Franklin Case Targets Wolfowitz?

So says Haaretz :

"'A government official who has been briefed on the investigation said that F.B.I. officials had earlier expressed an interest in interviewing two of Mr. Franklin's superiors, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, and Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary...'"

More on the Franklin Case: CIA v. DoD?

By Laura Rozen, et al, in The Washington Monthly

"Alarm bells about the December 2001 meeting began going off in U.S. government channels only days after it occurred. On December 12th 2001, at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, America's newly-installed Ambassador, Mel Sembler, sat down for a private dinner with Ledeen, an old friend of his from Republican Party politics, and Martino, the Italian defense minister. The conversation quickly turned to the meeting. The problem was that this was the first that Ambassador Sembler had heard about it.

"According to U.S. government sources, Sembler immediately set about trying to determine what he could about the meeting and how it had happened. Since U.S. government contact with foreign government intelligence agencies is supposed to be overseen by the CIA, Sembler first spoke to the CIA station chief in Rome to find out what if anything he knew about the meeting with the Iranians. But that only raised more questions because the station chief had been left in the dark as well. Soon both Sembler and the Rome station chief were sending anxious queries back to the State Department and CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, respectively, raising alarms on both sides of the Potomac."

Laura Rozen on the Larry Franklin Spy Case

From War and Piece:

"For months, I have been working with my colleagues Paul Glastris and Josh Marshall on a story for the Washington Monthly about pre-war intelligence. In particular, the component I have been focusing on involves a particular series of meetings involving officials from the office of the undersecretary of defense for Policy Doug Feith and Iranian dissidents.

"As part of our reporting, I have come into possession of information that points to an official who is the most likely target of the FBI investigation into who allegedly passed intelligence on deliberations on US foreign policy to Iran to officials with the pro-Israeli lobby group, AIPAC, and to the Israelis, as alleged by the CBS report. That individual is Larry Franklin, a veteran DIA Iran analyst seconded to Feith’s office.

"Here is what I was told in the days before the FBI investigation came to light.

"A source told me that some time in July, Larry Franklin called him and asked him to meet him in a coffee shop in Northern Virginia. Franklin had intelligence on hostile Iranian activities in Iraq and was extremely frustrated that he did not feel this intelligence was getting the attention and response it deserved. The intelligence included information that the Iranians had called all of their intelligence operatives who speak Arabic to southern Iraq, that it had moved their top operative for Afghanistan, a guy named Qudzi, to the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, that its operatives were targeting Iraqi state oil facilities, and that Iranian agents were infiltrating into northern Iraq to target the Israelis written about in a report by Seymour Hersh. According to my source, Franklin passed the information to the individual from AIPAC with the hope it could reach people at higher levels of the US government who would act on it. AIPAC presented the information to Elliot Abrams in the NSC. They also presented the part that involved Israelis who might be targeted to the Israelis, with the motivation to protect Israeli lives.

"A couple weeks ago, my source told me, he was visited by two agents of the FBI, who were asking about Franklin. My source couldn’t tell if Franklin was being investigated for possible wrongdoing, or if the FBI was visiting him because Franklin required some sort of higher level security clearance or clearance renewal, perhaps in order to get some sort of new position or posting abroad. My source soon after ran into another official from Feith's office, the polyglot Middle East expert and Bernard Lewis protege, Harold Rhode. My source mentioned the FBI meeting and asked Rhode if Franklin was in trouble. 'It's not clear,' Rhode allegedly told my source..."

You can read Rozen's whole story here.

More Evidence of a Power Struggle?

Here's a 2003 newspaper article about Larry Franklin mentioning antagonism between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld:

"Administration officials said at least two Pentagon officials working for the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, Douglas Feith, have held 'several' meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in United States arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s. The officials who disclosed the secret meetings said the talks with Mr Ghorbanifar were not authorised by the White House and appeared to be aimed at undercutting sensitive negotiations with Iran's Government. A senior Administration official said the US Government had learned about the unauthorised talks by accident.

"The senior official and another Administration source said the ultimate objective of Mr Feith and a group of neo-conservative civilians inside the Pentagon is change of government in Iran. The immediate objective appeared to be to 'antagonise Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden US policy against them'. The official confirmed that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, complained directly to the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, several days ago about Mr Feith conducting missions that went against US policy.

