History is already repeating itself! Criminal exile linked to Iran intel!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
The parallel was the operation itself. Damn, you're being dense.
But it wasnt, nobody bought into it? What is the point of the story? Some nutcase comes to the govt, the govt doesnt believe him? And???????

But lets throw in a personal insult when somebody points out the obvious lack of a point in your story.
It's not an insult when someone points an obvious flaw in thinking (or, rather, the lack thereof).

The fact that you can't understand that it was a parallel operation in almost every way and what the underlying meaning of that is speaks volumes for your lack of ability to think for yourself.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
Iran is openly hostile to the EU and Israel. Israel is not responding in kind, though the EU is making the mandatory objections. Who's the aggressor? Iran can deliver Nukes in-theatre, and likely can likely have a missle ready to hit the EU in less than a year.

BTW, if Israel wanted Iran wiped off the map, they (Iran) would be gone in a heartbeat. Irans military is less than is that of Syria or former Iraq. They are poorly trained and not in the same league as Israel, the United States or the EU.

Iraq had the best army in the ME and we see how well that worked for them....

They are now a rogue nation and will likely sufffer serious economic fallout as a result of their extremist views.
Iraq may have had the best military back in the early 80s. They sure as hell didn't in 1991 and they DAMN sure didn't in 2003.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
The parallel was the operation itself. Damn, you're being dense.
But it wasnt, nobody bought into it? What is the point of the story? Some nutcase comes to the govt, the govt doesnt believe him? And???????

But lets throw in a personal insult when somebody points out the obvious lack of a point in your story.
It's not an insult when someone points an obvious flaw in thinking (or, rather, the lack thereof).

The fact that you can't understand that it was a parallel operation in almost every way and what the underlying meaning of that is speaks volumes for your lack of ability to think for yourself.

The parallel operation is moot, nobody believed it. So what is the point? Just to point out somebody came to the US with a story and they investigated it and it proved fruitless?

Congrats you managed to show the administration didnt buy into a false story.


 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
It's the fact that they TRIED. Jesus H. Christ. I guess I just had to spell it out for you.

They TRIED using the exact same methods but this one just happened to pull in someone that was just too whacky and couldn't possibly past muster. They succeeded with Iraq, though. Get it now?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: maluckey
Iran is openly hostile to the EU and Israel. Israel is not responding in kind, though the EU is making the mandatory objections. Who's the aggressor? Iran can deliver Nukes in-theatre, and likely can likely have a missle ready to hit the EU in less than a year.

BTW, if Israel wanted Iran wiped off the map, they (Iran) would be gone in a heartbeat. Irans military is less than is that of Syria or former Iraq. They are poorly trained and not in the same league as Israel, the United States or the EU.

Iraq had the best army in the ME and we see how well that worked for them....

They are now a rogue nation and will likely sufffer serious economic fallout as a result of their extremist views.
Iraq may have had the best military back in the early 80s. They sure as hell didn't in 1991 and they DAMN sure didn't in 2003.
ok, based on your vast knowledge of military capabilities, which ME country currently maintains the most effective military? try answering quickly and without referring to Janes.com.

ok...GO!

ps: Genx is 100% correct. your OP here has absolutely NO point and zero relevance to the current situation with Iran. Your wacked out "parallel operations" theory is a joke, and I'm beginning to think that you've gone off the deep end of more than the political spectrum...

spin much?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Never heard of janes.com but I'd hazard Israel with the Saudis in at #2 and perhaps Egypt #3.

As for your ps, you obviously haven't read this thread. Or, if you did, your reading comprehension is just atrocious. Dismissed.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: conjur
It's the fact that they TRIED. Jesus H. Christ. I guess I just had to spell it out for you.

They TRIED using the exact same methods but this one just happened to pull in someone that was just too whacky and couldn't possibly past muster. They succeeded with Iraq, though. Get it now?

That is what you got out of that story?
Try reading it again.
They were simply following a lead that didnt pan out and was deemed a non-credible source.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
It's the fact that they TRIED. Jesus H. Christ. I guess I just had to spell it out for you.

They TRIED using the exact same methods but this one just happened to pull in someone that was just too whacky and couldn't possibly past muster. They succeeded with Iraq, though. Get it now?

That is what you got out of that story?
Try reading it again.
They were simply following a lead that didnt pan out and was deemed a non-credible source.

