attorney General Ashcroft last Friday when federal agents came to Aipac's offices in Washington to request files and hard drives. 'Ashcroft wanted to make sure this case was being handled properly,' the source familiar with the probe said." (NY Sun, Thursday 9/2)

4. "A source familiar with the investigation told The American Prospect that when news of the investigation broke [Friday], the Justice Department had been preparing a request to the State Department to have an Israeli diplomat -- by implication Gilon -- declared persona non grata for allegedly having received classified U.S. intelligence from AIPAC sources." (American Prospect, “Mole Hunt,” by Jason Vest and Laura Rozen)

McNulty is a Bush partisan/political hack. See attached from his bio (url below, comments in parenthesis): "Mr. McNulty directed President Bush's transition team for the Department of Justice and then served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (Ashcroft's right hand man)......He was Chief Counsel and Director of Legislative Operations for the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives (Dick Armey). He is perhaps best remembered by the law enforcement community for the eight years he served with the House Subcommittee on Crime, first as Minority Counsel and later as the Chief Counsel. (For then-Rep. Bill McCollum, who just ran and lost a senate primary in Florida, and was also an impeachment manager against President Clinton)" Also was a spokesman for House Committee on the Judiciary Republicans to promote the Clinton impeachment.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/biography.html

Simon,
The University of Chicago where Leo Strauss taught was founded by John D. Rockefeller and when I was there in the 60's one of the Eaton's still sat on it's Board.

I beleive the conservatism of the many schools at the U of C comes from a deep reading of the Classics and fully supports the values of its founder.

The neo-cons are American to their core.

Recently I read Wilson's 13 (?) points. Read them and think of them in terms of the US making the World Safe for Democracy with open economies, thus good for the Yankee Traders.

By the way America must be First or there would no freedom for anyone anywhere, let alone no Israel.

When Syria and Iran are democracies, we will have a true ideological not just geographic wedge into the Arab world for Democracy and open markets to flourish.Then we will have the base to the battle with radical Islam.

The neo-cons may be faulted for insufficient planning and hubris, not for bad strategic concepts.

By he way because of Abu Gharb, I can not vote for Bush.

A bit of a screed,

Sorry,
Ivan

Simon writes: "If you are an American, please, America First."

Indeed.

One American prinicple is the "innocent until proven guilty" burden of proof standard for criminal cases.

The story has already gone from "Israeli spy in the Pentagon passes highly classified documents to the Israelis - arrests/charges imminent" to "possible mishandling of classified materials charges, if any" to "probe wider than Franklin, ongoing for two years."

I think people should relax a bit and wait to see the evidence, or even what the story is all about. Fat chance, though.

The next headline might take this story in a different direction completely - there have already been at least three planks.

I understand some people want to see "neo-con blood" or "Bush blood" over this, even if there's no "there" there, and there's a lot of hope in certain circles that this will bring down hated people - I think that's completely natural.

But how much hot air has been blown in the last week over partial leaks and shotty CBS reporting, much of which has not panned out?

The people who are skeptical have every right to put forth their opinions as those who are scandal-thirsty, and skepticism doesn't = America "Second." "America first" doesn't necessitate an automatic assumption of worst case scenario here - in fact, it just might be the opposite. We don't know yet.

I think counter intelligence investigations have a different legal process than criminal investigations. The broader FBI counter intelligence investigation of alleged Israeli espionage is bigger than the Franklin case, as I understand it. Or more precisely, Franklin was flipped to help the FBI gather evidence on others; whether he was granted any sort of legal leniency in exchange I don't know.

A grand jury is being selected now in Eastern Virginia. Will it hear evidence not just about Franklin but about other potential targets of the investigation?

We need help (in English please) from a lawyer here.

Simon,

When Syria and Iran become democracies we'll all be long dead. It will happen over many dead bodies if the neocons are the prime movers. Strategies, like the neo-cons (probably Wilson's too), all sound American apple pie pioneer spirit individual ruggedness etc. etc., but realities reveal them to be pie-in-the-sky hollywood productions to be swallowed hook, line, and sinker by naive Americans. So are you voting for Kerry? Has his article in Forward inspired you.

http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=kerry200408251051

Seems like Kerry as President would be no different than Sen. Leiberman of the Committee on the Present Danger.

Perhaps the "Israeli Spy" scandal will put the kabosh on neo-con dreams that are apparently becoming kosher for a Kerry administration.

I mean "Ivan" ...............

"A grand jury is being selected now in Eastern Virginia. Will it hear evidence not just about Franklin but about other potential targets of the investigation?"

It would seem that if the targets of the investigation are AIPAC people and their higher-level Pentagon contacts, then it would be proper to present evidence about people with whom Franklin had contact to this grand jury. And such evidence would naturally come from Franklin.

Who was going to be arrested before McNulty stepped in?

(btw I'm a lawyer but this is not exactly my area of expertise)

Laura writes: "I think counter intelligence investigations have a different legal process than criminal investigations."

True - there is a different legal process for counterintelligence investigations and criminal investigations.

But if the counterintelligence investigation leads to criminal charges, the standard for a criminal conviction in espionage/intelligence cases is not lessened from "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which governs surveillance and searches related to both government attempts to initiate and/or obtain info in foreign intelligence investigations and (in this case) counterintelligence investigations, as well as the standards for obtaining authorization for such surveillance, is different than that of a garden variety criminal investigation.

For a criminal investigation, you need probable cause that a crime has been, or is being, committed to obtain a search warrant or surviellance order, but you don't necessarily in counterintelligence investigations.

In counterintelligence investigations, (and there are special courts for this) you just need probable cause that the target of the investigation (here, Franklin and maybe some others that you know about) are agents of a foreign power - but not the reasonable belief that they are both agents of a foreign power AND have committed, or is committing, a crime - just that they are foreign agents.

Upon my initial research into the FISA act, that's the main difference. Not the standard for guilt, but the standard for launching an investigation.

And as such, the process distinction at hand could also mean that some information gathered in a counterintelligence context might not be admissible in a criminal court, because it might fail the 4th amendment test of a reasonable search and seizure. And a side issue to that is perhaps sometimes the government wouldn't want to introduce certain evidence in a criminal case because it might be too sensitive anyway.

But it's not like you can convict someone of spying on a "preponderance of evidence" or some lesser standard. At least I don't think you can, but I will look into that further. This is not my area of the law, and someone may know way more than I do on this issue.

"We need help (in English please) from a lawyer here."

Upon re-reading my last post, I'm not sure if the "in English please" qualifies - I should have edited better.

Basically the distinction is that in counterintelligence investigations, the feds do not need any evidence whatsoever that a crime has been, or is being, committed (just the reasonable belief/probable cause that the target is a foreign agent).

To obtain a normal criminal search warrant/surveillance order, the police need probably cause that a crime has been, or is being, committed.

Standards of proof at a criminal trial should not changes based on the nature (i.e. espionage vs. larceny) of the charges.

"When Syria and Iran are democracies, we will have a true ideological not just geographic wedge into the Arab world for Democracy and open markets to flourish.Then we will have the base to the battle with radical Islam."

OK Ivan. This is your America First thinking? What effect will an open market in Syria have on the US economy? When you tally the cost of our present attempt at creating an open market, whatever that really means, in Iraq, with the potential benefits to our (meaning America's) economy, it's a pretty lousy, lopsided equation. It's shocking the burden you people who believe Israel's concerns = US concerns are willing to put on our (American's) children's shoulders.

And I wonder if most Israeli's agree that it is OK to put America in hock for the next half century, to upset our retirement system for generations, to reduce the healthcare we provide to our elderly, in order to harass/shame/manipulate us into attacking Iran and Syria so some Israelis will feel safer despite the fact that they already have nuclear weapons and the best Air Force in the Middle East.

I don't think most Israelis are willing/wanting to do that to America. I think it is the wet dream of a few Likudniks and a large number of American neocons who...I don't know what. What do they really want? It sure isn't democracy in the Middle East. They put no effort into that when planning to invade Iraq. In fact, they quashed efforts in this direction. Their brilliant plan was to place Chalabi as a figurehead Iraqi premier.

And further, the neocons have been dreaming, and writing very publicly, about occupying the Middle East well before al Queda was a real problem for the US. And, they ensured that our campaign against al Queda in Afghanistan failed, and that we didn't get bin Laden, by pulling out our best special ops people, our drones, ect to use in Iraq. I can't fathom what their real goals are. But, I sure would like to see the average Israeli distance themselves from these neocon fantasies. And I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to do so in the near future, marching with "Not In Our Name" signs.

This is such good work, Laura. You are trying so hard, as is so many other people. The journalists, the bloggers, the demonstrators. However, my heart is saying now, "We know. We know so much. Nobody is calling them on it. They get away with so much."
It is becoming something that we all read about in our history books. It's a sinking, depressed kind of feeling. A hopeless kind of feeling. A kind of thought process like, "Maybe I should ask my kids to think about having kids, or may be moving to Canada." I'm 49 years old, married to a director of a major company a and have a masters in education. What can we say to the next ones? How did this happen on our watch?