"A spokesman for Mr Feith's Near East, South Asia and Special Plans office, which sources said played a key role in contacts with Mr Ghorbanifar contacts, ignored an emailed inquiry about the talks. The senior Administration official identified two of the defence officials who met Mr Ghorbanifar as Harold Rhode, Mr Feith's top Middle East specialist, and Larry Franklin, a Defence Intelligence Agency analyst on loan to the undersecretary's office..."

Who is Larry Franklin?

Here's the entry from Co-Operative Research on the man the FBI has accused of being an Israeli spy at the Pentagon:

"June 2003: Complete Iraq timeline: The Pentagon Office of Special Plans sends two Defense officials, Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin, to Paris where they secretly meet with Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms trader who had been a central figure in the Iran-Contra affair. Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute is said to have arranged the meeting, which is not authorized by the White House. [Newsday, 8/9/03; Washington Post, 8/9/03 Sources: A senior official interviewed by Newsday] It appears that the purpose of the meeting is to undermine a pending deal that the White House is negotiating with the Iranian government. Iran is considering turning over five al-Qaeda operatives in exchange for Washington dropping its support for Mujahadeen Khalq, an Iraq-based rebel Iranian group listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department. The Office of Special Plans is reportedly interested in using this group to help destabilize Iran?s government. [Newsday, 8/9/03; Inter Press Service, 8/7/03] When Secretary of State Colin Powell gets wind of its activities, he complains directly to the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying that Feith's missions are against US policy. [Newsday, 8/9/03; Washington Post, 8/9/03] People and organizations involved: Michael Ledeen, Manucher Ghorbanifar, Larry Franklin, Harold Rhode."

What does this mean? Perhaps that these spying charges are part of a power struggle within the Bush administration over Iran policy...

Chalmers Roberts' Life and Death Decision

Long-time Washington Post Correspondent Chalmers Roberts reflects on why he decided not to have a major operation. From The Washington Post:

"I could be dead when you read this. But I thought it might be worthwhile to put down my thoughts about how I decided to skip a lifesaving heart operation. I am a 93-year-old man with congestive heart failure. The operation I'm skipping would replace a heart valve that has given up on me with a new pig's valve..."

Happy Birthday Instapundit

And he's stopping blogging because of it:

"IT'S MY BIRTHDAY, which means no more blogging today unless something rather major happens. If you're bored tonight, check out the InstaWife's TV show Snapped on the Oxygen Channel. If you happen to be a Nielsen family, please invite several dozen of your friends to watch with you. . . ."

Do Americans Cover Up Terrorist Acts Better Than Russians?

Canada's National Post says American Airlines Flight 587 was a victim of terrorism, although the US denies it:

"'In discussions, Abu Abdelrahman mentioned AL QAIDA was responsible for the assassination of Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader,' the report says. 'According to the source, Abu Abdelrahman added that the 12 November 2001 plane crash (btb American Airlines flight 587) in Queens, New York was not an accident as reported in the press but was actually an AL QAIDA operation."

Saving Strauss from the Straussians

Thomas G. West argues that Washington neo-conservatives are not true Straussians:


"Quite a few of President Bush's critics maintain that since some prominent members of the administration and their defenders are known to be former students of Leo Strauss or of Straussians, one can trace Bush's foreign policy to Strauss's political ideas. Straussians in Washington tend to be neoconservatives, and, in foreign policy, prominent neocons like William Kristol and Robert Kagan advocate a policy of 'benevolent hegemony.' In their argument, a benign American imperialism is justified for two reasons. First, it provides security against foreign attack; that is, it delivers 'strategic benefits.' But their real enthusiasm is reserved for its second purpose, which is democratic reform of the rest of the world. That stance, they argue, not only serves American interest; it is a moral imperative. The policy of benevolent hegemony will 'relish the opportunity for national engagement, embrace the possibility of national greatness, and restore a sense of the heroic.' Kristol and Kagan also argue that their view is supported by the principles of the American founding: 'For conservatives to preach the importance of upholding the core elements of the Western tradition at home, but to profess indifference to the fate of American principles abroad, is an inconsistency that cannot help but gnaw at the heart of conservatism.' My impression as an outside observer is that Straussian influence in the administration has been grossly exaggerated. But let us assume for discussion's sake that it is strong. Since Strauss has been wildly accused of everything from being an admirer of Hitler to being a devotee of Wilsonian progressivism, I think it high time to clarify Strauss's understanding of foreign policy. I shall argue that although there is some common ground, Strauss's overall approach is quite different from that of Kristol, Kagan, and other prominent neoconservatives in and out of the administration."

