Ahmad Chalabi: Doug Feith’s Agent May Be Iran’s Agent?

-

Ahmed_Chalabi.jpg
Check out this interesting piece by Aram Roston and Kianne Sadeq.
The NBC news correspondents report that the U.S. has finally cut off Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi for his “unauthorized” contacts with Iran.
It’s worth nothing that Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress provided an essential vehicle exploited by Douglas Feith, James Woolsey and others to agitate for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the offices of Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress used to cohabit the same space of Douglas Feith’s law firm.
Roston is author of one of the best treatments of Chalabi out right now, The Man Who Pushed America to War: The Extraordinary Life, Adventures, and Obsessions of Ahmed Chalabi.
More later.
– Steve Clemons

Comments

36 comments on “Ahmad Chalabi: Doug Feith’s Agent May Be Iran’s Agent?

  1. Kathleen says:

    While El Baradei, Director of the UN IAEA reports that Iran is NOT enriching uranium for weapons, Nancy Pelosi is in Isreal saying we have to stop Iran at all costs.

    Reply

  2. DonS says:

    Wigwag,thanks for the civil sounding reply.
    If I sound, to you, some way offensive, it is because I am quite tired of verbally sparring with Zionists over the past decades, most of whom are among the most verbally offensive and intellectually condescening and dishonest folks I have exchanged with. Some, like yourself on some occasions are more the slick, and smooth gloved sort.
    And yes, I have no problem calling Zionist Israeli sympathizers neocon toadies, or vice versa, to their faces. Actually I think that would be the low end of the register as, in my experience, the invective coming the other way belies civil discourse.
    You ask whether it is hyperbolic of me to ask “Is the destruction and domination of everything decent in America of no significance to you as long as your Zionist credo can be served?” Maybe a lottle hyperbolic; but the way the Israeli lobby wags the US policy dog, not really so hyperbolic as to make me blush.
    You can say that Zionists have worked within the law and therefore no foul. But in fact ostensibly charitable Jewish organizations have been flying below the radar screen and not registering in this country as agents of a foreign government since at least the ’50s. Because its been “tolerated”, doesn’t make it legal.
    As to the dual loyalty issue, you bring up the IRA, and I would raise the question in that case as well. But ask yourself if the IRA and its American sypathizers has had much of an impact on the US government? Not in any sense worthy to make your analogy really salient. You would no doubt discount most of Mersheimer and
    Walt’s book which has documented many clear indications of undue influence; it is the antithesis of your understated, ho hum, business as usual approach. Some might call that arrogance. I call it confidence bordering on the surreal; but why shouldn’t you be so confident when the well-oiled machine has bought the acquiescene of so many US politicians, and media which you seem to find not at all unusual.
    And, no, I don’t share your enthusiasm for my country supporting Israel. Calling it the “ethical” thing seems to sweep the gross unethical aspects under the rug far to conveniently.