Karol asks: "And I wonder if most Israeli's agree that it is OK to put America in hock for the next half century, to upset our retirement system for generations, to reduce the healthcare we provide to our elderly."

Of course they don't. But that's not even close to an accurate description of the reality of our foreign aid program - to Israel and all the nations that receive packages.

The size of our Medicare/SSN program dwarfs, by a huge factor, that of our foreign aid program. As of 2002, the present value of Social Security program was something like $13 Trillion and the present value of Medicare program was a heftier $17 Trillion - it's hard to see how $3 or $4 billion puts us "in hock for HALF A CENTURY" or "upsets our retirment system for GENERATIONS" or even "reduces the healthcare we provide the elderly." Of course, it's easy for SOME people (who shall remain nameless) to see just how that would work. But such is life.

Aside from that, much of our foreign aid to Israel (and other countries) is military, which is as much a subsidy to our own defense industry as it is foreign aid, meaning it creates a lot of jobs and wealth in a certain sector (I realize some people don't like that sector), which in turn generates new streams of tax revenue back to the government. It's not a money maker but it's not just throwing money down a hole either, bankrupting our healthcare/retirement system for generations. It's pennies compared to the size of our national retirmenent/health care systems. That doesn't mean it's not important, or could be spent better, but it's hardly the doomsday diversion you present.

_________________________________________________

Having said that, I want to expand on an earlier post about FISA and the 4th Amendment (looking forward to another lawyer correcting - or corroborating - my thoughts on this post and the two previous).

The target of a FISA search most likely has lesser 4th amendment protections. Meaning, if the feds have probable cause that someone is a foreign agent, they can get a FISA surveillance order to watch the guy/gal - just based on the evidence that the individual is a foreign agent. They probably would not need a further criminal warrant if the investigators all the sudden have probable cause that a crime is being committed - because that would defeat the purpose of the lesser FISA standard to begin with.

BUT, if a non-target, whom the feds don't suspect is a foreign agent (and have such, have not requested a surveillance order) should stumble in to an ongoing investigation - a la what the latest reports of Larry Franklin's place in all this have asserted - then he is probably not covered by the FISA surveillance order. Meaning, if the feds witness him committing a crime while directly surveilling another target, legally, than they could arrest and charge Franklin because they witnessed the crime.

However, if Franklin merely stumbles in to the picture, and the feds do not witness him committing a crime, nor do they suspect him as a foreign agent and, as such, do not proceed to obtain a normal criminal surveillance order because they may not be able to under FISA, but proceed to surveille/investigate him anyway, than the 4th amendment would probably kick in and anything found without a criminal surveillance order/search warrant COULD be inadmissable. Same goes for anyone else not subject to the FISA surveillance order if no crime was witnessed or if the feds fail to obtain an additional, proper surveillance order (FISA if they believe the stumbler is also a foreign agent, or a normal criminal one if they believe the person isn't, but then they would need p.c. that a crime has been, or is being, committed. Talking to someone who's a target of surveillance might be enough - but it might not be. Depends on the circumstances.)

Anyway, looking forward to Laura's next story on this topic.

I, too, googled Mr. McNulty and I have to conclude that with his appointment, Mr. Ashcroft has made sure that nothing much will come of any of this.

Mr. McNulty is on Mr. Ashcroft's advisory committee and was involved in the John Walker Lindh case and also the case in VA where the Republican State Committee bugged the Democratic State Committe deliberations on VA state strategy. There were arrests and convictions in both cases, but the conviction and sentencing of Lindh looks more and more like state hysteria. And although three people (including the head of)in the VA Repulican party were convicted, (very minimal sentencing in their cases), McNulty covered for higher Republicans involved and was obstructionist with the evidence that he found (http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/960011.html).

Considering the state of most of Mr. Ashcroft's Terror Prosecutions and Persecutions and the poor law and lawyers that DOJ has used (Detroit) in them, this case won't amount to much and what it does produce will be dealt with in the most convenient way for the Republican Party. The Republicans have taken over this investigation and we all know by now how that works don't we? Google the CPA and Iraq.

Add to all this madness that Bush is probably a stealth Christian Zionist and/or Evangelical End Timer of the "Left Behind" cult, and we are beyond surreal in our predicament. Bush's religious beliefs and those of his base with regard to Apocalypse, Armageddon, Rapture, the return of Jesus Christ, etc., need to be shouted far and wide, especially since the neo-cons can manipulate and maneuver his naive Christian butt to do their bidding since he is already inclined in that direction by his fantastical religious beliefs.

No sane people could ever elect this guy if the bare facts about his religion were laid on the table for all to see!

I'm torn. If Wolfowitz or Feith are implicated (not to mention proven) to have been spying for Israel the ramifcations are huge for American Jewry and Israel. I'm 100% for putting America's interestes first, but I need to express how painful it is to watch this play out, and to contemplate the future of this.

rukus,

Re: the Detroit cases, agreed that the initial prosecutors sucked.

But don't you think it's at least someowhat of a good sign that the DoJ both admitted those mistakes, turned over the potentially exculpatory evidence, and petitioned the court to dismiss the terrorism related charges? It's not like this is an old case that was put on the shelf for years, either.

That's what a Justice Department should do if they find errors in their low level prosecutorial work, and that's what they did.

Not a shining moment, but at least they corrected it.

And there's still the issue of document/visa fraud which was part of the initial case, and will be retried.

Israel has at most ten years left. If I were a fucking zionist I would be buying land in Baja California because Iran already has nucs and it will only be a couple of years from now before Hezbullah is launching these nucs at Israel.

See ya wouldn't want to be ya.

The neo cons are redundant soon they will be like Peter Frampton.

hamid,

Um, don't you think nuking the Israelis will also kill all the Palestinians? (not to mention everone else in the Middle East when Israel retaliates).

Or is it just that you don't think?

And why do you hate the Palestinians and want them all killed?

To SoCalJustice
Here is what I wrote (Karol), "And I wonder if most Israeli's agree that it is OK to put America in hock for the next half century, to upset our retirement system for generations, to reduce the healthcare we provide to our elderly, in order to harass/shame/manipulate us into attacking Iran and Syria."

Here is your response. "Of course they don't. But that's not even close to an accurate description of the reality of our foreign aid program - to Israel and all the nations that receive packages."

Are you being a tad disengenuous here? I didn't state that US foreign aid, as it stands now as percentage of GDP, will break us. My point was that the Iraq mess, followed up by misadventures in Iran and Syria, would send us over the deficit edge for 50 yrs.

Regarding your military aid comments, see this link.

www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe122.html

It appears that in your military analysis you neglect the lost opportunity costs, among other costs, involved when we give Israel high tech military software and they modify it and turn around and sell it, not always to US allies.

Again, I don't believe that ordinary Israelis, who are generally appreciative of the support we provide, approve of this kind of treatment of their biggest ally. And, they surely don't support the outrageous dreams of the more radical Likudniks and their neocon allies.

Karole writes: "Are you being a tad disengenuous here?"

Not intentionally, I just didn't read you right, I guess.

Some people think it's in America's interest to not have hostile, dictatorial and/or ultra-Islamic governments in a region sitting on a controlling share of the world's oil supply.

Our interests in the region our much deeper than supporting Israel - our entire energy program is basically dependent on "friendly" M.E. regimes who control the price of oil. We're hated for propping up those monarchies and there's not much you can do about that until lew rockwell (or one of his readers) discovers cold fusion.

you write: "My point was that the Iraq mess, followed up by misadventures in Iran and Syria, would send us over the deficit edge for 50 yrs."

Gotcha. But I would say "could" is more accurate than "would," as there are a lot of other factors at play that drive our economy. Not to mention not addressing certain situations now could have higher costs down the road.

And again, some people think it's in America's interest to not let Iran have nukes period - having nothing to do with Israel. After all, we don't want North Korea to have them and that has zero to do with the Middle East and our interests there. We just don't like crazy people with nukes - a generally sound policy.

And re: Mr. Rockewll. You mean to tell me that a far-right wing quasi-racist isolationist "liberarian" posted a story on his website, describing opportunity costs I missed?

I'm stunned.

Yeah, you just watch Israel be crazy people with nukes if this "scandal" results in Israel being abandoned and thrown to thw wolves. Ashcroft and all those who know the consequences had better quash this investigation in the spirit of national, not to mention the world's, interest. Samson will bring the whole house down!

AP article referenced:

"Larry Nussbaum, president of AIPAC's chapter in Kansas City, Mo., said in a separate statement that the investigation amounts to 'not only an attack on the organization itself, but on the Jewish community. AIPAC must prove that attacks such as this one will only make us grow stronger.'"

Early in 2001, the Bush administration, upon being briefed about a FBI counterintelligence investigation into whether AIPAC was passing US intelligence to Israel, quickly sought to repair any interruption of US intelligence to Israel by appointing numerous known hard core Israeli sympathizers to key positions in the Defense Department. Known jokingly as "Operation Chutzpah" in the Office of the Vice President, the administration secured its support and approval from the Likud government in Israel, and also reassured its Christian Zionist base at home that this could very well be an auspicious event further securing their ambitions as first revealed by Hal Lindsay's in his book, "The Late Great Planet Earth."

