FAKED WMD REPORT..UPDATE:

FAKED WMD REPORT..UPDATE:
Last Update: 28/08/2004 03:15

Report: Israeli spy said operating in the Pentagon

By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Iraq_report.htm

The American TV network CBS reported Friday that an Israeli spy is operating inside the Pentagon.

According to the report, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is convinced the spy has conveyed highly sensitive information to the Israeli government via two representatives of the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

The report says the suspected mole is a senior analyst who works in the bureau of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The person is also said to be closely associated with two senior Pentagon officials who are Jewish, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.

"The FBI has a full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is about to ... roll up someone agents believe has been spying, not for an enemy, but for Israel, from within the office of the secretary of defense," CBS reported.

The network said that the mole, whom it described as a "trusted analyst of the Pentagon," had last year passed on "secret White House deliberation on Iran."

It also reported that FBI investigators are concerned that Israel may have used the mole in an effort to influence U.S. policy on the war in Iraq.

The FBI has notified Rumsfeld about the investigation and has asked AIPAC to provide it with information about the two representatives in the organization who are suspected of involvement.

The Israeli embassy in Washington issued a statement in which it categorically denied the allegations, saying "they are completely false and outrageous."

AIPAC issued a statement saying "we would not condone or tolerate, for a second, any violation of U.S. law or interests. We are fully cooperating with the governmental authorities and will continue to do so."

CBS news said the person suspected of spying had not returned repeated phone calls.

In November of 1985, Naval intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard was arrested at the gates of the Israeli embassy in Washington, on espionage charges. He was tried, convicted and handed a life sentence for spying for Israel.

Israel apologized for the incident and disbanded the intelligence cell of which Pollard was a part.
MUCH MORE:>>
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Iraq_report.htm

================
FBI Probe Targets Pentagon Official
Analyst Allegedly Gave Data to Israel

By Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 28, 2004; Page A01

The FBI is investigating a mid-level Pentagon official who specializes in Iranian affairs for allegedly passing classified information to Israel, and arrests in the case could come as early as next week, officials at the Pentagon and other government agencies said last night.

The name of the person under investigation was not officially released, but two sources identified him as Larry Franklin. He was described as a desk officer in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia Bureau, one of six regional policy sections. Franklin worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency before moving to the Pentagon's policy branch three years ago and is nearing retirement, the officials said. Franklin could not be located for comment last night.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top Pentagon lawyers were told of the investigation some time ago.

One government official familiar with the investigation said it is not yet clear whether the case will rise to the level of espionage or end up involving lesser charges such as improper disclosure or mishandling of classified information.

The investigation has been underway for some months. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top Pentagon lawyers were informed of it some time ago, officials said. But many other senior Pentagon officials expressed surprise at the news when it was first reported last night on CBS.

Several Pentagon officials sought to play down Franklin's role in policymaking, saying that he was not in a position to have significant influence over U.S. policy.

"The Defense Department has been cooperating with the Department of Justice for an extended period of time," the Pentagon said in a statement last night. "It is the DOD's understanding that the investigation within DOD is very limited in its scope." Even so, the case is likely to attract intense attention because the official being investigated works under William J. Luti, deputy undersecretary of defense for Near East and South Asian Affairs. Luti oversaw the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans," which conducted some early policy work for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

That office is one of two Pentagon offices that Bush administration critics have claimed were set up by Defense Department hawks to bypass the CIA and other intelligence agencies, providing information that President Bush and others used to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

The other office was run by a Luti superior, Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, and was known as the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. Feith reports to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in turn reports to Rumsfeld.

Neither the House nor Senate intelligence committees, however, found support for allegations that the analysts in the offices collected their own intelligence, or that their information significantly shaped the case the administration made for going to war. A law enforcement official said that the information allegedly passed by Franklin went to Israel through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying organization. The information was said to have been the draft of a presidential directive related to U.S. policies toward Iran.

In addition to Franklin, the FBI investigation is focusing on at least two employees at AIPAC, the law enforcement official said.

Last night, AIPAC vigorously denied any wrongdoing and said it is fully cooperating with the investigation.

"Any allegation of criminal conduct by the organization or its employees is baseless and false," spokesman Josh Block said in a written statement. "We would not condone or tolerate for a second any violation of U.S. law or interests." He said he had been traveling and so had no additional information on the situation.

Another AIPAC official said: "Our folks are pretty outraged about this. We've had these kinds of accusations before, and none of them has ever proven to be true."

David Siegel, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said: "We categorically deny these allegations. They are completely false and outrageous."

Israel is a close ally of the United States, but espionage investigations here involving its government are not unprecedented. In 1987, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, Jonathan J. Pollard, admitted to selling state secrets to Israel and was sentenced to life in prison.

Franklin's name surfaced in news reports last year that disclosed he and another Pentagon specialist on the Persian Gulf region had met secretly with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a discredited expatriate Iranian arms merchant who figured prominently in the Iran-contra scandal of the mid-1980s.

That meeting, according to Pentagon officials, took place in late 2001. It had been formally sanctioned by the U.S. government in response to an Iranian government offer to provide information relevant to the war on terrorism. Franklin and the other Pentagon official, Harold Rhode, met with the Iranians over three days in Italy. Ghorbanifar attended these meetings. Rumsfeld has said that the information received at the meetings led nowhere.

Staff writer Dan Eggen and researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40004-2004Aug27.html

February 07, 2003 No 10 admits mistake in copying Iraq dossier
Downing Street today said it made a mistake in failing to acknowledge that a large section of a dossier on Saddam Hussein was copied from a Californian postgraduate student's outdated thesis.
The UK government and secret services are not some fly by night website that failed to credit someone out of ignorance. They stole the material in order to propagandize the world. So now people must know that it is little academic students who are behind U.S. and UK unintelligence. The UK and US governments have been playing the UN and the world for fools. Do not doubt that they are busy searching these little websites for angles to present to the world. The rather embarrassed U.S. Gov’t is now issuing a terror watch in order to distract the world.