    Reply

  3. WigWag says:

    Don S, most Zionists and I suspect most Israelis favor territorial compromise and political accommodation that will allow Israelis, Palestinians and citizens of surrounding states to live in peace and security. If by the idea of “Greater Israel” you mean an Israeli state that incorporates the West Bank and Gaza, I think that is a bad idea for both political and ethical reasons.
    Those who accuse supporters of Israel of dual loyalty are, I think, wrong and unfair. Cuban Americans who oppose reconciliation with Cuba don’t have dual loyalties, they just have a different opinion than you (an opinion I think is wrong). Irish Americans who donated money to the IRA in the 1970s or 1980s didn’t have dual loyalites; they just opposed the policy of their government at the time. Armenian Americans who recently pushed very hard for a congressional resolution supporting a recognition of the Armenian genocide didn’t have dual loyalties just because passage of that resolution would have harmed American relations with Turkey.
    It is certainly true that both Jewish and Christian supporters of Israel have been particularly successful in encouraging most American citizens and the American government to support the policies they advocate. But this doesn’t mean they have dual loyalties; it just means they’re effective. They haven’t broken the law or hypnotized people to support their point of view; they haven’t performed voodoo. All they’ve done is use the opportunities afforded to them by our form of government to convince people that they’re right. What could be more American than that? And by the way, those same techniques are available to people like you. People who think like you do about this issue have just failed to make a convincing case; at least so far. Supporters of Israel are no more or less loyal to America than anyone else. People who complain about dual loyalty are just desperately looking for an excuse about why most Americans think they’re wrong.
    I didn’t “summarily dismiss” the European perspective as you claim I did. In fact, I said that it just might be right. I did try to share with Paul Norheim one possible explanation about why many Americans take the European point of view with a grain of salt. The European and American perspective on the Middle East are obviously different. I gave one possible explanation for this. I am sure in reality there are many reasons.
    Is American support of Israel in America’s national interest. I think it’s a complex question with no easy answer. Certainly it complicates our relationship with countries that sell us the oil we so desperately need. Certainly, hatred of Israel and Jews is behind some of the terrorism we have experienced.
    I’m glad my country supports Israel (although I wish it would more vigorously oppose some Israeli policies)because I think it’s the ethical thing to do. Supporting independence for Kosovo probably doesn’t have much to do with American national interest but we did it because it was right. Opposing apartheid in South Africa probably didn’t have a major impact on American interests but it was the right thing to do. Generally, I think national liberation movements are a good thing. All people should have there own countries. Now that the Kosovars have one, I hope the Kurds get one too. It looks like the Flemish people in Belgium will have their own country soon also. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Palestinans also get their own country before too long. Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. You should support it too, even though you oppose many or most Israeli policies.
    Now, I have tried to answer your question as directly and honestly as space allows. Let me ask you a question. In your post, you asked, “Or do your toady neocons and their fictitious GWOT say all that needs saying for you on that score?”
    Do you talk this way in real life or only when you comment on sites like this?
    Then you ask, “Is the destruction and domination of everything decent in America of no significance to you as long as your Zionist credo can be served?” Don’t you think this is just a little hyperbolic? Do you think that using language like this makes you more convincing? I apologize for being presumptous, but you will never convince anyone that you have something they should seriously think about, if every reasonable question and comment is accompanied by one that’s way over the top.

    Reply

  4. DonS says:

    pardon me, I meant “dual loyalties”, not “dual citizenship” above, which should be obvious to those who have considered these issues.

    Reply

  5. DonS says:

    Wigwag, since you have now formally idetified yourself as a Zionist — but one with the temerity to speak for an American point of view that even summarily dismiss “Europeans” — perhaps you would like to address the issues of “greater Israel”, “dual citizenship” and explain in clear language how such views square with America’s interest. Or do your toady neocons and their fictitious GWOT say all that needs saying for you on that score?
    What’s your bottom line? Is the destruction and domination of everything decent in America of no significance to you as long as your Zionist credo can be served? Israel has the consensus good will of the American people and yet people like you are not satisfied. You speak as if there are no limits to arrogance, and consequences to non Zionsts totally irrelevant.
    BTW, that’s not an American value and I truly hope some day you learn that.

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    May 14, 2008
    The Politics of Armageddon
    Hillary’s “Final Solution” to the Persian Problem
    By ROBERT WEITZEL
    “To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it . . . An evil unchecked is the prelude to genocide.”
    Dr. Mordechai: The Ezekiel Option
    There are over 70 million human beings living in Iran, 17.5 million of whom are under the age of fifteen. Hillary Clinton vowed to attack Iran and “totally obliterate” the majority of the Persian race in a furnace of primordial fire should the Iranian government attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which they do not now possess or are likely to for some time—if ever.
    Hillary’s “final solution” to the Persian problem bests Adolf Hitler by a magnitude of ten.
    Missing in Clinton’s campaign trail pandering to America’s pro-Israel lobbies and the mushrooming evangelical Christian Zionist movement is the “inconvenient truth” that Israel has the most modern and most deadly army in the Middle East thanks to an annual $3.5 billion in American aid—one third of the U.S. aid budget.
    Israel is also a major nuclear power in the region—though it refuses to admit it—with up to 200 nuclear warheads and the inter-continental-range ballistic missiles to deliver them and, according to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, also has an undeclared offensive chemical and biological warfare program.
    Israel, along with India and Pakistan are the only three nations not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory of the NNPT, by the way.
    The most inconvenient truth, however, is that Israel has a 60-year history of attacking— with American-supplied armaments—any Arab country it perceives as a threat, nuclear-armed or slingshot-armed alike. Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in 1981 comes to mind as an example of the former, its shelling of Gaza the latter.
    Israel can and will “ preemptively defend” itself against Iran, the country that a February 2008 International Atomic Energy Agency report concluded has not diverted nuclear material to non-peaceful purposes. Unfortunately for the 70 million Persians in Hillary’s bombsight, Iran’s biggest liability is its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—but then the U.S. is equally burdened.
    So the real truth behind Clinton’s “final solution” to the Persian problem or John McCain’s “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” off-key hyperbole is not simply a “David and Goliath” struggle for survival, but is instead a cynical exploitation of the unholy marriage of convenience between fanatical Jewish Zionists who want a Muslim-free Eretz Israel in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecy and bring about the first coming of their Messiah and fanatical Christian Zionists who want the entire Middle East in flames to fulfill New Testament prophecy and bring about the Second Coming of their Messiah.
    continues at……
    http://www.counterpunch.org/weitzel05142008.html

