by Nicole Bagley
The Mossad in the CIA
Sun Jan 7, 2007 23:46
 

The Mossad in the CIA

January 3, 2007
by Nicole Bagley
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2608.htm#005

It might be of public interest to know that a significant number of Israeli Mossad agents are now working in the United States as employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. These agents, some of whom are listed below, are initially paid by the Israeli Embassy in Washington but Israel then bills the U.S. Government for the salaries and is reimbursed in full on a monthly basis.

Here is a partial listing of identified Mossad agents (as of 1 January, 2007) along with their dates of birth and salaries. They do not have American Social Security numbers and do not pay American taxes.

Gadi Regev 12/17/1975 $63,000 per annum
Betzalel Yanay 9/4/1978 $75,000 “
Eyal Artzel 5/27/1977 $ 87,000 “
Sharon Rotem 8/12/1977 $ 75,000 “
David Susi 1/9/1975 $90,000 “
Dana Sasson 8/10/1980 $70,000 “
Morin Biton 7/14/1980 $ 63,000 “
Gilad Lifschitz 9/17/1978 $87,000 “
Maya Maimon 12/26/1978 $65,000 “
Marco Fernandez 4/13/1977 $54,000 “
Keren Touyz 8/20/1978 $75,000 “
Nofar Bahidi 21/2/79 $53,000 “
Michal Gal 8/10/1979 $92,000 “
Ophir Baer 11/11/1956 $102,000 “
Dilka Borenstein 3/15/1979 $ 67,000 “
Michael Calmanovic 9/6/75 $102,000 “

Most of these U.S.-subsidized spies live in Potomac, McLean, Georgetown and Arlington. I have their addresses and these will be published in a follow-up article.

These are Israeli citizens but many of the middle level CIA officials are American-born Jews and not included in this list but we do know who they are. All of them, without exception, work for Israel and Israeli interests, not American interests and more than a few are known to be friendly with a number of the so-called Neocons, a significant number of whom are also Israeli citizens.

America wakes up

by Julian Borger
Guardian Weekly

This was the year America woke up to a nightmare. All the positive spin and the euphemisms finally fell away to reveal the horrifying reality of the bloodletting in Iraq.

The nightmare is all the more intense for Americans because there is no escape for their sons and daughters in uniform. For the November­ midterm elections, Democrats mostly campaigned on a platform of phased withdrawal. Even before they take up their new offices in Congress, the appetite for a quick departure is dwindling among the party's leaders. US troops would have to fight their way out, and no one seems to know whether their departure would defuse sectarian tensions or remove the last barrier to potential genocide or a regional conflagration, or both.

Nearly four years into the conflict, the White House and the Pentagon still insist it is not a civil war, but they are increasingly alone. In a symbolic moment towards the end of November, the host of NBC's flagship Today show, Matt Lauer, fixed the cameras with a sombre look and declared that the network had decided to call the mess in Iraq by its proper name. In fact, with much less fanfare the Los Angeles Times had taken the ­decision a month earlier to use the term "civil war" for Iraq, and this newspaper took a similar decision not long after. Within a few days, the outgoing UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, reassessed the situation from one that was "almost" a civil war to being "much worse" than one.

The semantic debate accounted for a fair deal of chatter in Washington, and was, of course, grotesquely irrelevant to the actual suffering of the Iraqis, of whom more than 650,000 have died, according to a study by Johns Hopkins University. But in the US, the tussle over the name was politically critical. Americans can now only dimly remember what the country was supposed to have gone to war for. But they are pretty sure they did not sign up to getting stuck between three sides (Shia, Sunni and Kurdish) in a faraway civil war. The Bush administration believes, with some justification, that if the feared phrase became standard usage, it will have finally lost the battle for hearts and minds at home.

It is a battle that President Bush is still fighting. Earlier this month, when he stood alongside Tony Blair for a weary but unbowed show of solidarity in the White House, Bush defiantly spoke of eventual "victory", at a time when almost everyone else in Washington was talking about an exit strategy. After nine months spent questioning generals, colonels, diplomats and policy-makers, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) published a report describing the situation as "grave" and "deteriorating", and accusing the administration of systematically under-reporting the carnage.

The ISG recommended the withdrawal of combat troops by March 2008, and a shift in emphasis from bearing the brunt of the fighting towards embedding American trainers in Iraqi units. The five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission had been unable to agree on a timetable, so they seized on a prediction General George Casey had made about when the Iraqi army might be ready, and stuck that in to make their report sound specific.

This "new diplomatic offensive" bore the unmistakable fingerprints of the commission's Republican co-chairman, James Baker, not to ­mention his fellow multilateralist and former boss, George Bush the elder. In fact, many Bush dynasty observers saw the ISG report as a long letter of rebuke from father to son.

There are signs that the son, who had proudly bested the father by winning a second term, was turning to the old man for advice now that second term had ploughed a historic disaster. The White House let it be known in October that the president would no longer be using the phrase "staying the course", due to the "impression" it might convey that the administration was stubbornly sticking to its guns no matter what the circumstances. The new buzzword would be "adaptability".

It was quite clear over the course of the year that Bush would have to do a lot more than reorder his talking points to regain public confidence, and the day after the midterm elections he took some action. He got rid of his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Ever since the fall of Baghdad, Rumsfeld had appeared even more disconnected from events in Iraq than the president. As anarchy broke out in the capital, he famously observed that "stuff happens" and concluded that some "untidiness" was inevitable.

