Why do Pro-Israel Fake 9/11 Truthers Insist on Blaming Tenet and the CIA?
For the same reason no doubt that revisionists now go around blaming "the CIA's bad intelligence" for the debacle in Iraq when everyone knows that the false case was concocted by Doug Feith's Pentagon Office of Special Plans and stovepiped without CIA vetting to President Bush.
Those who try to pin the blame for 9/11 on Bush, Tenet, or Rice based on allegations of ignored warnings are engaged in a now blatant deception. Because it is now clear that the warnings like "Bin Laden determined to strike" were in reference to things that DID NOT HAPPEN. Bin Laden did not strike, and nobody in the USG can be faulted for failing to prevent 9/11 based on the existence of those warnings.
It is not a coincidence that the same pro-Zionists inside and outside of the truth movement who try to downplay the role of Israeli interests in pushing the US into war with Iraq also try to pin the blame for 9/11 on those, like the CIA, who in fact tried to apply the brakes by casting doubt on Feith's office's claims. It is understandable, if indefensible, that those who accept the "muslims did it" account of 9/11 would hold the "failures" of the Bush administration responsible for the atrocities. It's something altogether different, and much more sinister, for those who claim to be fighting to expose the truth about 9/11 to still be making such thoroughly deiscredited claims.
http://www.middleeast.org/launch/viewarchives.cgi?num=33
MER Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis: Cold wind blowing from the CIA
By Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz Correspondent
Ha'aretz - 29 August 2004:
Before former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency head George Tenet retired, he made stinging comments on various occasions to Israeli officials in the intelligence community, especially the Mossad, saying Israel had a spy in America.
The accusation was rejected out of hand - Tenet was even loudly challenged to catch any such agent and expose him publicly. The exchange of remarks was passed on to Israel, evoking surprise at the political level over the accusations.
On Friday night, the American media revealed that an investigation was proceeding into a suspected Pentagon mole who was transmitting information to AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and from there to Israel about the White House's war plans for Iraq.
A person named Larry Franklin was mentioned, who works in the office of undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith. Between Larry Franklin and Doug Feith there are at least three levels of bureaucratic hierarchy.
AIPAC insisted last night that it heard Franklin's name for the first time on Friday when investigators came to them. They also said that AIPAC provided the authorities with documents and information that investigators had requested or asked about.
In any case, it is difficult to imagine that an organization like AIPAC, considered professional and very experienced, would get itself involved in maintaining a mole in the American security establishment.
The timing of the affair's exposure is connected with the U.S. election campaign and the struggle against the group of neoconservatives in the administration, who are accused of leading President Bush to war with Iraq.
While AIPAC claims it never heard of Larry Franklin, he is known to the Israeli intelligence community. He has appeared more than once at meetings with Israeli intelligence, especially with military intelligence, mostly in a group setting. (My emphasis)
Israel has noticed that relations between the CIA and the Mossad had begun to cool. Senior Israeli and American officials say the chill may have a number of causes. One might have been the leaking of secret material the Americans had given to Israel - for example, leaks from Israel about Libya's nuclear activity.
Another reason mentioned in the U.S. was the refusal of Mossad to pass on information on various topics to the CIA. This could not be verified by Israeli sources.
Israel, on the other hand, senses a refusal by the CIA to cooperate at a certain level on al-Qaida terrorism in East Africa, and even in their oddly ignoring an Israeli suggestion that non-conventional weapons were hidden outside Iraq. These are two issues of great interest to the U.S.
A third reason for the chill in the relationship was the claim that since Meir Dagan was appointed head of the Mossad, the personal relationship between the heads of the two intelligence services has faltered.
It should be said that while relations between the CIA and Mossad have cooled, good professional relations exist between the IDF intelligence branch and the other American intelligence services, including U.S. military intelligence.
Israeli sources knowledgable about the CIA say that unlike other American intelligence organizations, the CIA has political differences of opinion with Israel about the Arab-Israeli conflict. (My emphasis)
The CIA sees Israel as disruptive in American efforts to improve its relations with the Arabs. The CIA also argues that Israel is a bad influence on improving relations between Washington and Damascus. It's not surprising the CIA was the first to charge that Israel has an agent in the Pentagon - an accusation Israel says is entirely baseless.