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wig wag, I don’t recall implying that you shouldn’t post here.
    And if you think your synchopantic pro-Isreal/pro-Hillary drivel is “diversity of thought”, you aren’t paying attention to the loud braying that is issuing forth from the rest of the herd of jackasses that you seem to be a willing member of.
    I’m sorry you’re bored, Wig wag. But I can definitely see your dilemma. If I was in the middle of that herd, I’d be bored too. I mean hey, if you’ve see one donkey’s rump, you’ve seen ‘em all.

    Reply

  8. WigWag says:

    To Paul Norheim, Much of what you said in your most recent comment makes good sense to me.
    To Carroll and POA, Steve Clemons has not mentioned that Zionists are not welcome to comment on his site. Until he does, I have as much right to be here as you do. You’re obviously not interested in a diversity of opinion expressed as ernestly and intelligently as the commentator is capable of. You’re more interested in the WashingtonNote being a club where Rush Limbaugh like “ditto heads” can get together and complain about how the rest of the world is so stupid and you are so right minded. You might think that’s fun. I think it’s boring.

    Reply

  9. Paul Norheim says:

    P.S.
    Since I said in the post above that “The Israeli-Palestinian issue is
    not easily solved”, I have to add one very simple point, as there is
    also a danger of making things too complicated:
    The Israelis have for decades occupied land that belongs to the
    Palestinians, and as long as the US don`t make serious attempts
    to address that simple fact, and instead supports the occupiers
    the best they can, this injustice will cause a lot of trouble also in
    other parts of the Middle East. This is obvious, but I felt that I had
    to say it.

    Reply

  10. rollingmyeyes says:

    Why would Iran (and therefore it’s agent Chalibi) want the US to attack Iraq? 1. Iraq had attacked Iran and fought an 8 year war with it. The US destroying Saddam made Iran safer. 2. The US military would be badly damaged, weakening US power.
    3. The Iranian Expeditionary Force (the Bader Corp, et all) could install itself in control of the new Iraqi government, extending Iranian power. 4. Iran could get control of Iraqi oil. (stay tuned)