The Straussian Conspiracy

Harry Jaffa defends Leo Strauss in the Claremont Review::

"Hillary Clinton's 'vast right wing conspiracy' seems to have undergone a metamorphosis into a 'vast Straussian neo-con conspiracy,' judging from the outpouring of articles, letters, and radio and television interviews denouncing President Bush's foreign policy as a war-crazed Straussian neo-con plot."

Have Democrats Lost Their Marbles?

Charles Krauthammer, a practicing psychiatrist, says so in today's Washington Post:

"Upon losing a game at the 1925 Baden-Baden tournament, Aaron Nimzowitsch, the great chess theoretician and a superb player, knocked the pieces off the board, jumped on the table and screamed, 'How can I lose to this idiot?' Nimzowitsch may have lived decades ago in Denmark, but he had the soul of a modern American Democrat. After all, Democrats have been saying much the same -- with similar body language -- ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. They said it again when they lost to that supposed simpleton Ronald Reagan. Twice, would you believe? With George W. Bush, they are at it again, and equally apoplectic."

Winners & Losers in Najaf

From Juan Cole:

"I think the big losers from the Najaf episode (part deux) are the Americans. They have become, if it is possible, even more unpopular in Iraq than they were last spring after Abu Ghuraib, Fallujah and Najaf Part 1. The US is perceived as culturally insensitive for its actions in the holy city of Najaf. The Allawi government is also a big loser. Instead of looking decisive, as they had hoped, they ended up looking like the lackeys of neo-imperialists.The big winner is Sistani, whose religious charisma has now been enhanced by solid nationalist credentials. He is a national hero for saving Najaf. For Muqtada, it is a wash. He did not have Najaf until April, anyway, and cn easily survive not having it. His movement in the slums of the southern cities is intact, even if its paramilitary has been weakened."

Olympics 2004 Betting Odds

In case you've got money riding on the Athens games, here's the link for OddsChecker's Olympics 2004 Betting Odds.

CNN's Final Insult

Using footage fed by a Hezbollah propaganda network to cover Iraq. CNN founder Reese Schonfeld explains the problem:

"CNN is crediting Al Manar for some of the footage it is using on the Kufa, Najaf story. Al Manar is an Iranian funded, Hezbollah network--the most anti- U.S. network in the world. It applauds terrorism, recruits terrorists and attacks the United States constantly. Showing Al Manar tape is the equivalent of using Joseph Goebels material during the Second World War. But since the new Iraqi government closed down Al Jazeera, western networks have been forced to use Hezbollah tape from areas where western crews cannot operate. Al Jazeera is a legitimate news network. Al Manar is racism and hate but American television has given it legitimacy."

Containing Terrorism

Robert L. Hutchings, who head President Bush's National Intelligence Council, argues George Kennan's containment strategy towards the USSR can defeat Al Qaeda. (Thanks to Foreign Policy magazine for the link):

"That brings me to my core conclusion: we should not assume that 'we' and 'they' have nothing in common. Usama bin Laden and his followers deplore what they perceive as the depravity and vacuity of modernity. So do many in the West. Terrorists and their supporters rage against the inequities and degradation brought on by globalization. So do many thoughtful critics who would not dream of resorting to terrorism to achieve their goals.

"Many of the grievances that terrorists express and exploit -- economic disadvantage, alienation brought on by globalization, a sense of cultural humiliation, and others -- are remediable, at least potentially. It was one of the core failings of Communist ideology that Marx failed to see that many of the class antagonisms he identified could be--and were--overcome by peaceful means rather than the class struggle he took to be inevitable. (I learned this at the feet of the late Lewis Feuer right here on this campus.)

"Our frame of mind -- even as we are waging a resolute campaign against international terrorism -- should be that we are not engaged in a fight to the finish with radical Islam. This is not a clash of civilizations but rather a defense of our shared humanity and a search to find common ground, however implausible that may seem now. Such an effort is no more possible with Usama bin Laden than it was with Stalin back when Kennan was writing, and it will be an elusive goal for years to come, but we have reason to be optimistic if we take the longer view, as Kennan did.

"Let me conclude, as I began, by citing the X-Article:

The issue...is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.