Laura, your blog is tops on following and tracking this story.

Karol your absolutely right that the neocons have been dreaming and writing about occupying the Middle East intervention since the PNAC doc came out in 1997/98 before al Queda became their rationale and justification for their fradulent Iraq war.

You said "I can't fathom what their real goals are".

Here's some thoughts...

1. George W. Bush is the Neocons perfect guy as Pres. because he is so easily duped. Think about election 2000.

Yoyu may also find this to be a provocative read ( I did )
http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040827Leupp.shtml

2. Let's speculate and say the evidence is incriminating i.e. Likud party colluders in Bushco admin. have been in cahoots with with Sharon's Likud Party. What happens next ? Who is going to press the case the FBI or ? Will it happen before Nov 2 ?

3. IMO, for the good of this country and the world we really need Bush out and Kerry in and a regime change in Israel with with Labor party in and Likud party out.

Excellent discussion. Very much enjoyed commentary from SoCalJustics and Ivan. You are bright minds indeed.

Karol seems like he has a closed mind and a chip on his shoulder. Hate is not a family value Karol.
Hamid sounds like an imposter trying to make a point.

Simon - is that your real name or did you just make that up?

Standa - Would you like to leave Arafat in office. How about the mullahs in Iran? Or is the problem solely with Bush and Sharon?

My question, is one I think needs to be asked, but I haven't seen anyone ask it yet...

Why aren't the democrats and specifically John Kerry and John Edwards taking advantage of this as a retort to George Bush's claim that he is better when it comes to defense and security issues?

Or is Fritz Hollings right when he claimed that AIPAC sets US Middle East policy for administrations of both parties? Would it be anti-semetic to state that building a wall to fend off your enemies will only be a temporary solution that can only incite even worse retaliation? What does it say about a country that is constantly under terrorist threats from within its own borders? Perhaps that many of its leaders were once young terrorists themselves? Or perhaps that the only wall that will provide Israel protection from its enemies is a wall comprised of craters made by nuclear weapons. Anyone crossing would instantly die from exposure to radiation. IN the end isn't that really what all of this will lead to?

Salvatore,

To better say what you're saying: SoCal and Ivan are bright Jewish minds indeed; Karol and the rest of the goys ain't too bright, but that's to be expected; Simon is using a fake name, a Jewish name, and posing as a self-hating Jew while in reality he's an anti-Semite; and Hamid is a son of Ham.

I like Sam's take on the matter.

Calm down, Piero, calm down. Now to answer your question as to whether Kerry will take advantage of this, you only need to read the following to see the light:

http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=kerry200408251051

BTW, Hollings was right, he was there.

"BTW, Hollings was right"

Let's check Fritz Hollings' history of being "right":

1) "Hollings stands by statements"
Posted on Sun, Aug. 17, 2003
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/6552430.htm

"Given the chance in a recent interview to step away from some of his more controversial statements, U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings instead defended them.

The 81-year-old Charleston Democrat declined to repudiate his use of the words:

• "Wetbacks" to refer to Mexican immigrants

• "Blackbow Coalition" when referring to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition

• "Cannibals" in reference to leaders of African nations."

2) "Gov. Fritz Hollings moved S.C. forward"
http://www.charleston.net/stories/081003/com_10bass.shtml

"Hollings has acknowledged that early in his career he made "some of the finest segregationist speeches"

3) "Democratic bigots" by Jake Tapper (Salon.com)
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/17/rights/print.html

"Watts was on target, for instance, when he slammed Democrats for failing to mention that it was one of their own, Hollings, who was instrumental in beginning South Carolina's Confederate flag mess. The Democratic Party is just as wimpy when one of its own flashes a glimmer of a sheet; there was little outrage on the Democratic side when Hollings called Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, "the senator from B'nai B'rith," or when he called blacks "darkies" or Latinos "wetbacks," or when he joked that African heads of state were cannibals."

I think that's enough for now.

Bob Dreyfuss @ TomPaine (http://tompaine.com)has been on the US Israeli spy network matter much longer than War & Piece (see his article today). He has many times pointed out that the network is longstanding, extensive, participated in by US Zionist organizations, by Zionists in the US government, that these facts have long been known, but that Congree will not investigate them for fear of the Israel Lobby (remember Cynthia McKinney?).

SoCal,

You was just waiting for somebody to mention Hollings. You jumped on him tout suite. Had your case at hand.

But one MUST read Hollings (link below) and make your own mind up. He may be a bit prejudiced coming from the Old South, but he's no anti-Semite, in fact he loves the Jewish people. Read his eloquent speech.

http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2004521A35.html

Bob, sorry to burst your bubble, but I wasn't "waiting" for anything.

Have you heard of something called "google"?

It's a *search engine* on the *internet* and it's *really fast.*

I never called him an anti-Semite or anything else.

I just googled stories about his own words and his history of racism, which are common knowledge because they've marked his whole career dating back to when he was a full-blown segregationist.

I notice you have no comment on his actual statements, but rather some lame attempt to read my mind cuz you must be right about your preconceived notions on everything. Typical.

And yeah, calling a Jewish Senator from Ohio the Senator "from B'nai Brith" - yeah, he loves Jews. Just like he loves "wetbacks" and "nigras" and "chinamen" and "cannibal african leaders."

You excuse his racism and blindly accept his spin control because you like this pet issue.

Fine, but it's nothing more than that.

SoCal, Yeah, you google and you read so damn fast and pick out all the perjoratives he used in his 40+ year career, all in just 20 minutes. You were layin' for him, don't lie. And there's nothing wrong with being from B'nai Brith!

Now go read what I told you to; or have you already when you assembled your case on him whenever, but not in the last hour!

Bob,

Look. Do the google search yourself - this stuff comes up in one or two searches, max. It's really, really not that hard, nor should it be that hard to understand. But I'll try and explain it to you, since you're kind of embarrassing yourself now.

you write: "pick out all the perjoratives he used in his 40+ year career"

I don't know if they are ALL the ones he used. They are the ones that came up in one or two google searches, each took less than 5 seconds.

I admit I knew about his comments - everyone who's paid attention to politics knows about his past - and (pay attention now) so the way the internet works is if you know something, it's not hard to find it because you can type it into a search engine and it pops up, depending on the speed of one's internet connection, in a matter of seconds.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

you write: "Now go read what I told you to."

Get a life, Bob. Get a clue first.

Josh Marshall's latest:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_29.php#003428

"From a story in Saturday's Washington Post, we now have more evidence that the Larry Franklin investigation goes well beyond Larry Franklin.

According to the Post, FBI investigators are looking at people in Feith's office (Harold Rhode), Cheney's office (David Wurmser) and on the Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle).

I'm swamped at the moment working on another project. But note that the people in question track almost exactly with the list of the most ardent supporters of Ahmed Chalabi in the administration.

Be sure to read this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60497-2004Sep3.html).

More later."

From: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)

"The Right Issue, The Wrong Solution"

"September 3 - The most significant challenge in developing future U.S. national security policy is not a question of how to fight terrorism, but what to do about rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions. So we were pleased when Sen. John Edwards took a stab at formulating a pro-active policy toward Iran, but can't say we were terribly pleased with the result."

For the whole article see:
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/650/documentid/2664/history/3,2359,650,2664

The article says, in effect, that Kerry/Edwards will be too soft on Iran for JINSA tastes, but they still haven't heard any clear policy toward Iran from Bush. I suspect that JINSA's ardent wish is for Bush to go neo-con on Iran, and pursue "regime change" by force, which is not feasible, so the only alternative is to bomb their nuclear facilities, which the neo-cons like just as well. Whatever the consequences, that too shall pass.

We must protect Israel not matter what the consequences are, or we betray our closest friends.

Ok Bob, I'm going to sleep.

But I'll be sure to try and dream about the next person you're going to post about so I can have my team of highly paid researchers put together a dossier on his/her (whoever it is) entire career.

OR, I'll do what I did tonight, which is see someone post something and then use google (again, searches take about 5 seconds) to find some relevant background information and share it with the group.

Good night.

SoCal,
I'm sorry I upset you and acted in a high-handed way. It was wrong. I like Fritz, with his deep southern drawl. He oughtn't make no fun of people, but he's got an odd sense of humor, that's all. Granted he'd be no good as a diplomat, and he's hurt some feelings on the way. We all have. But his insiders view of how AIPAC works the Congresses and administrations is a breadth of fresh air, since its common knowledge in Washington but never spoken to. I know its sensitive for some, and they would rather just keep the situation under wraps. But if you have the time, go read Hollings speech. It must be read with his deep voice and southern accent in mind. Better yet read it out loud in that manner. If you don't know of his unique voice, imagine or do the cartoon character "Fog Horn Leg Horn" and you got it. The speech is a hoot! It's at

http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2004521A35.html

Again, sorry if I got your blood up, I was uncivil.