Genx... he doesnt get it man. He is questioning OUR reading comprehension abilities while his seem to be very...strange? He sees a PNAC conspiracy in EVERYTHING! There is no arguing with him on this, as he will never admit it. Give it time, and he'll somehow claim that "Herr Bush" is behind the entire story... seriously. Conjur is the Michael Moore of the P&N forums...

so GL getting him to rezlie his mistake here.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
It's the fact that they TRIED. Jesus H. Christ. I guess I just had to spell it out for you.

They TRIED using the exact same methods but this one just happened to pull in someone that was just too whacky and couldn't possibly past muster. They succeeded with Iraq, though. Get it now?
That is what you got out of that story?
Try reading it again.
They were simply following a lead that didnt pan out and was deemed a non-credible source.
Apparently you missed this part:
Ghorbanifahr has strong ties to Michael Ledeen, and both of them were involved in a controversial meeting in Rome of 2001. That meeting, whose purpose is unknown, included high level officials in Italian intelligence, Iranian nationals and Larry Franklin, a former Defense Department analyst who current pled guilty to charges of passing classified information to Israel and Iran. Also in attendance was Middle East expert Harold Rhode, also under investigation for charges of passing classified information to Israel and Iran. Both Rhode and Franklin worked for Feith in the Office of Special plans.

Ledeen was consulting for OSP when all three were dispatched to Rome in 2001. He says the meetings had nothing to do with Iraq.

"The Rome meetings had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, but with Iran and Afghanistan," Ledeen wrote in an email. "I don't think a single word was pronounced, by anyone, on Iraq."

Later, in a phone conversation, Ledeen explained that the Rome meeting had to do with what his sources told him was going on on the ground in Afghanistan, namely that Iran was allegedly fueling the Afghan insurgency.

"I reported this back," Ledeen said. "This information saved American lives."

According to James Risen's New York Times article dated December of 2003, Ledeen was a paid consultant to the National Security Council at the time of the meeting. Risen reports that National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was informed of the plans for the meeting and that Hadley expressed reservations given Ledeen and Ghorbanifahr's background.

The Office of Special plans, however, authorized the meeting without notifying any other agency, violating protocol. They did not notify the Rome CIA station chief or the U.S. Ambassador to Italy, Mel Sembler.

Ledeen, however, says that Hadley had authorized the trip. This would also implicate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, then-National Security Advisor.
This is almost exactly what the OSP was doing with Chalabi and the INC. Stovepiping intel past the CIA/DIA/etc. and on to Hadley.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
I have. I just reposted the key part of it. Yes, it didn't pan out but that doesn't mean they didn't try. They were seeking to find a way to justify invading Iran. Just so happens their source didn't pan out. We got lucky in that respect.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
This is almost exactly what the OSP was doing with Chalabi and the INC. Stovepiping intel past the CIA/DIA/etc. and on to Hadley.
but what is your POINT!? What profound and NEW accustation are you making here?

I've read the article 3 times now and I honestly cant see where you are trying to lead us... I do not see anything new or profound in terms of conpiracies and parallel operations. All I see is a reiteration of a very old story with similiarities to others like it...

plz spell out, paraphrase if you will, exactly what point you are attempting to make with this article...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I guess when reading it and the story about Uranium being passed onto Iran from Iraq and going to verify the source and the actual event that lead the CIA, DoD, and even Rummys office to declare it non-credible I didnt see anything in there as trying to do anything except follow a lead.

Remember this guy came to them and not-vice versa. I would certainly hope they would have followed a lead if given one like that.

However nothing in your story indicates anything in regards to using it as a justification to invade Iran, just a story about following up leads and determining if they are credible and worthwhile.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
I have. I just reposted the key part of it. Yes, it didn't pan out but that doesn't mean they didn't try. They were seeking to find a way to justify invading Iran. Just so happens their source didn't pan out. We got lucky in that respect.

omg.. nevermind... you're just looney man.

what they were DOING was attempting to collect intelligence from a source that turned out to be a wackjob. it's as simple as that.

what YOU are doing here and now, is attempting to take that one step further and implying that we collect intelligence for the sole purpose of invading other countries; or to use as "justification" for other vast conspiracies. you are really stretching it this time Conjur. I mean, seriously...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Do you not recall what Ledeen and Franklin were doing in the Pentagon? Do I need to drag up those old stories again?