THEY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-569669,00.html

==========================================================

Brits' Iraq report was cut & paste production
WANTED! Cut & paste artists for our website, little intelligence required. Experienced personnel from UK's 'intelligence services' preferred. http://www.uscrusade.com/2003/British_Dossier_on_Iraq_Scandal.html

==========================================================
GOVERNMENT PLAGIARISES IRAQI "WMD" REPORT

The following information was circulated on the internet on the 6 February 2003.

It details how the British Government's report Iraq - Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And Intimidation released Monday 3 February 2003 is a wholesale plagiarism of texts already in the public domain, and that consequently we must conclude "the UK at least really does not have any independent sources of information on Iraq's internal politics - they just draw upon publicly available data. Thus any further claims to information based on 'intelligence data' must be treated with even more scepticism."

And secondly that "the information presented as being an accurate statement of the current state of Iraq's security organisations may not be anything of the sort... the information presented as relevant to how Iraqi agencies are currently engaged with Unmovic is 12 years old." Report begins:

The British government's latest report on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, which claims to draw on "intelligence material", has been revealed as a wholesale plagiarism of three articles, one of them by a graduate student in California. The compiler did not even clean up the typos or standardize the spelling. The report, released by the British government last Monday [3 Feb 2003], is entitled Iraq - Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And Intimidation.

It is reproduced online at http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7111.asp (Page down)(references below to page numbers relate to the downloadable Word version).

The first sentence of the document claims that it draws "upon a number of sources, including intelligence material".

This is somewhat misleading.

The bulk of the 19-page document (pp.6-16) is directly copied without acknowledgement from an article in last September's Middle East Review of International Affairs entitled "Iraq's Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis".
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html

The author of the piece is Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He has confirmed that his permission was not sought; in fact, he didn't even know about the British document until Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge-based Iraq analyst, mentioned it to him.

It's quite striking that even Marashi's typographical errors and anomolous uses of grammar are incorporated into the Downing Street document. For example, on p.13, the British dossier incorporates a misplaced comma:

"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head"..

Likewise, Marashi's piece also states:

"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head"..

The other sources that are extensively plagiarised in the document are two authors from Jane's Intelligence Review: Ken Gause (an international security analyst from Alexandria, Virginia), "Can the Iraqi Security Apparatus save Saddam" (November 2002), pp.8-13.

Sean Boyne, "Inside Iraq's Security Network", in 2 parts during 1997.

None of the sources are acknowledged, leading the reader to believe that the information is a result of direct investigative work, rather than simply copied from pre-existing internet sources.

The fact that the texts of these three authors are copied directly results in a proliferation of different transliterations (eg different spellings of Ba'th, depending on which author is being copied).

There are two types of changes incorporated into the British document.

Firstly, numbers are increased or are rounded up. So, for example, the section on "Fedayeen Saddam" (pp.15-16) is directly copied from Boyne, almost word for word. The only substantive difference is that Boyne estimates the personnel of the organisation to be 18,000-40,000.

(Gause similarly estimates 10-40,000). The British dossier instead writes "30,000 to 40,000".

A similar bumping up of figures occurs with the description of the Directorate of Military Intelligence.

The second type of change in the British dossier is that it replaces particular words to make the claim sound stronger. So, for example, most of p.9 on the functions of the Mukhabarat is copied directly from Marashi's article, except that when Marashi writes of its role in: "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq"

This becomes in the British dossier: "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq".

Similarly, on that same page, whilst Marashi writes of the Mukhabarat: "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes" - the British dossier renders this as: "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes".

Further examples from the section on "Fedayeen Saddam" include how a reference to how, in Boyne's original text, its personnel are "recruited from regions loyal to Saddam", referring to their original grouping as "some 10,000-15,000 'bullies and country bumpkins.'" becomes in the British government's text a reference to how its personnel are: "press ganged from regions known to be loyal to Saddam" ... "some 10,000-15,000 bullies."

Clearly, a reference to the "country bumpkins" would not have the rhetorical effect that the British government was aiming for.

Finally, there is one serious substantive mistake in the British text, in that it muddles up Boyne's description of General Security (al-Amn al-Amm), and places it in its section on p.14 of Military Security (al-Amn al-Askari). The result is complete confusion: it starts on p.14 by relating how Military Security was created in 1992 (in a piece copied from Marashi), then goes onto talk about the movement of its headquarters - in 1990 (in a piece copied from Boyne on the activities of General Security).

The result is that it gets the description of the Military Security Service wholly wrong, claiming that its head is Taha al-Ahbabi (whilst really he was head of General Security in 1997; Military Security was headed by Thabet Khalil).

Apart from the obvious criticism that the British government has plagiarised texts without acknowledgement, passing them off as the work of its intelligence services, there are two further serious problems.

Firstly, it indicates that the UK at least really does not have any independent sources of information on Iraq's internal politics - they just draw upon publicly available data. Thus any further claims to information based on "intelligence data" must be treated with even more scepticism.

Secondly, the information presented as being an accurate statement of the current state of Iraq's security organisations may not be anything of the sort. Marashi - the real and unwitting author of much of the document - has as his primary source the documents captured in 1991 for the Iraq Research and Documentation Project. His own focus is the activities of Iraq's intelligence agencies in Kuwait, Aug90-Jan91 - this is the subject of his thesis. As a result, the information presented as relevant to how Iraqi agencies are currently engaged with Unmovic is 12 years old.

For reference, here are a few other summary comments on the British document.

Offici