SoCal,

I'm sorry if I was a little flippant in my comments but what I was saying is actually exactly what the Likudniks are saying, that a nuclear armed Iran is a grave threat to Israel. I went a bit further to say that they already have weapons. With their close relationship to North Korea, I am sure this is correct, not to mention the possiblilty that Iran's own domestic nuclear program may already be producing weapons.

You next point was quite puzzling, you seemed to say that terrorists, bent on destroying the Jewish state, will be too rational to destoy Israel becasue of possible collateral damage to Palastinians. I would refer you to the slaughter of over 200 children yesterday in Russia as to the rationality of terrorists. MAD does not function properly with madmen.

Next you seem to implying that I actually want all this to happen. Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons, they are going to slaughter hundreds of millions of Arabs with these if they are attacked with nuclear weapons. I personally don't want to see another person die in this conflict. So, no, despite my name and my annoying habit of being overly flippant about serious issues, I am not rooting for Israel to be wiped out in a nuclear terrorist attack. Not that my opinion on the matter is of much importance to anyone. The madmen will make their own choices on the matter, I differ with you in that i am pessimistic as to the rationality of these terrorists.

And yes SoCal, I quite often do think, you should try it some time.

Sal,

you are right, I thought it would be interesting to make a slightly provocative statement and sign it with an Arab name and see if anyone went ballistic.

There are a number of conditioned reflex attitudes on display here. Israel is not a democracy, nor is it an ally of the USA. It is a good customer for the military industrial establishment, but the latter is not 'America'.
It seems to me that the Franklin story was leaked in order to retard the investigation into who leaked the NSA Iran decrypts to AIPAC's Steve Rosen, who gave them to the Israeli Embassy's Naor Gilon. This is what I referred to in a previous post here as 'the other shoe'.

Sal it's not easy to have a discussion when it is necessary to play 'catch-up' with persons who attempt to join a debate bringing little in the way of knowledge and much in the way of ignorance.

No need to repeat what I already stated in
standa September 4, 2004 12:29 AM

"Israel is not a democracy, nor is it an ally of the USA."

Sigh.

From the State Department's Website:
Government
Type: Parliamentary democracy.

U.S.-ISRAELI RELATIONS
Commitment to Israel's security and well being has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Israel's creation in 1948, in which the United States played a key supporting role. Israel and the United States are bound closely by historic and cultural ties as well as by mutual interests. Continuing U.S. economic and security assistance to Israel acknowledges these ties and signals U.S. commitment. The broad issues of Arab-Israeli peace have been a major focus in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. U.S. efforts to reach a Middle East peace settlement are based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and have been based on the premise that as Israel takes calculated risks for peace, the United States will help minimize those risks.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.htm

Is that enough for Israel haters? Not in a million years. Big deal.

There are eight Arab members of the Knesset right now, and one Arab supreme court justice. The Arab MK's are the only actual democratically elected Arab legislators in the entire Middle East, the only ones not serving in a totalitarian dictatorship/monarchy.

Is Israel perfect? Is it Canada? Of course not. It's in the frickin' Middle East. But it is by far and away the most democratic country in the entire region. The only people who seem to love to deny that are the typical readership of the far-right wing lewrockwell.com or the far-left wing counterpunch (both of which have been posted in this discussion - surprise!), and who probably don't feel that America is a democracy either, but rather AmeriKKKa the fascist (Or AmeriKKK the welfare) state, depending on which side of the fringe one inhabits.

Just in case anyone's harboring any illusions about the lewrockwell crowd, here's an "article" prominently featured on his website:

"Voting Is Evil"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds223.html

It's a good message for the kids, doncha think?

I think the reason Kerry has not made this an issue yet is that it could quickly become an anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish thing. He needs to make this a national security issue by connecting Feith/Wolfowitz with Chalabi/Iran. Maybe he figures that the case has not ripened yet for that. I think he will wait until
the end of Sept to make that issue, after establishing his economy/jobs/healthcare creds with swing voters. Then he will lower the boom on Bush with national security/Iraq messup. But I have a feeling that Rove also knows this and he has one more move left - capturing Osama in Oct.
Now Kerry needs a countermove for that.
Or, just Chalabi/Iran two-way (Niger forgery from Iran through Italian SISMI and then US intel leak to Iran) may be enough for Kerry.

One thing I don't understand though is this.
If WH and NSC had known about FBI spy investigation since 2001, why didn't they cover tracks more carefully? Why didn't they warn Feith/Wolfie to outsmart the FBI? I think they were all in it(Bush/Cheney and DoD neocons), but aren't they smart enough to be way above or too below the FBI radar?

Some light on this please.

ecoast writes: "If WH and NSC had known about FBI spy investigation since 2001, why didn't they cover tracks more carefully? Why didn't they warn Feith/Wolfie to outsmart the FBI?"

Those are really, really good questions. Maybe they did. Maybe they underestimated the interest of the FBI. The FBI investigates lots of things that never end up resulting in criminal charges, and/or maybe they thought they were untouchable or that they THOUGHT they weren't doing anything wrong so that they had nothing to worry about.

I think there's enough evidence to show that, despite what one thinks of Feith, that he's been pretty sloppy on several occasions, and that's putting it nicely. So him screwing up in this instance would not be too big a surprise.

SoCal is SoRight in saying that our discussion of this issue needs to be more moderate, more centrist, eschewing the extreme stances taken on the far Right and far Left. A move to the middle by all will appeal to ones rationality and bring understanding, while the extremes can only incite emotion and ill will.

The center on this issue, as I see it, is, yes, Israel receives a great deal of intelligence from the US, and visa versa. Very little of that passes through unauthorized channels, and those who deal in that manner are fools who should be punished, since there is no need to pass intelligence between the US and Israel under the table. Also, just because some wrong-doers affiliated with neoconservatives in government have sullied the special relationship with their unwarranted actions, it is not in the best interest of anyone concerned with the well-being of the US and Israel to abandon neoconservative strategies which in the long haul will make us all very proud and happy. Being proactive and aggressive in the present state of world affairs is necessary to prevail. Being on the defensive is not an option, for it will lead to our destruction. Thus, an effort needs to be made by doubters to better understand the neoconservative agenda in the Middle East with special attention paid to the rewards and benefits upon its successful enactment. We need to stick together behind those formulating Middle East policy in this current administration and in the next. Keep your eye on the prize, a more peaceful world.

SoCal, I am also a devotee of the school that says, without equivocation, that if a person or organization has some opinions that are outlandish, or just plain wrong, that it necessarily follows that everything they say or have ever said is probably gravely mistaken as well. Being a lawyer I love this rationale. All I have to do is find where any witness has ever lied, or had nutty opinions, and I can wholly discredit them in the eyes of a jury. It's so simple to do to most people. The prosecution may try to rehabilitate by citing times the witness had told the truth, but its futile when confronted with facts that the witness had lied once. The same goes with lewrockwell. Anything he says is balderdash since he apparently thinks voting is evil. And Hollings, man, he can't be right about nothing when you take into account some of the things he has said. Is their a Latin name for this type of logical operation?

SoCalJustice:

The answer is they are simply arrogant. Look at what they are doing now. Bush/Cheney think they own the universe.They keep repeating the same liesover and over again w/o paying penalties. The polls show they are ahead ever so slightly but it comfirms their belief that nothing will stop them. The lies have not hurt yet so why stop now.

Bush is worse than Nixon, because he is meaner, nastier. It belies his nice-guy image but I guess people want to see what they want to see/believe.

Defending Israel is not the problem but when our goverment does illegal dealings to push their agendas then they must be taken down. Imagine 4 more years of Bush/Cheney when they don't have to run for election again.

carborundum:

Funny (well, not really, but anyway).

The saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The question is, are they right about this or not? Look - if someone you know has an outlandish/racist history says something on an important issue, is it totally off base to bring up that outlandish/racist history and then try to place the issue in context?

You might think so. Others might not. Whatever.

Paul writes: "Paul writes: "it is not in the best interest of anyone concerned with the well-being of the US and Israel to abandon neoconservative strategies which in the long haul"

That's definitely something that's open to debate. I think Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al are playing with fire and it is completely understandable - even outside the partisan context - that because of their shortsightedness in dealing with the post-planning of Iraq, that confidence in their ability to effectuate their articulated goals has been severely undermined - even if you happen to agree with those goals.

If you don't, then it's a bigger discussion altogether.

dee,

I didn't see your post before I pressed "post" on my last one.

I agree, they are arrogant - so is the whole Bush administration - and it's a problem.

I can understand from their point of view that they are hestitant to admit mistakes in such a closely divided nation with an election on the line - but they've clearly made a lot and their insistence that they know what they're doing is sometimes maddening, and, like all politicians, they are guilty of putting politics above what many consider to be the national interests.

But, according to the latest polls, in Time Magazine, the majority of registered voter Americans don't seem perturbed, or at least not enough to vote for Kerry. Which I find strange.

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html

Time Magazine's poll of likely voters, conducted over the course of the convention: Bush 52%, Kerry 41%, Nader 3%.

(hat tip: Josh Marshall).

Hard to believe the gap is that wide with the state of the country/world.

The polls will narrow I have no doubt but the disturbing behaviors have not changed. At least the FBI leaks have temporarily stopped the Iran war drumbeats for now plus the election is coming.