Soon after his defen­estration, it emerged that the defence secretary's brusque optimism had been for public consumption only. Just days before Rumsfeld's resignation was demanded, he had sent a memo to the president observing that US strategy was not working and that a "major readjustment" was required, possibly one that involved a drastic decrease in the number of US bases in Iraq. The memo was quickly leaked, presumably to show that Rumsfeld was not entirely oblivious to the real world.

Rumsfeld was replaced by Robert Gates, a choice that amounted to a signed admission by the president that "daddy knows best", because Gates was a courtier in the elder Bush's extended household. George Sr had appointed the sovietologist CIA director in the face of congressional misgivings over his role in the ­Reagan-era Iran-Contra adventure, in which arms were secretly sold to Tehran to finance equally covert aid to Nicaraguan rebels.

Gates later showed his gratitude by acting as curator of the Bush ­presidential library in Texas. Before taking over at the Pentagon, he had also sat on the Iraq Study Group.

His appointment to the defence department job, however, did not guarantee the ISG report's acceptance. After its publication, in fact, the president very quickly made it plain he would not follow the ­panel's principal advice. His preconditions for talking to Iran and Syria would remain in place. Nor does it seem likely at the time of going to press that Bush will agree to the withdrawal of US combat troops within a year. After consulting with the joint chiefs of staff, the state department and friendly academics, the ­president is due to announce "a new way forward" in Iraq by the New Year.

It is far from clear, however, whether forward is a direction still open to the US in Iraq. For months - as the veteran Republican sen­ator John Warner pointed out - the US has been drifting sideways, and backwards may ultimately be the only way to reach the exit. In other words, there are only bad options left in Iraq, and at the start of next year Bush must choose one of them. He may be able to determine the number of Americans killed, but not the number of Iraqis. And he will probably not be able to salvage anything of his legacy.

Much of that legacy was thrown overboard in the course of 2006 in an effort to keep the Bush administration afloat. A bid to shake up immigration law and create a national guest worker programme for the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country went the same way as social security and tax reform - nowhere. The Republican right, increasingly aware it would have to survive ­ without Bush, simply revolted.

The goal of leaving in place a "permanent" Republican majority in the wake of the second Bush era also turned out to be hubris boiled up in the heady aftermath of the 2004 election victory. The strategy, formulated by his political guru Karl Rove, was to detach the Hispanic and Catholic vote from the Democratic coalition by playing up "moral ­values" wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. It worked three times, in 2000, 2002 and 2004, but in 2006 the biggest moral issue was the Iraq war, and Hispanic voters had been exposed to the uncompassionate side of American conservatism by the immigration debate.

The immediate consequence was a bigger than expected rout in the House of Representatives on November 7 and a surprise loss in the Senate. Nevertheless the fact that a power shift took place at all in America's ossified democracy was testament to the strength of anti-incumbent feeling in the country. Congressional districts had been gerrymandered wholesale to ­maximise Republican advantage, and Washington was turned into a grand bazaar where political influence was sold for ­campaign contributions and perks. The scale this influence-peddling had reached became apparent in the first days of 2006, when a Republican "super-­lobbyist", Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy involving the "corruption of public officials". Abramoff had put millions of dollars into the campaign war-chests of prominent politicians, and taken them on lavish, all-expenses paid, golfing trips to Scotland in return for legislation favouring his clients, including some Native American tribes.

The investigation is not over yet, but among the big names caught up in the net so far have been Tom DeLay, Bush's enforcer on Capital Hill, another leading Republican congressman, Bob Ney, and David Safavian, a senior White House budget official. The corruption Abramoff represented was both symptom and cause of the Republican monopoly of power in Washington. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, and his legal adviser, David Addington, set about insulating the presidency from congressional oversight. Republican-run committees held back investigations into executive abuse of authority and the White House made a point of stonewalling congressional requests to see documents or question officials.

The president's role as commander-in-chief at a time of war was used to justify sweeping decrees that bypassed Congress - on permissible interrogation techniques, for example. Meanwhile signing statements the president appended to legislation sent to him by Congress amounted to a claim that he could interpret any law as he saw fit. In return, the congressional Republicans were free to turn Capitol Hill into a market.

By the end of 2006 the immediacy of the September 11 attacks had faded and the sheer incompetence of America's war in Iraq had come to the fore to such an extent that the "imperial presidency" was no longer tenable. The voters opted to return to checks and balances.

The incoming Democratic major­ities immediately announced their intention to hold the administration to account for its past actions, including the decision to go to war in Iraq, with a series of congressional inquiries. The White House will continue to fight, but from now on it will be on the defensive. The sharp rise in the number of significant leaks from the West Wing in the last few weeks of the year was a telling reflection of presidency's loss of cohesion.

The end of 2006 also witnessed the start of the 2008 campaign to take Bush's place in the Oval Office, and for the first time in 80 years, the outgoing White House does not have a dog in the fight. All the leading candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, will come from outside the administration and its immediate circle. That is hardly ­surprising in a country desperate for a fresh start, at home and in Iraq. It is a nation yearning to sleep in peace once more.

Senseless 'Sacrifice' in Iraq Must End
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2608.htm#005 

Main Page - Tuesday, 01/09/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)