    Reply

  11. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag:
    I have to start by saying: thank you for your answer, which
    contains a lot of reflections that are appropriate, as well as
    necessary in this context, both on a biographical level (since I
    mentioned that I am a European) and on a historical level (the
    conditions of the Jews in Europe during centuries, the pogroms
    and the Holocaust).
    These facts are important parts of history, just like the strong
    and unconditional US support of Israel during the last decades
    is an important historical and political fact. However, the
    strength of this support, as well as the ways in which the USA
    have tried to support Israel, is of a kind that in my opinion not
    only have often been unwise regarding real US interests (which,
    frankly, is not my main concern), but sadly also have
    represented a continuation of an old, arrogant, and manipulative
    European mentality that I oppose strongly.
    The sad fact is that “your” (the US) approach to the “Middle East”
    is very similar to the old European approach – except the fact
    that the US foreign policy is not openly imperial, but semi-
    imperial, because the US, as a general modus operandi since
    WW2, for several reasons don`t occupy territory directly in the
    old traditional European fashion, but through other means. But
    the results of your foreign policy in that region (as well as in
    other regions), and the motivations behind it, are very similar to
    the old European mentality and the results of that mentality.
    (The history of Iraq illustrates this point very clearly).
    Since WWII I am happy to conclude that the Europeans in general
    are hesitating to look at wars simply as an extension of politics
    with other means, in the old clausewitzian way. The lessons of
    the European wars may be forgotten in the near future, when all
    those who experienced the last horrible war are dead. But as we
    speak, the Europeans do not look at wars as a “tool” among
    other tools in the “foreign policy portfolio”, the way the
    Americans do. This time, the Arab and Muslim population is
    paying the price. And the motivations behind your present war
    in Iraq seem to be very similar to old European thinking: oil,
    commercial interests, as well as dreams of democratization/
    civilization – and an imbecile attempt to show the world who is
    the boss.
    With this background, I talk to you as a European to an
    American, and I can`t see why I have no right to criticize the
    hawkish pro Israel policy of the US. – while you seem to feel
    that you have every right to defend that policy. I would say that
    the Europeans have learned some lessons (of course not
    everybody), also regarding Holocaust (look at Germany). The
    USA seem to be advanced in technology, but also naive in
    historical experiences. War is terrible, that is what we learned
    after two “world wars”, and countless wars before that. It seems
    like you Americans have to fight some horrible wars, even after
    Vietnam, before you too find wars terrible and stupid as
    ordinary tools in geopolitical strategies.
    “You may or may not be aware that many Americans take the
    European point of view about Israel and the Middle East with a
    grain of salt.” You, as well, may or may not be aware that many
    Americans are not sharing the Israeli right wing view that is
    currently dominating US foreign policy in that region. According
    to polls, most Americans seem to share the opinion that the
    Palestinians should be treated in a fair and just way.
    “On the other hand, millions of Arabs and other Muslems that
    Europe was happy to exploit, now live on your continent and are
    active participants in the European dialog about Israel and the
    Middle East.”
    What can I say?
    Are you implying that we Europeans should be so ashamed that
    we only listen to the victims of Holocaust, and close our ears to
    what the “millions of Arabs and other Muslems” have to say?
    Frankly, I`m speechless.
    I really hope that this comment was below your usual moral and
    political level, WigWam. I`ve been reading about Holocaust since
    I was a teenager, and nothing can prevent me from listening to
    other victims of evil projects or historical injustice. The Israeli-
    Palestinian issue is not easily solved, but if you refuse to listen
    to the “Arab” or “Moslem” side, there can be no dialogue
    between you and me either. The implications of your sentence is
    quite shocking, WigWam, and I would recommend you to spend
    some time trying to interpret your own words.
    “Many Americans, including me, also believe that Europeans are
    always viewing the rest of the world through the prism of their
    own imperial history.” Always viewing the rest of the world
    through… So what about me, as a Norwegian? Norway was a
    colony of an even smaller country, Denmark, until 1814, and
    has never had an “imperial history”. What about the Polish
    people, who were under the Russians for centuries, long before
    the USSR and Stalin? Honestly, I don`t take any of this
    personally, but your generalizations about Europe seem to be
    quite – hmmm… general.
    “The WashingtonNote, the Daily Kos, PBS and National Public
    Radio are all part of the American media. I don’t think they’re
    controlled by Zionists.”
    YeahRight – and not me – claimed that the Zionists controlled
    the US media. But mentioning marginal fora like TWN etc. is
    worthless in this context. Regarding the rest of your comments,
    I have nothing noteworthy to say. But again: thanks for your
    response.

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The New York Times and the Washington Post have run editorials very critical of Israeli policies”
    Remember that? It is a verbatim statement that I once contested here. Wigwag has an amazing ability to channel the exact phrasing of prior Israel/AIPAC dissemblers that used to haunt this site. Of course, its just a coincidence.
    Right.
    Anyway, its quite telling that these apparent cheerleaders for AIPAC and Israel that magically appear here periodically seem to all use remarkably similiar phrasing, and all seem to endorse Hillary. Just another coincidence, I suppose.
    Its no secret that Hillary is AIPAC’s darling, and anyone voting for Hillary either supports Israel’s crimes against humanity, or is a blithering idiot, because a vote for Hillary is DEFINITELY a vote for Israel. But, of course, the same can be said of McCain, but to a lesser degree, probably. I mean hey, there’s gotta be a reason AIPAC supports Hillary over McCain, right?
    I really can’t stand Obama and his waffling mamby pamby horseshit and his ethereal musings about “change” and “hope”. And he definitely has wimped out on his early comments about the plight of the Palestinians. Its obvious he is willing to pander to “the lobby” to airhead his way into the Oval Office. But if there is any one thing that makes me consider voting for him, it would be that he seems to be the least favorite in the eyes of the Israel firsters. Come to think of it, that is the ONLY thing about him that I find appealing, and perhaps worthy of a vote.
    But one thing is for damned sure, when I see the parade of jackasses that traipse through here in support of Hillary, there is no friggin’ way I’d vote for her. Anyone that appeals to idiots and “true believers” has GOTTA be a bad deal for America.

