Quote:

---

...CBS News, which first reported the story, said federal agents were about to arrest the suspect, who it said may have been in a position to influence Bush administration policy on Iran and Iraq.

The network said the analyst had ties to Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, both regarded as leading architects of the war on Iraq that President Bush launched in March last year.

... The network described the spy as "a trusted analyst" ... (who) worked for Feith, who created a special intelligence unit before the Iraq war that had sought to build a case that Baghdad had ties to al Qaeda

... The Washington Post reported on its Web site that the official under suspicion specialized in Iranian affairs and was a veteran of the Defense Intelligence Agency who was nearing retirement.

---

Quote:

---

I find it strange that the Pentagon has a website. Kinda creepifyin.

Did they kiss your ass to your satisfaction?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I lost the capacity to be shocked a long time ago. This was the same office in the Pentagon that fell for what Chalabi was selling hook line and sinker. It was set up post 9-11 to serve as a neocon alternative to the CIA and the State Department intelligence services (I think it was also redundant with a group in the Pentagon itself). The real purpose seems to have been to provide supporting evidence for the administration to justify the Iraq invasion. All of their sources were provided by Chalabi's group, the Iraqi National Congress. We have since learned that these sources were coached. Basically, the majority, if not all, of the information put out by this special office was discredited. And now we find out that one of the people in the office is a potential spy for Israel? Doesn't suprise me at all.

It was actually this office in the Pentagon that really got me questioning why we needed to invade Iraq. Here are some of the questions running through my mind back in January and February of 2003. Why are we trusting an office that has only been in operation less than two years over intelligence from groups who have been operating for decades? Why do we believe Chalabi when he tells us that we will be welcomed with open arms and flowers when the man hasn't been in Iraq in more than forty years? What's the hurry to get on the ground and into Iraq? Why are we letting two prominent members of PNAC (Project for a New American Century) who wrote a report years ago stating that we needed some attack on the US to force us into invading a middle eastern country, preferably Iraq, be the major source for information that leads to us invading Iraq? Why are all the sources this PNAC led office is using to boltress it's support for invading Iraq being provided by the INC? (Iraqi National Congress - Chalabi's group that was getting millions of dollars of federal money to lie to us - they were still getting paid up until Chalabi bit our hand and went to hide in Iran)

It was frustrating at the time that there was no discourse on any of these questions in the mainstream media. Now, a year and a half after it's too late we're starting to finally hear stuff the US public should have known all along. The information was pretty much all there, our media just didn't ask the questions.

I just wish that the Republicans would clean house and marginalize those neoconservatives (GW's presidency has been a testing ground for neo-conservative foreign policy. I think it's safe to say that it was a failure. They should go on back to their think tanks and let the real Republicans regain control of the party). I also wish that we didn't have a media so afraid of their corporate bosses that they are worthless.

[/end rant]

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
Here's my two cents. People who don't like conservatives and neo-conservatives will use this and blame it all on Bush. I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to lay this blame on GW alone, or even at all. Bush's administration is to blame. Namely Cheney, Rumsfield, and all the other prototypical hand-wringing evil neocons. Bush isn't dumb. Yes, his father and his father's money helped get him into Yale. But he still went to Yale. No amount of money and influence will get mayonaise into Yale. Still, there's a lot going on around and behind Bush that I don't think he sees or realizes. Bush, to me, seems a genuinely good person. Misguided, heavily misinformed, perhaps even easily influenced, but I have no doubts about his personal intentions. I'm going to have to agree with a moderate, even somewhat liberal, blogger I read (John Scalzi) and say that I think we should be in Iraq. Maybe the reasons weren't all squared away, but the end result was needed. Those people should have been freed from under Saddam a long time ago, but weren't. And it also sends a message to the other mid-east nations. We won't take shit from you. You guys get along, or we'll drop bombs on your ass, too. We've got a lot of muscle to enforce peace as well as we can. We used a little bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you might ask why we should be the ones doing the peace-keeping. Well, we should, and are, because no one else will. It's a job what needs doing. We can and will and do. And that's why I'm proud to be an American. Semper pax Americana. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
Better the devil I know than the devil I don't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyJedi
Here's my two cents. People who don't like conservatives and neo-conservatives will use this and blame it all on Bush. I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to lay this blame on GW alone, or even at all. Bush's administration is to blame. Namely Cheney, Rumsfield, and all the other prototypical hand-wringing evil neocons. Bush isn't dumb. Yes, his father and his father's money helped get him into Yale. But he still went to Yale. No amount of money and influence will get mayonaise into Yale. Still, there's a lot going on around and behind Bush that I don't think he sees or realizes. Bush, to me, seems a genuinely good person. Misguided, heavily misinformed, perhaps even easily influenced, but I have no doubts about his personal intentions. I'm going to have to agree with a moderate, even somewhat liberal, blogger I read (John Scalzi) and say that I think we should be in Iraq. Maybe the reasons weren't all squared away, but the end result was needed. Those people should have been freed from under Saddam a long time ago, but weren't. And it also sends a message to the other mid-east nations. We won't take shit from you. You guys get along, or we'll drop bombs on your ass, too. We've got a lot of muscle to enforce peace as well as we can. We used a little bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you might ask why we should be the ones doing the peace-keeping. Well, we should, and are, because no one else will. It's a job what needs doing. We can and will and do. And that's why I'm proud to be an American. Semper pax Americana. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus.

---

Quote:

---

And it also sends a message to the other mid-east nations. We won't take shit from you. You guys get along, or we'll drop bombs on your ass, too. We've got a lot of muscle to enforce peace as well as we can. We used a little bit in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you might ask why we should be the ones doing the peace-keeping. Well, we should, and are, because no one else will. It's a job what needs doing. We can and will and do. And that's why I'm proud to be an American.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
... check out this website:
http://selectsmart.com/president/

---