I'd like to see Bush suffers the same fate like Nixon did though. Resign even if he wins. That would be the day the world will celebrate. but Bush and Cheney are smart, they came very close to that legal line but have not crossed that line yet or at least we don't evidences they have crossed the line yet. I am sure somewhere in the WH's safe lies a smoking gun. Cheney's energy papers maybe ?

Socal - Re Time mag poll, here is another poll -
WSJ battleground states poll.
Of the 16 battleground states, Kerry is leading in 14 and Bush in 2. Bush's 2 states are OH and WV, states he won in 2000. Kerry is leading in all Gore states plus 2000 Bush states ARK, FL, MO, NV, NH, TN. These are all within in margin of error except OH.

Whoever is the most evil will win the election. America for the most part loves the "bad boy." As long as Bush keeps walking around like a cowboy ready to draw both six shooters and his campaign ridiculing the manliness of Kerry and the "Breck girl," then its all over. No country in fear will vote for wimps over real men tough guys. So as long as Bush and gang can keep up the relentless machismo, they will win hands down. As far has trying to win this election with incisive arguements, it a loser. Nobody wants to think, they just want to win, and winners are not wimps. The "War President" wins, go Cowboys, America's team!

On the response about my reference to Fritz Hollings:

SoCalJustice I must assume you have never lived in the deep south. I think he is sincere in his explanation about his comment to Metzenbaum and his anti-semitism.

Why?
In Savannah they have the second largest St. Patrick's parade and celebration after Boston. The history of the parade and celebration goes fairly far back... Savannah is a much older city than Atlanta. Apparently the wealthy mechants and city fathers at the time, Jewish and Episcopalian, decided to have the parade in order to keep the unruly Irish Catholic shanty dwellers in line. Jewish political influence in cities such as Charleston and Savannah go pretty far back into the "dark ages".

This occurred well before Fritz Hollings was born. I think Fritz Hollings would not have been elected, especially initially, without their support.

Larry Nussbaum, president of AIPAC's chapter in Kansas City, Mo., said in a separate statement that the investigation amounts to "not only an attack on the organization itself, but on the Jewish community. AIPAC must prove that attacks such as this one will only make us grow stronger."

Sure looks like worst case scenario to me... AIPAC is saying its "us" versus "them" or Jews against the world instead of US as in the United States versus Israeil Likud and Neo Con attempts to annex the west bank after destroying all of its strongest threats.

I am certain that Viktor Frankl would be horrifiedby what is occuring in the middle east. Viktor Frankl spent time in 3 concentration camps and refined his invention of logotherapy as a result. Ariel Sharon did not spend any time in a concentration camp but he, like Menachem Begin and others did put it a few years as a terrorist.

If you vote for or with Sharon, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, the Likud then you are voting for George Wallace because the last time I looked Arabs are also a semite people and these individuals must surely be anti-semites.

To SoCalJustice:

Oops. You did it again friend.
I (Karol)provided this link:

www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe122.html

And you responded (8:45)with this.
"And re: Mr. Rockewll. You mean to tell me that a far-right wing quasi-racist isolationist "liberarian" posted a story on his website, describing opportunity costs I missed?"

You obviously didn't follow the link. The article, which is posted at lewrockwell.com is written by Jim Lobe, an IPS Washington correspondent for the last 23 years. I am no expert on l.rockwell and couldn't really tell you what his orientation is. The Jim Lobe article has been widely passed around on the web lately and I don't see anyone arguing with his facts in the article. I first found the link on Juan Cole's site. A number of sites are lauding the article for the effort Lobe took in putting all the neocon investigations of the last 20 years into one article. I believe it is all info that is in the public domain, accessible to anyone wanting to make the effort to find it. Why don't you read it before dismissing it so out of hand.

I'm just a concerned American citizen trying to discern the facts. And like most here I am grateful to Ms. Rozen for providing this forum. Sol (12:34) thinks I have a closed mind and a chip on my shoulder and further informs me that "hate is not a family value." Moise (12:51) thinks I am a goy who is not too bright. Well, I am a typical American citizen. Not exceptionally bright and not exceptionally dull. So keep this in mind. If someone like me is concerned enough to try and keep abreast of this story then I think you can take it as a clear sign that that the typical American citizen has had enough and is ready to push for a full investigation into the neocon/AIPAC/radical Likudnik network and their agenda.

If someone like me, a person who historically has not begrudged the fact that my tax money props up Israel, is at the point where I am starting to question the nature of our relationship, and weigh the pros and cons, then it's pretty clear that the Likud govt has overplayed its hand.

Think what you will. I am being sincere when I say I don't have some mindless hatred of Israel. In an earlier post I stated that I suspect that the average Israeli is abashed at the way the Likud party is treating their incredibly generous US ally.

Personally, I don't see how any average American can or should be comfortable when some members of another country, be it Britain, Israel, Australia or any other close ally, start claiming that we have the same concerns and the same agenda in the word. America, for good or ill, is the preeminent economic and military power in the word. No one has the same agenda as we do because no one has the heavy role we do. No other country's word or footprint has the weight of ours. Further, I don't see how any other average American citizen can or should be comfortable with certain members of our government basing foreign policy on the needs of a ally over the best interests of the US.
I don't hate Israel. I am rightously indignant that the neocons and Likudniks have taken gross advantage of the fact that the current US president is so easy to manipulate.

Read this link, which is only a summation of facts and then let's talk seriously about whether American sovereignty is in peril or not.

www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe122.html

ecoast:

Thanks for posting that poll.

Wouldn't it be amazingly ironic if Bush won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote?

Piero:

I live in Washington D.C. now - but I lived in Atlanta, GA for 5 years before I moved up here (after being born and raised in Southern California - hence my nic), but was not involved in politics - neither am I now in any other way than as an observer/voter.

Re: Ariel Sharon - I'm not necessarily a big fan, but I think that comparison you draw is false, as there are 8 Arabs in the Knesset and the first permanent (although second in history) Arab Israeli supreme court justice appointment happened during Sharon's tenure. I don't think George Wallace would have allowed for that in the his government.

Karol, you write: "You did it again friend."

I don't think so.

You write: "You obviously didn't follow the link."

I already read Lobe's story on another site. Being an "IPS" correspondent for 23 years does not impress me. The fact that it's on lewrockwell, IMO, is a bad sign. Other people are free to disagree, of course.

The fact that Juan Cole linked to it is unsurprising - because his feelings about Israel are well known.

I find Cole illuminating, sometimes, about Iraq and especially Shi'ites. About the I/P conflict, however, his bias is startling.

I'm grateful for Ms. Rozen's forum too.

I wonder why peoople who see themselves as the thought police of political debate always seem to give themselves nicknames that include either the word 'justice' or the word 'freedom'. I suspect it's the effect of TV during childhood, where super-heroes make the world safer and in the ad breaks super washing powders make it cleaner too. Oh, America,if you had any allies, they wouldn't be democracies ...

SoCalJustice

I have engaged in dialogue because in some of your earlier posts you appeared to be open minded about analyzing facts as they came in order to weigh the seriousness of the investigations. At this point you are merely shooting the messengers.

If the paragraph below is true then all Americans should be deeply concerned. I don't care what country is the recipient. We simply cannot have a few high level govt employees giving highly sensitive, top secret technology, without proper approval, to another country that they happen to admire. If we do not address this what is to stop another group that happens to favor Argentina or Greece or Ireland or whomever? And, as this type of secret transfer, and the power of AIPAC over foreign policy becomes transparent, this creates quite an incentive for other countries to form a powerful PAC in the US and start having undue influence over foreign policy.

"During his tenure, according to one source with personal knowledge of Bryen's work, "the U.S. shut down transfers to western Europe and Japan (which were depicted as too ready to sell them to Moscow) and opened up a back door to Israel" – a pattern that became embarrassingly evident after Perle left office and the current deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, took over in 1987. Soon, Armitage was raising serious questions about Bryen's approval of sensitive exports to Israel without appropriate vetting by other agencies."

Is it just coincidence that Perle was able to accomplish this when we had another president who was famously easy to manipulate, especially as his Alzheimer's symptons had become pretty obvious by 1987?

SoCal,

Juan Cole calls for Israel to immediately withdraw to its 1967 borders. In fact, up to a couple of months ago, this was official US policy. Is it biased against Israel to call for her to give up the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank, all territories taken during its "pre-emptive strike" that was the 1967 war.

Was it biased against Iraq to call for it to give up the occupied territory of Kuwait in 1991?

Israel has at least twice withdrawn from territory it occupies, the Sinai desert and southern Lebanon. Was Israel biassed against itself when it told its troops to quit these areas.

By the way, because a country is a democracy does not give it carte blanche to do n'importe quoi.

"Juan Cole calls for Israel to immediately withdraw to its 1967 borders."

Perhaps Juan Cole also calls for reciprocal Palestinian concessions: immediate cessation of their war of aggression and relinquishment of their claimed right of return. But of course if your view is that one side is totally wrong and the other side merely has to pocket a remedy for that wrong in order to advance a strategy for vanquishing the other side, then your view may fairly be characterized as, well, biased.