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Posted by DonS May 15, 10:07PM – Link
    WigWag – “Public Opinion and Propaganda”, political science 105, or 205. Your attempt at discounting decades of research is pathetic. The American public doesn’t “find” anyone persuasive outside of the frame they are given. Nice try.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ditto.
    I though the zionist progandist like wigwag had gone away. Maybe he is so far behind the curve he didn’t get the message.
    Obviously he doesn’t even know that European-Americans still make up the largest percentage of Americans so the zionista bashing of anti semite Europe is a non starter. Wigwags stuff is so old and discredited I can’ even work up the interest in destroying him point by point, we have already done it so many times.

    Reply

  14. DonS says:

    WigWag – “Public Opinion and Propaganda”, political science 105, or 205. Your attempt at discounting decades of research is pathetic. The American public doesn’t “find” anyone persuasive outside of the frame they are given. Nice try.

    Reply

  15. WigWag says:

    Paul Norheim, thank you for your response to my post. Depending on what “elements” you are referring to, I agree that some elements may be too responsive to the point of view of Israeli Hawks. I may just be dense, but I don’t get what this has to do with Zionists controlling the American media. With respect, I would like to mention two other things to you.
    (1)This is not directed personally at you as a European person. I enjoy reading your posts even though we usually disagree. You may or may not be aware that many Americans take the European point of view about Israel and the Middle East with a grain of salt. After all, less than 75 years ago most of Europe either actively participated in the extermination of its’ Jewish population or acquieced in its’ destruction. There aren’t too many Jews left in Europe to share their prespective about Israel or the Middle East with their European neighbors. On the other hand, millions of Arabs and other Muslems that Europe was happy to exploit, now live on your continent and are active participants in the European dialog about Israel and the Middle East. This doesn’t mean that the European perspective is invalid or wrong, but surely you understand why Americans don’t take the European perspective on this subject too seriously. Many Americans, including me, also believe that Europeans are always viewing the rest of the world through the prism of their own imperial history. And this doesn’t mean that American history is unblemished; far from it. But to many Americans the parallels that Europeans see, seem more imagined than real.
    (2) I don’t think saying that Zionists control the American Media is necessarily antisemitic; I just think it’s dumb. The WashingtonNote, the Daily Kos, PBS and National Public Radio are all part of the American media. I don’t think they’re controlled by Zionists. The Daily Show with John Stewart and the Colbert Report are now part of the media, I don’t think they’re controlled by Zionists. The New York Times and the Washington Post have run editorials very critical of Israeli policies. My guess is that you might actually agree with many of their editorials about the peace process, negotiating with Iran and Syria and nuclear nonproliferation. I don’t think they write what they write because they are controlled by Zionists. I don’t think Time Warner (CNN), NBC, CBS or ABC are controlled by Zionists. People who think that, are mixing up Zionism with capitalism. You may not agree with everything they report, I don’t either. But I have seen Jimmy Carter interviewed about his book “Peace not Apartheid” on all four of these networks and I have seen Walt and Mersheimer interviewed on network television also. Anyone with an internet connection has access to Haaretz and El Arabia; they’re certainly not controlled by Zionists. Here in South Florida, I actually get a BBC channel. During the start of the Iraq War many of my neighbors watched it because there coverage was so much better than American coverage. I don’t think the BBC is controlled by Zionists.
    I don’t think Fox News reports the way they report because they’re controlled by Zionists. I think they cater to an audience that agrees with their point of view. Kind of like Steve Clemons posts commentary that most of his readers agree with.
    In my opinion, the only people who think the media is controlled by Zionists are cranks and nut cases who see conspiracies everywhere. The problem is not the medium, it’s the message.
    People like Steve Clemons and Nir Rosen and Tony Judt and Jimmy Carter and Anthony Lewis and countless others have a platform from which they speak loudly and eloquently. They’re just losing the argument. At least to date, Americans haven’t found what those commentators are saying particularly persuasive. Instead of complaining how the decks are stacked against them, people who share the perspective of those commentators would be better advised to craft more cogent arguments. The Nir Rosen posts here are a perfect example. He’s brilliant, he doesn’t shoot from the hip (usually)and he carefully researches what he says before he says it. But I can’t help but wonder how many Americans would find him persuasive. His tone, his anger and his failure to acknowledge nuance detract from the very credible points he is trying to make. I suspect that giving Nir Rosen a larger audience would just convince even more Americans to adopt the Israeli hawk positions that you bemoan. And I can’t help but wonder whether some of the people who post the most vitriolic comments here, really think they are being persuasive or whether they just like to hear themselves talk. Anyway, Paul Norheim, that’s my perspective.