"If these words sound somewhat melodramatic, I ask you to remember how vulnerable, uncertain, and fearful we felt as a nation on September 11, 2001. We have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go before we can recover the security and tranquility that was so brutally shattered that bright morning two and a half years ago."

Iraq: What Went Wrong?

Coalition Provisional Authority advisor Larry Diamond tries to explain, in Foreign Affairs:

"It now seems unlikely that the weak and besieged new Iraqi government will have the will or capacity to enforce the demobilization plan. In fact, the new Iraqi state is caught in a Catch-22: to be viable, it must build up its armed forces as rapidly as possible. But the readiest sources of soldiers and police are the most powerful militias, which will probably allow their fighters to join the new military only if their command structures remain intact. Thus, if the fledgling Iraqi state hopes to truly defeat the militias, it may have to go to war with itself. That seems hard to imagine. Yet if Iraq tries to hold elections while the militias remain intact (in one guise or another), the campaign is likely to become a very bloody and undemocratic affair. Candidates will face assassination, weaker political opponents will be run out of town, and the electoral machinery will be hijacked by those with the most guns.

"Even if the security situation improves enough to allow elections to go forward on time, Iraq could still get into further trouble if it follows the UN's recommendation and uses a national-list system, apportioning seats in parliament on the basis of nationwide voting, since this would give the big regional and religious parties an added incentive to inflate their numbers through force and fraud. Should that occur, the biggest winners will be the best-armed and most-organized forces-the Kurds in the far north and the Iranian-backed Islamist parties in the Shiite south. The American occupation could wind up paving the way for the 'election' of an Iranian-linked Islamist government in Baghdad."

Che Guevara Remembered

From The Spectator:

"He was undaunted by the deaths he had ordered and the errors he had made. He had larger dreams than the fate of the Cuban economy. He was excited by the vision of a grand, global confrontation between imperialism and socialism, and he viewed the prospect of nuclear war with equanimity. Speaking to the First Latin American Youth Congress, in July 1959, he stated: ‘These people [of Cuba] you see today tell you that even if they should disappear from the face of the earth because an atomic war is unleashed in their names ...they would feel completely happy and fulfilled....’ During the Cuban missile crisis, Che wanted to fire the missiles at the United States, and was furious that Khrushchev backed down in the face of US pressure."

British Library, Eton College in Anthony Powell Papers Row

From The Guardian (thanks to Artsjournal for the tip):

"Eton College was quietly asked last year to hand over the manuscript collection to the British Library while both bodies put in bids to become the permanent custodians of Powell's work. Michael Meredith, Eton's librarian, personally took the manuscripts to the British Library to hand them over to Christopher Wright, the head of manuscripts."

Republican Bloggers to Cover NYC Convention

From The Wall Street Journal (thanks to Instapundit for the tip):

"Republican Web loggers are getting ready for their shot at posting convention news and commentary, and they say they've learned from their left-leaning counterparts' experience five weeks earlier. At Madison Square Garden, the official blogger group will number about 15, a tiny fraction of the estimated 15,000 journalists expected, and less than half the size of the accredited Boston blogger set. 'That's just the number we landed on,' said convention spokeswoman Alyssa McClenning. She wouldn't discuss how convention planners chose the group, but said the bloggers 'reflected a mix of ideologies.' Adding to the blend are some delegates and traditional journalists who also plan to blog from the convention. In the accreditation process, Republican convention organizers invited particular bloggers, while the Democrats used applications. But the result is the same: a lot of home-team support. Most Boston bloggers were solidly in the John Kerry camp, while most New York bloggers plan to vote for President Bush. A handful of centrist bloggers are attending both."

Controversy Swirls Over National Anthem

From The Washington Post:

"Peter Breiner, whose 204 arrangements of the world's national anthems are being performed at the Athens Olympics, had no intention of wandering into the blue-state/red-state thickets when he arranged 'The Star-Spangled Banner.' But that hasn't slowed critics from reading political philosophy into his genteel, romanticized orchestration of the famous tune. A 'Europe-friendly version of the anthem,' designed 'to play down the notion of the U.S. as a chest-thumping, butt-kicking, jingoistic powerhouse,' sniffed a writer in the Wall Street Journal, quoting an unnamed musician. 'Even our warlike national anthem has been transformed, from blaring horns to peaceful, soothing strings' wrote Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, in a column about the toning-down of U.S. bravado at the Athens games."