And it is equally true that a fascist kleptocracy does not have carte blanche to do n'importe quoi.

FYI -- Jim Lobe's long-standing coverage of the neoconservatives is as likely to turn up on the center/left-oriented Alternet, TomPaine or Foreign Policy in Focus as it is on libertarian web sites like Lew Rockwell or Antiwar.com -- common cause has become the rule. Anyone leery of Lew Rockwell need only cross-reference through Google.

As Laura hasn't yet posted it, here is Bob Dreyfuss' latest and most challenging interpretation of the investigation:

On Monday, in this space, I stated what for me was obvious: that Larry Franklin, the apparent Israeli spy, and Ahmad Chalabi, the known Israeli spy and leading Friend of Neocons, were peas in a pod. I wrote:
Let's assume that Chalabi and Franklin, two lower-level operatives for the same machine, are still working together. And that the machine, the great Neoconservative Empire Machine and its Israeli right-wing allies, is what needs to be investigated.

Today’s Washington Post reports exactly that. It’s a stunning break in the Franklin case, which isn’t really the Franklin case at all, but a broader counterintelligence inquiry aimed at the Pentagon’s nest of spies run by Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Bill Luti. The circle, it ought to be obvious, is blissfully leaking secrets to the likes of Chalabi and AIPAC, and apparently blundered not once, but twice now—most recently when they sent Franklin stumbling into a meeting with AIPAC and the Embassy of Israel. Says the Post:
FBI counterintelligence agents are investigating whether several Pentagon officials leaked classified information to Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to a law enforcement official and other people familiar with the case.

Several sources familiar with the case say the probe now extends to other Pentagon personnel who have a particular interest in assisting both Israel and Chalabi, the former Iraqi dissident who was long a Pentagon favorite but who has fallen out of favor with the U.S. government.

Hmm. Who could that be? Which “personnel” might want to assist both Israel and Chalabi? Now the point is, assisting Israel and Chalabi makes sense because they are the same thing. And of course Chalabi isn’t spying for Iran, unless you think trying to build up the already existing Iran-Israel axis (remember Iran-contra) means spying for Iran. Chalabi is on Israel’s team, and vice versa, and so are the neocons. For a decade, they’ve been scheming to topple Saddam Hussein, wreak havoc in the Arab world, and boost the security of Israel. Before that, from 1979 to 1988, Israel supported Iran in its war with Iraq, helped arm the mullahs, and built strong connections to Iran’s military-industrial complex. Chalabi has multiple ties to the Israelis, and both have multiple ties to Iran and to various components of Iraq’s restive Shiite gangs.

The Post quotes a follower of Feith and Co. charging that the whole spy inquiry is just some petty CIA vendetta against “neoconservatives”:
Another official, an ideological ally of Feith's, said, however, that the investigation is part of an effort by some in the intelligence community to discredit Pentagon hawks. "This is part of a civil war within the administration, a basic dislike between the old CIA and neoconservatives," the official said.

But since when are “the CIA” and “neoconservatives” equal players? The CIA and the FBI are charged with protecting national security, a job that they do with, let’s say, uneven success. But the neoconservatives have a decades-long history of spying for Israel. This has long been known to U.S. counterintelligence officials. For the first time in memory it seems that the CIA and the FBI are actually doing something about it.

The N.Y. Daily News—the Daily News!—reports that the real target of the investigation is the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. (Anyone seen Abe Shulsky lately? What’s he doing anyway? Shulsky was the first director of OSP, and I was the first to out him in The American Prospect in 2002.). Anyway, the Daily News :
An unorthodox Pentagon outfit responsible for much of the Bush administration's discredited intelligence on Iraq is the target of a broad FBI national security probe, sources told the New York Daily News Wednesday.

The secretive Office of Special Plans and a related project are being investigated over how they obtained top-secret intelligence and whom they shared it with, according to four federal sources.

"It involves the improper transfer of information," said one source briefed on the case. "A lot more is going to come out."

So AIPAC is being watched, the Israeli Embassy has clammed up, AEI is not saying much and Franklin is getting ready to sing in front of a grand jury:
Franklin is expected to testify about his activities next week before a federal grand jury, said a fifth federal source.

The intelligence source said it's not clear what, if anything, Franklin will be charged with, "but I doubt it will be full-blown espionage." No, it will be half-blown espionage. Or, make that fully blown.

Now since the investigation was announced to Condi Rice and Steve Hadley two years ago, the question is: Did they tell Elliot Abrams? If so, they blew the investigation, because Abrams is part of the conspiracy. I hope the FBI was watching who told who what at the White House, but it’s obvious that this investigation was known to all the principals since 2002. I suppose they assumed they were so powerful that no one, no one would accuse them of being spies. We’ll see. That rag, the New York Sun—home of Eli Lake, junior mouthpiece of neocons—is reporting that the Attorney General Ashcroft himself is intervening in the case, possibly because his special pipeline to Jesus told him that Zionists must be protected at all costs. From the Sun :
According to sources familiar with the investigation, the U.S. district attorney in charge of the probe, Paul McNulty, has ordered the FBI not to move forward with arrests that they were prepared to make last Friday when the story broke on CNN and CBS. 'He put the brakes on it in order to look at it,' a source familiar with the investigation told the Sun. 'To see what was there. Basically the FBI wanted to start making arrests and McNulty said "Woa, based on what? Let's look at this before you do anything.”

Mr. McNulty was only assigned the case by Attorney General Ashcroft last Friday when federal agents came to AIPAC's offices in Washington to request files and hard drives. 'Ashcroft wanted to make sure this case was being handled properly,' the source familiar with the probe said. 'I would not expect any action on this for at least three weeks.' This source added that a grand jury is now being selected, but it was likely the charges, initially reported as espionage, would be scaled back to the mishandling of classified information.

Sure, let’s “scale it back.” Why not? It’s only a few neoconservatives.

Rowan,

Nice psychoanalysis, amounting to absolutely nothing.

Thanks for trying.

Juan writes: "Israel has at least twice withdrawn from territory it occupies, the Sinai desert and southern Lebanon. Was Israel biassed against itself when it told its troops to quit these areas."

Look, someone already commented on this - and one quote from Mr. Cole doesn't illustrate his history on the entire topic, but Egypt and Israel came to an agreement, in which Israel has clearly shown that they are willing to give back massive tracts of land in exchange for a peace agreement. But it should be a reciprocal situation, as U.N. 242 calls for.

He places the blame on one side, consistently. That just doesn't really bear out in reality.

Again, Juan writes: "Was it biased against Iraq to call for it to give up the occupied territory of Kuwait in 1991?"

Not at all a comparable situation to 1967. And rather amazing that some people can't see that. And there are U.N. resolutions governing the situation, which Syria, Lebanon, Iraq (and the Arab League in general) have not met the qualifications necessary (i.e. end to hostilities in the region) that would precipitate the requirement of the cessation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel. And despite the continued hostilities, the Barak administration had tried to negotiate much of what Arafat claimed (in English) that he wanted.

One of my many personal frustrations with the Bush administration is their lack of engagement in the conflict. However, I can understand how certain "peace minded" individuals in the administration might be hesitant to engage because the intifada is ongoing. And if Arafat "claims" he can't control it, as he does in English (while ordering a million martyrs to descend upon Jerusalem in Arabic), then the peace minded folks will feel doomed to failure. The hawkish folks think nothing can be done unless Israel wins outright. And that's a frustrating place to be for those that want to see a peaceful, two-state solution with a shared capital in Jerusalem and a fair compensation regime for refugees. And that's not to mention the intransigence on the Arab side - something Mr. Cole really doesn't like to talk about.

Karol: "I have engaged in dialogue because in some of your earlier posts you appeared to be open minded about analyzing facts as they came in order to weigh the seriousness of the investigations. At this point you are merely shooting the messengers."

I still am interested in analyzing facts, but part of that, at least for me, is considering the source. As I said, I had already read that Lobe story, and I found it on another site. IT happened to be another far-right wing, quasi racist, isolationist "libertarian" site run by the same people affiliated with rockwell.

You write: "We simply cannot have a few high level govt employees giving highly sensitive, top secret technology, without proper approval, to another country that they happen to admire. And, as this type of secret transfer, and the power of AIPAC over foreign policy becomes transparent, this creates quite an incentive for other countries to form a powerful PAC in the US and start having undue influence over foreign policy."

Re: the techonology. I don't disagree. Everything needs to go through the proper channels. And just because Israel and the U.S. already work together on many military technology advances and have strong ties does not mean that they should have access to unauthorized stuff. If someone broke the law, punish them.

Re: powerful lobbies. The incentive is alreday there. And that's exactly what the Saudis have been doing in DC, spreading around money to every former State Department official they can.

So there is already an incentive for countries to have powerful lobbies - and I'm not against policing that, and I'm certainly not against catching people who have broken the law, and trying/sentencing them.

If that has happened here, than I would want to see justice done. But I have also seen a lot of hysterical responses from some of the usual suspects based on Leslie Stahl's initial report, which has not stood up after a week.