    Reply

  16. For Grover says:

    What does Grover Norquist have to say about our Big Government show in Iraq? Some Iraqis say they want to be left alone.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-is-progressive-money_b_101898.html

    Reply

  17. DonS says:

    Oh, Mr. “bring ‘em on” seems to have stepped in it this time. How much do you want to bet the media ultimately agrees?
    George’s granddaddy and the Nazis:
    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/05/15/grandson-of-nazi-enabler-decries-talking-to-nazis/
    Left hand doesn’t know, or care, what the right hand is doing; Biden so pissed he talks kaka:
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments-bulls-t/
    The last honest man whines that junior is a straight talker. Kerry demurs, seems to remember that junior has been the main problem:
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/lieberman-bush-appeasers/

    Reply

  18. DonS says:

    So, what does it matter if its Zionists or Zionist wannabes — the organ grinder or the monkey — who pollute politics and governance in the US?
    If this supposition were so far off base it would be so exposed to the light of day the decent people would cease to talk about it. As it is, discussion is stiffled by the same agressive and passive agressive tactics we’ve seen in operation on this thread.
    Bush, today, in Israel, stoking the fire more.
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/bush-obama-nazi-appeaser/
    In which Bush says those naifs (just happen to be Dems, per the WH, primarily Obama) who would be “appeasers” of terrorists, are “good and decent”. I’ve got to agree with the corollary: there is nothing good and decent in Bush.

    Reply

  19. Carroll says:

    Hopefully someday we will have another Eisenhower.
    Maybe he will rise from the ashes after the neos and US Isralis get through destroying the country.
    http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/2063.cfm
    “Of course, nothing in the region would be so difficult to solve except for the underlying cause of the unrest and dissension that exists there–that is, the Arab-Israel quarrel. This quarrel seems to have no limit in either intensity or in scope. Everybody in the Moslem and Jewish worlds is affected by it. It is so intense that the second any action is taken against one Arab state, by an outsider, all the other Arab and Moslem states seem to regard it as a Jewish plot and react violently. All this complicates the situation enormously.
    As we began to uncover evidence that something was building up in Israel, we demanded pledges from Ben-Gurion that he would keep the peace.10 We realized that he might think he could take advantage of this country because of the approaching election and because of the importance that so many politicians in the past have attached to our Jewish vote. I gave strict orders to the State Department that they should inform Israel that we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn’t have a Jew in America. The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated.11 ”
    Yeahright is right.And if Wig wag doesn’t like antisemitism he should tell the semites to change their behavior.

    Reply

  20. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    I answered you. I said: “Even from Europe it seems obvious that
    some important elements of US foreign policy are
    more in the interest of Israeli hawks than in the interest of the
    American people.” Then you can measure the distance between
    that statement and YeahRight`s original statement.
    Be honest, WigWag. If I had made dramatic claims about the
    Swedes or the Canadians controlling the US media or foreign
    policy, you would not bother answering me. But your response
    to YeahRight`s post was: “Do you think he’s right that it’s the
    Zionists calling most of the shots on foreign policy (and I guess
    every other public policy debate) or do you think YeahRight’s
    comments should be condemned?”
    That is a rather unusual request, isn`t it? You either agree, or
    you condemn? As far as I have read you, this is not your normal
    habit regarding different issues. So there seem to be two
    alternatives here: You felt that this may be anti-semitism, or
    you actually agree with the Israeli right wing hawks and their US
    allies. And by not admitting that, it is impossible to discuss with
    you. Nobody was “speculating”. We were just reading your text
    and responded to it.

    Reply

  21. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yeah, thats it, Wig wag, our “silence” answers your question, which was presented adversarily and condescending.
    You want respect? Than ask sincere questions that you don’t feel you already know the answer to. That might go a little ways towards regaining a little of the respect you have lost by being insanely pro-Hillary to the point of idiocy. Its one thing to support a candidate, quite another to be a head nodding blind advocate who is willing to spin, evade, twist, and bullshit.