Jonathan Pollard was a naval intelligence man run by an organization that belonged to the Prime Minister's Bureau until it was dismantled. After his trial a witch-hunt was launched in Washington for other Israeli agents in senior American intelligence circles, and it was a long time before things calmed down.
After the Pollard affair, Israel has made very sure that not even the slightest suspicion would arise that it is gathering information contrary to American laws. An extreme example was the claim that Israel passed on secret information to China about the Patriot missiles it bought in the U.S. For that, Israel invited an American investigative team and after great efforts, no proof was found.
Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence doggedly refused Israel's demand that it publish a retraction of the charge and that the investigation found the suspicions groundless.
The insistence came from American considerations of prestige with regard to its sources and the quality of its information. Over time, Israel came to believe one of the U.S. sources was Taiwanese intelligence, which focuses closely on China.
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
Maybe they subscribe to Abe Foxman's twisted beliefs?
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/foxman/entry/blaming_the_jews_as_a
Sunday Aug 03, 2008
A Point of View: Blaming the Jews as a form of intimidation
Posted by Abraham Foxman
Comments: 24
At a time when both Israel and American Jews are struggling about how to manage the growing threat of a nuclear Iran, it is fascinating and disturbing to see how the canard that America's war in Iraq was a product of Jewish influence is alive and well. The connection is not a coincidence.
The notion of powerful Jews working for their own interests against the interests of their own country has a long and sordid history, even in America. The most famous example was the speech Charles Lindbergh gave in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941 claiming that Jews were driving America to war against Germany to serve their own interests. At the time, millions of Americans heard and sympathized with his message.
Soon after America attacked Iraq in 2002, US Congressman Jim Moran gave a speech in Virginia in which he blamed "neo-conservative" Jews for bringing the US to war. He spoke of their serving Israel's interests against those of their own country. Unlike in 1990, when Pat Buchanan futilely blamed the first Gulf War on IsraelÂ’s "Amen Corner", this time around the "blame the Jews" theme had a certain resonance, and sometimes in unexpected circles.
The most well-known advocates of this idea were Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who, in their book "The Israel Lobby," blamed the Jews for just about everything they saw wrong in the Middle East. So no surprise there.
More recently, however, Time magazine journalist and long-time political correspondent, Joe Klein, said much the same thing. It was the neo-conservative Jews together with their partners in Israel who pushed the war on America. Joe Klein is no anti-Semite. He even calls himself pro-Zionist and, in an interview with Jeffery Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine said that he supported Israel's counterterrorist activities in the West Bank after the wave of suicide attacks in 2002-3 and would support Israeli military action in Gaza.
And yet, Klein distorts history in two ways: the attitudes and power of the neo-cons, and Israel's role in the US decision to go to war.
One can legitimately and strongly disapprove of neo-conservative views, as Klein certainly does. But to suggest that they supported the war to serve Israel is to misread the long history of neo-conservatism and unjustly accuse individuals who have always thought first about what's good for America. Whether it was their strong anti-Soviet views during the Cold War or their current drive to spread democracy around the world, it was driven by their perception of what's good for their country and, indeed, the world.
They may be wrong but they are Americans and democrats above all. Israel fits in simply because it is the great outpost of democracy in the Middle East and because it is a great ally of the US.
Similarly, Klein's notion that the power of Jewish neo-cons drove us into war is belied by the fact that the real power lay with George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, George Tenet and Condi Rice, none of whom are Jewish. To suggest that the power lay with the Jews is strange, to say the least.
Moreover, attributing the war to Israel is also nonsense. The Israelis were extra careful at the time not to influence or to be seen to be influencing US decision-making. One reason for this standoff approach was because of an ambivalence about a military conflict. On the one hand, Israelis would be happy if Saddam Hussein, who launched missiles against Israel in the first Gulf War, would be taught a lesson. But, some Israeli experts cautioned early on that a war could strengthen IsraelÂ’s greater enemy in the region, Iran.