Maybe this will help
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/15/12176/9231
According to recent reports, the focus of the case against accused Pentagon spy Larry Franklin is not merely a conventional spy case involving the passing of documents to a foreign agent. Instead, it appears that the OSP-AIPAC espionage conspiracy is also about efforts by Israel to "cook the books" on Iranian WMDs, much as occurred earlier with planted false documents that led the Bush Administration to justify the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Details about the still sealed indictment against Franklin show that the FBI busted up a plot by an Israeli intelligence officer and two AIPAC lobbyists to advance the career of Franklin, get him "by the elbow of the President", and to plant misleading information in Pentagon documents about Iran.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
And? Your story is about following leads. I dont know what else to tell you. Linking to other stories doesnt change the facts of your OP.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
When you take into account, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story" then the pieces fall into place. It's just that you don't believe that the PNAC was that evil and criminal of an organization. You don't put stock in Hersh's articles or Kwiatkowski's. That's your problem: You don't see the problem. *I* do. That's how I woke up in late 2003.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
Do you not recall what Ledeen and Franklin were doing in the Pentagon? Do I need to drag up those old stories again?

Maybe this will help
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/15/12176/9231
According to recent reports, the focus of the case against accused Pentagon spy Larry Franklin is not merely a conventional spy case involving the passing of documents to a foreign agent. Instead, it appears that the OSP-AIPAC espionage conspiracy is also about efforts by Israel to "cook the books" on Iranian WMDs, much as occurred earlier with planted false documents that led the Bush Administration to justify the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Details about the still sealed indictment against Franklin show that the FBI busted up a plot by an Israeli intelligence officer and two AIPAC lobbyists to advance the career of Franklin, get him "by the elbow of the President", and to plant misleading information in Pentagon documents about Iran.

So is your whole point that Israel may have also led them to the lying Iranian man in exile?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
No, the point is that the PNAC (via the OSP) was in league with certain Israeli spies to create this false information, just as was similarly done with the forged Niger documents (remember, Hadley was deeply involved in that, too).

The PNAC was, and largely still is, controlling our foreign policy, esp. that wrt to the Middle East and invading Iraq and Iran (the two largest threats to Israel).


Is it becoming clear to you all yet? I know it took me some time to finally accept it. But hopefully you'll start down that path.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: conjur
When you take into account, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story" then the pieces fall into place. It's just that you don't believe that the PNAC was that evil and criminal of an organization. You don't put stock in Hersh's articles or Kwiatkowski's. That's your problem: You don't see the problem.

Except these very evil PNAC agents are the ones who said he wasnt credible. So what is the story here?

You are right I dont put stock in their articles because it ends up warping my brain to think when the administration follows up on leads from a guy who has a story about Uranium being moved. Then they decide the story is bunk, that is is some huge story about them trying to find a link to justify an invasion. Nevermind the facts nobody including the administration bought into the sources story and never invaded Iran.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
It wasn't the PNACers that deemed the intel non-credible. It was the CIA.
The neoconservative movement has long expressed an inherent distrust of the CIA. Many neoconservatives note that the agency undercounted Russia's nuclear stockpile in the waning days of the Soviet Union, and believe that it routinely underestimates foreign threats.

Weldon, who had been led to believe the CIA never opened an investigation into the information he provided, took his case directly to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld then pressured the CIA to investigate further.

"CIA reluctantly, after pressure from Rumsfeld, followed up by detaching one of their weapons experts from the team that was hunting WMD in Iraq," one former CIA officer who asked to remain anonymous said.

Sources say that this second investigation resulted in another wild goose chase. The question of motive, however, seems to either have been entirely missed or simply glossed over.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
It wasn't the PNACers that deemed the intel non-credible. It was the CIA.

but wait, i thought that the CIA has always been part of your Global PNAC conspiracy..? are you saying, that just this once, that the CIA (and every other intel agency) were the sensible ones on the side of all that is good and just?

bah.. forget it.. you're reaching with this one Conjur. really...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
WTF? The CIA has nothing to do with the PNAC. Do you enjoy making stuff up? Or perhaps you got that from one of your email forwards.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
WTF? The CIA has nothing to do with the PNAC. Do you enjoy making stuff up? Or perhaps you got that from one of your email forwards.
ok, just for future reference, for the record, you are saying that the CIA is ok in your book? and the FBI? and the NSA? NRO? DIA? NIMA? NIS? AIA?... just curious.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
For the most, yes, the CIA is ok. They've long been made the scapegoat for various administrations' fvck ups. They were bound and determined to not be it for the Iraq War which is the reason why their intelligence reports showed the truth re: aluminum tubes, yellowcake, VX, whatever. It's when those reports weren't coming back with the right answers for the PNAC fvcks that the PNAC fvcks did an end run to find some Selective Intelligence and then run it up The Stovepipe.