    Reply

  22. arthurdecco says:

    We didn’t evade your ‘question’ WigWag – we ignored it. It was a dumb question considering the editorial positions and dishonest, Israeli-favoured coverage of the Middle East in almost every segment of the American Media.
    And while you didn’t say anything specific about anti-Semitism, you inferred it. You’re not even capable of being honest with yourself on this issue, are you?

    Reply

  23. WigWag says:

    Paul Norheim and POA,
    I didn’t say anything about antisemitism (Norheim)or AIPAC (POA). I simply asked whether Steve Clemons and his readers agree that Zionists control the U.S. media as YeahRight claimed. You haven’t answered the question. I guess it’s easier and more entertaining for you to speculate about my opinions about antisemitism, Israel and AIPAC. But YeahRight makes a dramatic claim about Zionists and the media. I wanted to see if people here agree with it. I guess by evading the question, you actually answered it.

    Reply

  24. anna missed says:

    What a joke Ahmed Chalabi an Iranian agent – being the reason for being cut off (if he is). When Abdul Azziz al-Hakim co founder of the Badr Organization and leader of SIIC that underwrites the Maliki regime and makes Chalabi look like a gopher by comparison, and is still held in the highest of confidence by the Bush administration. Obviously they wouldn’t know a spy if it bit them in the ass.

    Reply

  25. PissedsOffAmerican says:

    BTW, Charlie Black, McCain’s campaign chairman, was a lobbyist for Ahmed Chalabi’s “Iraqi National Congress”.
    Damned good at it too, I’d say, considering the millions upon millions of dollars that were funneled into Chalabi’s black hole of corruption and lies.
    Comforting, knowing that a potential President of the United States likes to surround himself with despicable slithering snakes that helped finance lying the nation into war, isn’t it?

    Reply

  26. james says:

    i tend to agree with yeahright, and almost always agree with poa. the relationship between israel and the usa is a big problem for americans as i see it…

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Doug Feith: Israel didn’t push for Iraq War
    Former US undersecretary of defense tells Ynet he never saw evidence of Israeli pressure on America to launch Iraq War. In private conversations, Israelis warned that Iraq failure could undermine effort against Iran, he says
    Yitzhak Benhorin
    WASHINGTON – As opposed to frequently cited claims, Israeli officials did not push their American counterparts into launching a war in Iraq, Former United Stated Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told Ynet in a special interview.
    Addressing claims that Israel pushed the US Administration into the war, Feith said “I never saw that.”
    “What you heard from Israeli officials in private discussions was that they were not really focused on Iraq,” Feith said. “They were much more focused on Iran.”
    http://tinyurl.com/4xn7dp
    Israel Urges US to Attack Iraq: “Sooner, Rather than Later”
    Sharon’s advisor: Urges US to accelerate aggression on Iraq, says postponement bad for Israel
    Occupied Jerusalem: 18 January, 2003 (IAP News)
    A former Israeli ambassador to Washington who is now advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has urged the Israeli government to step up pressure on the Bush Administration to accelerate the war on Iraq.
    Zalman Shuval said in an article in the Hebrew newspaper Yedeot Ahranot, published Thursday 16 January, that Israel should make behind-the-scene efforts to get the American administration to attack Iraq “sooner rather than later.”
    Shuval argued that postponing or delaying the war, let alone cancelling it, would have “very negative consequences” on Israel.
    continues at..
    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=467

    Reply

  28. TonyForesta says:

    Chalabi is so slippery he leaves a puddle of goo everywhere walks.
    That said, – what exactly is the definition of “unathorized contacts”. As an official of the Iraqi government, does Chalabi not have the right to slither, – I mean establish contacts with counterparts in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter?
    The Bush government, neocon flip, flop, flip, flop flipping on Chalabi would be hilarious were it not so bloody, costly, and treacherous.
    The more important question relates to the Maliki government’s relations with Chalabi, and if these contacts (whatever they may entail) are unathorized in the eyes of the Iraqi government.
    “Oh what a tangled web we weave…”

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I see WigWag is beginning to show us EXACTLY what he/she is made of. Anyone remember “MP”?
    What a suprise WigWag is firmly behind AIPAC’s darling. The next thing you know, Wigwag will be tellin’ us that AIPAC is “just like any other lobby”.