So how is it that this idea of the war as the Jewish neo-conservative's baby is so prevalent? I believe it's largely an effort to intimidate American Jews from speaking out on a very different and graver threat, to America and the world, but also to Israel -- a nuclear Iran. And make no mistake, in conversations among American Jews there are remarks to the effect: if we were blamed for the war in Iraq where we had no clear interest or involvement, what would happen if war would break out over Iran, where the Jewish interest is fundamental.
In light of these various efforts at intimidation, it is important to reiterate some essentials:
1. A nuclear Iran would be a disaster not only to Israel but to the entire world, particularly because it would lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East.
2. None of us, Israelis or American Jews, want a military conflict. Indeed, the best way to avoid a situation where a military option may be considered is to strengthen sanctions and put pressure on Iran (together with incentives) to resolve this peacefully.
3. If, however, the world does not act in time, then it will be the ultimate test of "Never Again." With Israel in jeopardy as never before, where will the world stand?
So the answer to Joe Klein and others is: we are not warmongers, we want a diplomatic resolution of the problem; but we will not be intimidated, first because it is in the interest of the world to stop Iran now, and second because this time around, if the international community fails to act, the Jewish people have the ability to defend themselves in the face of a murderous foe.
BOOKMARK or SHARE: What's this?
Print
Comments: Post your own comment
1 | Daniel - Atlanta, Sunday Aug 03, 2008
I've never considered Wolfowitz, Feith, Perl, and the other Jewish neo-cons as acting primarily as Jews. I've always thought of them having the same relationship to America as Herod had to Rome, looking out for their own interests more than anything else. There can be no doubt now that they have done great damage to America, though. yet the real damage has been done by George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Republican Right in general. My real question is why so many Jewish people seem to adore Bush. That adoration had made me question my feeling of kinship with things Jewish and Israeli.
2 | David Katcoff, Jericho, Vt, Sunday Aug 03, 2008
Very good blog. This is modern anti-Semitism in today's Christendom. Since the Holocaust, there is a social taboo on outright, vulgar taunts against Jews, so people either endorse "Palestinian rights" or back a hands-off approach to Iran's nukes as a seemingly high-minded way of calling for aggression against Jews by proxy. Don't think for a moment that these nudniks really care about "Palestinians"or otherwise know what they're talking about.
3 | Jo Ellen Davey Cohen, The United States of America, Sunday Aug 03, 2008
Klein's 'sometimes a great notion' rhetorical slurs of neo-cons is an attempt to marginalize and diminish the returns of conservative thinkers. His antagonistic notion and thesis parallels the sinister agenda of the enemies of the United States and Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood, the Holy Land Foundation, the ACLU, and CAIR are in concert with the paleo-liberals in a frontal assault on the American courts. Not one day passes, that I am not eternally grateful for the service to country and defense of the Constitution rendered by Chief Justice John Roberts and the U.S. Supreme Court
4 | Alex, Sunday Aug 03, 2008
So Jews weren't responsible for the Iraq war, but Jews do insist on going to war with Iran. I see.
5 | Ronald, Sunday Aug 03, 2008
Klein's argument about Jewish neocons is totally false and smacks of anti-semitism. None of the real decision makers who took the US into Iraq is Jewish; two are of African-American descent. Concerning Iran, as a Jewish American I believe that the Bush administration has sent unmistakable signals that they will not engage Iran in a military confrontation under any circumstance. That's ok with me. I am advocating a strong Israeli response to Iran's threatening and reckless actions. Nothing should be taken off of the table including nuclear weapons.
6 | Dan Friedman, NYC, Sunday Aug 03, 2008
Always the brave soldier, fighting the last war.