Thanks for Else's post.

Two things.

Where in heaven's name does Bob Dreyfuss get "Ahmad Chalabi, the known Israeli spy"?

Chalabi is an alleged spy for Iran, not Israel. That he shares supporters in Feith's office who are now being investigated for possible Israeli espionage does not make Chalabi an Israeli spy.

The irony of the reality is that the very most anti Tehran zealots, through their blind support for Chalabi, may have given the real US crown jewels on Iran leaked to Iran, via Chalabi, is much biting than Dreyfuss' "conflation" of Chalabi with the Israeli spies.

Secondly, I meant to point out that Rep. Conyers' is calling today for the case to be assigned to someone other than McNulty.

Dreyfuss's presentation of the situation is at first glance, I will grant you, somewhat counter-intuitive. It has the merit, however, of reminding us that:

- Israel and Iran were quite a frolicsome pair during the Iran-Contra affair (imagine arming the mullahs...);

- DoD was allegedly leaking simultaneously to Chalabi and to Israel re Iran.

Basic Assumption: DoD must have thought it was good for Israel.

Deduction: A convergence of Chalabi-Israeli interests somewhere in the vicinity of a particular Iranian solution or faction?

Mind you, this is a deduction concerning what is in Dreyfuss's mind, not necessary reality.

I still can't figure out how it came to pass that Chalabi was vacationing in a chalet outside of Teheran.

else writes:

"Basic Assumption: DoD must have thought it was good for Israel."

Do you hold open the possibility that DoD must have thought it was good for the U.S. too? Don't you think a lot of Americans would like to see both a nuclear free Iran and a less religiously-extreme/Mullah dominated government? Not suggesting that MEK is the answer, either, btw. Iran is no easy foreign policy situation, no matter where one sits in the political spectrum.

One can think he/she is acting in the best interests of the U.S. and sidestep proper channels at the same time - which still may be illegal. It appears that this is what Franklin thought he was doing when he stumbled into a counterintelligence operation.

That's why I asked early on about the extent to which a turf war is behind this story. Obviously Americans, of all stripes, have a different interpretation of what constitutes "American interests."

There are certain people very engaged/interested in this debate (IMO, on the edges, but nevertheless super excited) who's first assumption is "Good for Israel" = "Bad for the U.S." And that is a different sentiment than the eminently reasonable and entirely correct statement that U.S. and Israeli interests are not always exactly the same.

Personally, I believe occupied people have the right to resort to violence to evict an occupying army. I am not so certain about the right of the occupied people to kill settlers or to kill civilians in the country that is occupying them.

This means that if the USSR had occupied the USA I would personally have tried to kill the occupying Soviet soldiers.

I believe it was right for the French Resistance to attack and kill occupying Nazi soldiers.

I believe it was right for Algerians to to attack and kill occupying French soldiers.

I believe it was right for Iraqis to to attack and kill occupying American soldiers.

And I believe it is right for Palestinians to attack and kill occupying Israeli soldiers.

As for the killing of civilians, what would you have done if the Soviets had started to colonize the US? Would Russian colonists have been a fair target? Would killing their children be OK? I tend to lean towards no, but then again I am not sure because I have never lived under occupation.

What do you think?

Juan asks: "What do you think?"

I think your calculus doesn't apply to the I/P conflict because the overwhelming percentage of Palestinian violence directed at Israelis has been at civilian targets, and not military ones.

So if you truly believed your first paragraph, where you wrote: "I am not so certain about the right of the occupied people to kill settlers or to kill civilians in the country that is occupying them" then your view of the conflict would likely be different, because for the most part, the targets of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the PLO, the PLFP, etc.. are and have been civilians, be they in cafes, malls, markets, pizza parlors, discos, bus stops, busses, airline passengers or at the olympics, to name a few notorious targets.

So I don't see how your last post really applies, because what you suggest you support in the first sentence is not illustrative of the reality on the ground in Israel/Palestine.

And there are other specifics to which I disagree, but I don't have time at the moment. I'm off for a while, so if you respond, I'll check back later.

Rowan Berkeley:
"Israel is not a democracy"
and what , a Parliament based on the British form of goverment and 1.2 million Arabs in Israel with 8 representatives and the ability to vote is not a democracy ? I guess Saudia Arabia, Iran,Egypt, and the other 13 Arab countries are Democracys .If your going to debate whatever your philosophy is get your FACTS straight! And even if there were any leaks what in the world is Israel going to do to the USA to harm it ?

- As I believe I made clear, my post above was intended as a conceivable interpretation of Bob Dryfuss's entry, posted above, and not a presentation of my view of the situation.

- Frankly, no, I do not think that a public servant or an accessory consultant can arrogate to him/herself the right to determine what constitutes US interests and "side-step proper channels." Administrative channels are there for a reason: they are "supposed" to guarantee accountability.

- It strikes me as extraordinary that in the course of this exchange, no one has yet thought to frame the issue as one of PARALLEL GOVERNMENT. Governments have protocols, regulations and laws, and their employees, whether elected or appointed, are prohibited from acting on their own initiative and in secrecy. When they do, they imperil the very bases of the institutions they purportedly serve.

"Personally, I believe occupied people have the right to resort to violence to evict an occupying army. "

Would you support, then, violent resistance against the Syrian occupation of Lebanon?

"And I believe it is right for Palestinians to attack and kill occupying Israeli soldiers." (And, maybe civilians, too: "I am not so certain about the right of the occupied people to kill settlers or to kill civilians in the country that is occupying them.")

OK, but putting aside the potentially messy question of whether the land is disputed rather than occupied (it's obvious where you stand on that), Oslo was supposed to end violence as a means of ending the dispute. And so a host of additional assumptions have to go into the blank check you hand Palestinians to kill. For one thng, you have to assume that the Palestinians were entirely correct to walk away from Camp David / Taba without making a counter-offer. For another, you have to assume that Israel did not offer quite nearly all the land you now insist must be returned "immediately" without, apparently, reciprocal Palestinan action. And ignore that the real sticking point, which is the Palestinian claim of a right of return -- would be a death knell for Israel and therefore non-negotiable. If you forget all the messy details and insist that the Palestinians are simply victims who had no choice but to resist occupation with murder and mayhem, then your bland encomium to violence might be tenable. But that only gets back to the original point (at least re: this off-topic thread), which is that in your worldview Israel is a priori blameworthy. Maybe you can even support such a view; but you ought to at least acknowledge it.

Is it kosher to kill an occupying forces' settlers and their children? Yes. This is a time tested method used by occupiers to absorb occupied land and gives the occupying force a reason to stay on your land, that is, to protect their countrymen. An occupying country is trying to conquer your whole land, while settlers introduced by the occupying forces are trying to conquer your land piecemeal, and together the forces and settlers work in unison and provide for systematic theft of The Land.

I like Else's conception of what we're talking about with Planet Feith as some form of parallel government.

You all,I don't have time to monitor these comments at great length, and I don't intend this site to become a forum for hate speech. Please, observe that request, or I am going to have to go the way of Matt Yglesias and turn off comments for a while.

Let's try to keep as much space as we can open for civil discussion.

The Israelis have blown it. After ww2 the powers that be granted them the right to colonize another country long after it was considered socially acceptable to do so. But now the Likudniks are blatantly after the whole area and they are treating the Palestinians like the Jews in Europe were treated in the Jewish Ghettos. For shame. For shame. This comes from an American Jew with relatives in Jaffa and a stint on a collective farm in the 70s. So don't start the anti-semite crap.

SoCal,

Sorry, but I actually was trying to broaden the question as to whether an occupied people have the right to kill occupying civilians, or does their right to use violence stop at military targets. One way to better understand the question is to try to imagine what would you would do as an American if the Soviets had occupied us. My personal feeling was that it was wrong to target civilians, so then of course I am objecting to the Palestinian practise of doing so.

Obviously my example does not conform to what is happening in the P/I conflict. My question is clear, is the part of Palestinian violence acceptable that is targeted towards Israeli military. Of course one could debate what is a military target, but for the time being we could generally use the same definistion that the US military does. Is it OK for Palestinians to kill Israeli soldiers?

Another question is this: If the US was occupied by the Soviets, and some of the occupied Americans were negoiating a partial Soviet withdrawal, would all Americasn therefore lose the moral right to use violence against the Soviets soldiers? (assuming that you agree that occupied people have the right to use violence in the first place).

My concern is that there seems to me to be what I call situational pacifism being forced onto to the Palestinian part of the conflict, a pacifism which no other people would themselves ever accept, since most of the world accept the right to use violence in self defence, and fighting an occupation is normally considered self defence. Personally I think that the Palestininas should stop blowing up buses full of children and old ladies and start blowing up tanks, it is weak and ineffective to target civilians.

Laura,
I hope this is not what you are refering to as hate speech, but if it is let me know and I will stop.

Juan,

No, I don't think that can be construed as hate speech. I appreciate the extra effort to explain one's views in a rationale and restrained way without resorting to highly emotive and angry language. None of the idea is lost.

One other request though. If one is posting as "Juan Cole" and you're Juan cole, good enough. But please don't post under other people's names. If you want to pick a clever pseudonym, that's fine.