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This Chalabi thing is fascinating, and much of it seems to have dissappeared off the internet.
    Of even greater interest than Feith’s relationship with Ahmed, is his dealings with Salem Chalabi, and some scumbag named Farouki. (I can’t remember the guy’s first name).
    Remember, Feith was a law partner with Salem at one time, and Salem is also the dirtbag that was originally proposed to be the chief prosecutor of Saddam Hussein.
    If I had the resources, the connections, and the time (Steve?), it would truly be interesting, (and perhaps highly enlightening), to research Farouki’s passion for Middle Eastern antiquities and art, and what part Feith and Salem, and Ahmed, may have played in feeding that passion. One of the true tragedies of this criminal invasion of Iraq is the amount of priceless Middle Eastern antiquities that are reported to have gone missing. You can bet your right ass cheek that they ended up in private collections, and that millions of dollars have been exchanged in the trade of these “missing” items. Who better than the Chalabi clan was better positioned to “oversee” the dissappearance of these items, particularly considering that Feith was undoubtedly privy to the timelines of the invasion, and would have been able to pass information onto Chalabi, who in turn could have passed it onto people inside of Iraq that were positioned to “protect” these various museums and private collections scattered throughout Iraq.
    Undoubtedly, Feith or the Chalabis will get wind of Steve’s post here. So, let me make myself clear. I am offering PURE CONJECTURE, and AM NOT accusing Feith, Farouki, or any of the Chalabi’s of committing crimes, so they can tell their sleazeball attorneys to stand down. Hell, I could have it all wrong, and these guys are qualified for sainthood, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Nobel Peace Prize.
    However, I doubt it, and I am accusing all of them of being absolute effin’ scumbags, and it certainly would not suprise me if my “conjecture” is very close to being the truth.
    But hey, what do I know? I’m just a pissed off American.

    Reply

  31. Paul Norheim says:

    And WigWag:
    I would guess that your concern in this case may explain why you
    are even considering to vote for McCain (the man that infamously
    sang “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…”) because of your dislike for
    Obama – if Hillary C looses for Obama. You are more afraid of the
    vague risk of Iran attacking Israel in a future where they perhaps
    may have developed nuclear weapons, than the very realistic
    present risk of Israel & the US making preemptive strikes on Iran,
    and the possible consequences of that very realistic scenario.

    Reply

  32. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    where have you been all these years? Even from Europe it seems
    obvious that some important elements of US foreign policy are
    more in the interest of Israeli hawks than in the interest of the
    American people.
    As far as I can see, YeahRight is attacking the agressive pro
    Greater Israel people, in Israel as well as in the US. This is not
    synonymous with anti semitism.

    Reply

  33. WigWag says:

    So Steve Clemons and all you loyal WashingtonNote readers, do you agree with YeahRight that Zionists control the media? Do you think he’s right that it’s the Zionists calling most of the shots on foreign policy (and I guess every other public policy debate) or do you think YeahRight’s comments should be condemned? Or would you rather remain silent and leave YeahRight’s remarks unresponded to?
    Your comments (should you be courageous enough to make them) or your silence, will be enlightening.

    Reply

  34. YeahRight says:

    Douglas Feith and his Israeli cohorts at the Office of Special Plans (and how Orwellian is that name?) are the ones who lied the U.S. into war.
    With the able help of the Zionist-controlled U.S. media. I worked in the U.S. and international media for decades and I know what I’m talking about.
    Read what Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Air Force, who was working for Bill Luti in the Pentagon, has to say about the Israelis coming in and out of Feith’s Office of Special Plans. The propaganda that these Israeli agents gave to Feith was then stove-piped to Cheney’s office, and was used to justify the Iraq invasion.
    Soon to be the Iran invasion.
    Chalabi is a straw-man, the real villains are the Zionists in the Pentagon, the media, and our entire political system, who enabled him.
    An attack on Iran will destroy the U.S., as well as millions of people worldwide because it will lead to WW III.
    Steve, you are being disingenuous. Again, Chalabi is the front man for Eretz Israel (Greater Israel) as envisioned by Feith, Perle, the Wurmsers, Lieberman, Abrams, Emmanuel, (Joe and his cousin Avigdor) Lieberman, Grossman, et al, and ad nauseam.

    Reply

  35. Dan Kervick says:

    Unauthorized by whom? Two Iraqi government spokesmen are quoted in the article. One says he is unaware of any change in Chalabi’s status. The other doesn’t even accept that Chalabi officially works for the government.
    This is just some clumsy pre-strike BS designed to win support from part of the left for tough action on Iran by associating Iran with one of our *betes noires*, Ahmed Chalabi. Next they’ll be telling us Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and the ghost of Richard Nixon are working for Tehran too

    Reply

Add your comment

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