7 | Andy Levine, USA, Monday Aug 04, 2008
It isn't as if the "Jewish neocons" haven't had their collective catastrophes. They were all in lockstep behind Sharon and disengagement and they haven't disavowed either yet. Nor has there been a peep from the Commentary crowd about the absurdity of Bush's "Annapolis" policy or the steady decline of Israeli leadership and the passive Israeli people who keep them in power. Of course, Klein has it wrong about these guys anyway. The problem isn't that they're all Jews, the problem is they're all Republicans before they're Jews.
8 | Phil McCracken - NYC, Monday Aug 04, 2008
I don't understand how blaming a few criminal elements in the government that just happen to be either Jewish, a dual citizen of Israel, a Christian Zionist or perhaps just an Israel supporter is "blaming the Jews," as if these criminal Jews who made up stories to get America into Iraq somehow represent all the Jews in the world. Total nonsense.
9 | The Other Alan, Monday Aug 04, 2008
When the same Zionist characters who penned "Securing the Realm" in 1996, in which taking out Saddam is viewed as step one, turn up as key Mideast policy makers in the Bush Administration, you've got to wonder. And now we have Foxman going on about the dangers to Israel of a nuclear Iran, complete with reference to "ultimate test of 'Never Again.' With Israel in jeopardy as never before, where will the world stand?" No doubt he and those likeminded will push push push the US to take on regime change in Iran much like they did with Iraq.
10 | Mike Germany, Monday Aug 04, 2008
The present propaganda campaigne agains Iran is a blueprint of the campaign against Iraq and a prominent player is, once again, the Israel Lobby. WOMD, a new Hitler, another Holocaust, appeasment, urgency amd deadlines. We've had it all before from the same publishers, organisations, think-tanks and institutes. It is all in the records for anyone to read. Those now pressing for war should keep in mind that their current mentors will later deny any responsibility whatsoever, as we see in this case.
11 | Paul Australia, Monday Aug 04, 2008
Surprising that Foxman feels the need to say this. Then again perhaps not. Denial is always the first step on the road to exposure.
12 | Ronald, Monday Aug 04, 2008
Reply to #s 4 and 9. The US purports to be the lone superpower and the leader of the Free World. I don't see anything wrong with a US ally, Israel, running the issue of what to do about a belligerent Iran with nuclear weapons, up the chain of command. If Israel quietly took matters into their own hands without consulting Washington, you would lambast Jews for that. The truth is: the US's ability to project power and lead the world is on the decline. Fine. We can't handle Iran. They are too tough. But Israel can handle Iran-and will have to. Don't worry about it. Israel will take it to Iran.
13 | JMK, Monday Aug 04, 2008
The Neo Cons maybe have been descended from Jews but were not so Jewish at all, especially when it came to both their personal lives and support for a strong Israel, it was about their notion of oil, as for WWII American Jews besides serving in the military approx no 500,000 servicemen, they did nothing they effected nothing for their cousins, brothers and sister in Europe, not that protesting would have helped the whole world conspired against the Jews in Europe.
14 | David Turner, Richmond, USA, Monday Aug 04, 2008
Right on, Abe! Antisemitism is alive and well in the US, and more dangerous than in the thirties because sub-surface and so available for American Jews to deny its existence. We, Israel and US Jewry thanks to Feith and the Jewish neocons, were blamed for the Iraq invasion five years ago, so thats not new. We were also blamed for Irangate during that other Republican misadventure in governance, the Reagan Administration. regarding Iran, the intelligence services of Israel, Saudia, and the United States advised against. In Irangate Israel was asked by Reagan for assistance, and Israel can never
15 | David Turner, Richmond, USA, Monday Aug 04, 2008
really say no to a US president. In both cases, and blame not limited to these two misadventures, when a US administration needs a scapegoat, Israel is always there waiting in the wings. If thatÂ’s not social and institutional antisemitism, then the US and Europe are indeed antisemitism-rein. And we can all breathe easier knowing that we are protected by our Denial. For more commentary on Bush, Israels best friend since Reagan, see my blogs at http://israelzionismdiaspora.blogspot.com/.