Hey Juan,

"Sorry, but I actually was trying to broaden the question as to whether an occupied people have the right to kill occupying civilians, or does their right to use violence stop at military targets."

Do they have a "right" to kill civilians? In what sense? An international law sense? No. But both sides in this conflict generally aren't really making decisions based on international law - only when they feel it suits them to say so.

In a moral sense? That's subjective. Obviously many people think yes, and many people think no.

In an intelligent sense? That's also disputable. I know pro-Palestinian people who think Sharon wouldn't even be talking about the unilateral disengatement with Gaza if not for attacks on Israeli civilians. That's one theory. But obviously the retribution inflicted by the IDF in response to those attacks has come with a huge cost. So I suppose it depends on what one thinks has been gained/lost by such techniques.

And then there's the larger question: if one thinks that the occupation is not just of the West Bank and Gaza, but of everything from "the river to the sea" (as many in the region - and abroad - feel) and one also thinks that targeting civilians is a "right," (as many in the region - and abroad - feel) as you put it, then when is killing civilians ever wrong?

It's all subjective. Look at Beslan, Russia last week. If you are against that action by Chechen "separatists", you're on one side of this debate. If you are in favor of that action by them, you're on the other. Not in terms of support for the Chechen cause, necessarily, but whether one has a "right" to kill civilians.

6124 http://www.briana-banks-dot.com for Briana Banks movies. or if you would rather diecast here.

7169 really nicely done. i hope all works well in timefree credit report

6397 http://online-poker.order.gb.com heres is the place to play online poker for real dough.

5707 http://online-casino-w.netfirms.com check out this online casino for some action.

7564 play texas hold em online for real money. http://onpak.tramadol-web.com

5090 http://www.texas-hold-em-w.com online card room for texas hold em for your pleasure.

1181 Very interesting poiuntsmerchant account for your pleasure.

1840 Very interesting poiuntsmerchant account for your pleasure.

6437 Very interesting poiuntsmerchant account for your pleasure.

4088 http://cialis.levitra-i.com good site to buy Cialis online.

6252 http://viagra.web-cialis.com visit us to buy Viagra online.

7795 http://texas-holdem.order.gb.com play for real money at texas holdem for gaming action.

6832 Z - thanks for teh wonderful iunsightcredit repair

1149 http://www.roulette-w.com click here to play roulette online.

Buy Cialis

Buy Viagra

859 http://www.online-poker-big.com check out this online poker site!

online casino

8002 http://www.casino-games-i.com click fro casino games online.

4192 http://www.texas-holdem-now.com play texas holdem here!

5451 http://www.casino-online-i.com the best online casinos on the web.

1766 http://www.play-poker-i.com

8101 http://blackjack-w.netfirms.com blackjack can now be played online!

92 Very well said http://e-debt-consolidation.netfirms.com

4540 http://craps-w.netfirms.com check craps online here.

7236 http://www.caribbean-poker-web.com very fun

5291 How can this all be right? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com

5759 Play poker here poker

Please check the sites dedicated to that site | that site | http://www.diflucan-top-pharmacy.net/ | everywhere | everywhere | http://www.alprazolam-top-pharmacy.net/ | go to | go to | http://www.free-poker-game-top-casino.net/ | everyone | everyone | http://www.buspar-top-pharmacy.net/ | every link | every link | http://www.overseas-pharmacy-top-pharmacy.net/ | come here | come here | http://www.internet-poker-top-casino.net/ | come here | come here | http://www.on-line-pharmacy-top-pharmacy.net/ | each site | each site | http://www.world-poker-tour-top-casino.net/ | room | room | http://www.purchase-phentermine-top-pharmacy.net/ | every link | every link | http://www.poker-room-top-casino.net/ | that link | that link | http://www.lipitor-top-pharmacy.net/ | each site | each site | http://www.internet-pharmacy-top-pharmacy.net/ | ...

8083 Very well said in the first place! http://www.online-poker-net.com

7110 http://harley-parts.ownsthis.com motorcycle parts harley parts harley davidson parts

8525 http://www.texas-hold-em-i.com play texas hold em online here.

3766 well said ol' boy!

5412 http://slots-online.fateback.com/roulette.htm

online roulette

7104 http://www.e-texas-holdem.info

texas holdem

1064 http://www.e-texas-hold-em.com

texas hold em

2376 http://www.rapid-debt-consolidation.com

consolidate debt

2925 I agree wholeheartedly. Good thing I run a home based business

4658 http://video-poker.uni.cccheck it out! Video Poker yabba dabba doo
online Video Poker

1264 this is a great plae to play texas holdem online. feel free to try out the http://texas-holdem.big.gb.com for big bonuses! texas holdem poker

4182 http://www.e-roulette.info

7741 http://video-poker.6x.to play video poker online

1199 http://online-poker-big.fateback.com online poker slots online poker texas holdem

6936 You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan. Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at: http://dental-insurance-plan.freeservers.com/
http://www.online-sports-betting-source.com

online sports betting
Sports Betting Odds
Sports Betting Line
Football Sports Betting
NCAA Sports Betting
NFL Football Betting Line
American Football Betting
Online American Football Betting
Online Football Betting Lines
Online Sports Book
NFL Football Odds
NCAA Football Odds
Las Vegas Football Odds
2004 Super Bowl Odds
Sports Book Betting
Las Vegas Sports Book
Sports Book Odds
Internet Sports Gambling
Sports Betting Information
College Football Betting Odds
College Betting Line
NFL Point Spread
NCAA Point Spread
Super Bowl Point Spread
Vegas Point Spread
Legal Sports Betting
Online Betting Odds
Online Sports Book Betting
Online Sports Betting Site
home based business
home based business
opportunity

7522 You know anti wrinkle cream
can work Did you know online degree gets you jobs? online degrees

3596 http://online-poker.big.gb.com online poker
play online poker

707 online casino games

6750 http://internet-poker.uni.cc internet poker
slots
video poker
texas holdem

1678 http://online-casinos-big.i8.com online casinos

6195 .Way to poker online.

92 http://harley-parts.owns1.com harley parts
harley davidson parts
motorcycle parts

3719 http://www.totallyfreecreditreport.org

7747 http://texas-holdem.ownsthis.com texas holdem

6823 http://www.slots-big.com slots
online casinos
poker online.
internet poker
online poker
online poker

2276 http://www.blackjack-1000.com
PlLAY the best blackjack-1000.com
debt consolidation only.

3200 jobs online part time jobs work online work online from home work at home work from home online jobs work at home jobs work at home business jobs
Full time jobs dental plan dental
insurance
dental insurance
plan
discount dental
plans
cheap dental
plans
individual dental
plans

8457 http://www.i--cialis.net
Offering Cialis with overnight delivery. Also, If your looking for generic cialis this is a good site to visit.
Generic Viagra also available and Adipex for your weight loss.. stub your toe, try Tramadol for the pain

Gay Sex Gay Dating Gay Singles Gay Porn Gay Personals

6525 Offering online casino with overnight delivery. Also, If your looking for casino online this is a good site to visit.

8848 You can take Generic Viagra to cure ed. We also offer name brand Viagra for mexican generic viagra also visit this site

6618 http://www.777-blackjack.com
online blackjack
blackjack

7529
this is a great plae to play texas holdem online. feel free to try out the http://texas-holdem-a.fateback.com for big bonuses! texas holdem poker

1119 phenterminedebt consolidation

3458 http://video-poker.ownsthis.com

this is a site for video poker. kick back, relax and online video poker.

876 http://www.e-slots.info slots click here to play
online slots

7211 http://texas-hold-em-w.fateback.com
texas hold em
online texas hold em

8477 http://www.online-casinos-w.com
online casinos

7268 http://poker-online-a.6x.to

poker online

Please check some helpful info dedicated to boat loan | boat loan | http://www.boat-loan-e-bank.info/ | footwear | footwear | http://www.footwear-e-shop.info/ | car loan refinance | car loan refinance | http://www.car-loan-refinance-e-site.info/ | swiss army watch | swiss army watch | http://www.swiss-top-watch-deals.info/ | bridging finance | bridging finance | http://www.bridging-finance-advisor.info/ | business financing | business financing | http://www.business-financing-e-bank.info/ | cheap flight | cheap flight | http://www.cheap-flight-e-site.info/ | income tax software | income tax software | http://www.income-tax-software-advisor.info/ | arrowhead credit union | arrowhead credit union | http://www.arrowhead-credit-union-e-bank.info/ | fossil watches | fossil watches | http://www.best-watches-deals.info/ | Personal Loans | Personal Loans | http://www.Personal-Loans-ebanking.info/ | mortgage seattle | mortgage seattle | http://www.mortgage-seattle-advisor.info/ | - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

754 Kona Coffee Starbucks Coffee Jamaica Blue Mountain
Coffee
coffee maker gourmet coffee green mountain coffee kenya coffee organic coffee specialty coffee folgers coffee coffee brewers costa rica coffee Tullys Coffee Millstone Coffee coffee grinder http://www.coffee-delivered.com