16 | joe smith boston, Monday Aug 04, 2008
Every so often the gentiles get a lttle frustrated with their lives so they have to blame the jewish people for their problems. As for this war in Iraq, eventually history will be much kinder to Bush. Every soldier I have spoken with says we are doing good work and the iraqi people appreciate it. I am happy that Israel doesnt need the permission of these low life bloggers to smash the Iranian maniac.
17 | Jack H USA, Monday Aug 04, 2008
To No 13 JMK....what the heck are you talking about...the Jewish WWII vets were soldiers there to fight the enemy...they wern't there to save Jews...and there were 600,000 Jewish servicemen...many died and many wounded..my own family. And your statement .."Neo Cons maybe have been descended from Jews is rediclous. I could kick Perly and Wofly in their tuchas for "agreeing" with the real nut cases, those people who put us at war with iraq. Goyishe Bush, Chenny, Rice and Rummyfield. As for Perl and Wolfyunwitz... we Jews are entitled to a few scoundrels....
18 | Jim Harley. USA, Monday Aug 04, 2008
Colin Powel blamed the "JINSA Crowd" for Iraq so to blame two African Americans for their part in Iraq is hoodwinking. Powel was accused of anti Semitism. Gen Wesley Clark blamed Jewish groups/elites for soliciting war on Iraq AFTER he feared they were then going after Iran. Neo Conservatism is Jew-centric though not all neo Cons are Jewish. They did frame the war against Iraq, they are planning to do the same to Iran and Syria if they get their way. They are to blame for America bleeding, they are to blame for the turmoil in the Middle East .Foxman deflecting Jewish culpability is a joke.
19 | Alan J US of A, Monday Aug 04, 2008
Daniel #1...don't believe that so many Jews like GW BUSH...on the contrary...if your adoration of Israel lessens because you think we Jews "adore Goergie Porgie...you are WRONG! But if that is all that makes your "kinship" with Israel strong...then I would rethink the fact that Radical Islam is a curse and an enemy of our Western civilization and want us dead and gone. Israel is a great ally to have in the Middle East.
20 | nach, Monday Aug 04, 2008
The U.S. nuked Japan back then for much, much less
21 | mike honcho,USA, Tuesday Aug 05, 2008
balfour declaration was a gift to jews from british, for getting the US in in the great war world war I. Even Wikipedia says that. If it was about oil we would be in war with venezuala or sudan. Venezuala has largest future projected oil reserve even more than Saudi Arabia. Heck look at the oil embargo in the 70's US gave up consistent oil and prices to help Israel because oil companies like a stable market but these wars are not. Americans are waking up. Before the Iraq war oil companies were making more profit share then now even with current prices.
22 | Bob, Long Island, NY, Tuesday Aug 05, 2008
Phil and Mike, the two typical neo-lib specimens, amply illustrate what is so wrong with today's left that is quickly descending into brownwshirt rhetorics. They conveniently disregard the fact that the Iraq invasion was supported by the majority in the US government, the congress, and the nation. No, they need somebody to blame, and of course, who else but the evil Jews ("Zionists") or their supporters? And I always thought we "went there for oil", what happened to this great line? Bush made one mistake. He accepted the State Dept. and the Saudis idea of "nation-building".
23 | American U.S., Tuesday Aug 05, 2008
Cautious and cynical are two words the describe a lot of American feelings toward Bush and his neocons. Afganistan was the target. Iraq was an ugly regime, but not worth the cost in lives and tax dollars. Let negotiations proceed. We need to be spending a huge amount on technology so we aren't letting 700 billion leave the U.S. every year for oil. Iran presents dangers. But the time frame of danger is being pushed tighter and tighter by those I wouldn't trust again.
24 | jeannick in Sydney, Tuesday Aug 05, 2008
. Solzhenitsyn has passed away , a passionate nationalist he is painted as an anti Semite for having pointed out the contribution people of jewish origins played in the slaughter of Russians , Ukrainians and many others nation , of course they were Bolsheviks , believing in a greater good , but millions died . millions more Russians died destroying the beast and freeing the death camps . so how about theorizing about individual responsibilities as against group guilt . where does prejudice start and personal pain stop ? .