Do ratbags ever change their spots?

No. So look at the past to discern the future. BTW, I for one am VERY pleased by the information presented within this thread, if not alarmed by its content.

P.S. I have been informed not all suicide attacks in Israel have been Arab cause driven and the Israelis have just as an effective recruitment campaign. Difference being is they are prepared to use theirs on their own. There, apparently, is no limit to their scullduggery. In the spirit of the celebration of Stalin, “the end truly justifies the means.”

Abramoff’s connections would want to put a stop to that.

Mention the amount of Armenian Christians being made part of the item. Let’s hear Ralph Reid squirm away from his buddy’s portfolio of water and energy firms eying Northern Iraq from both sides of the northern fence…

Lou Dobbs asked why the Armenians have a lobby and working Americans don’t!

But I guess no mess is big enough that these people aren’t willing to add to it. I keep wondering why everything hasn’t gone up in flames already. Then, I remember, for the Arabs they HAVE.

The Israeli right was originally secular and, to a certain extent, still is. Genealogically, it is in the tradition of Vladimir Jabotinsky’s (1880-1940) Revisionist Party and that of Herut, the political party that succeeded it and, in turn, was succeeded by Likud. Jabotinsky was not a religious believer, and he did not wholly approve of the early terrorist operations of the Irgun. There was nothing messianic about his politics. He and his followers simply assumed that, in order to survive, the country had to be of a certain size, with borders that could be defended. They also believed that since the Arabs would respect only force, not much effort should be wasted on chasing the phantom of peace. This was, broadly speaking, the philosophy of Menachem Begin, Jabotinsky’s faithful disciple, and of Begin’s successors, who included secular leaders such as Ariel Sharon, a former defense minister, and Rafael Eitan, a former chief of staff. Indeed, Eitan was not only secular in outlook but deeply critical of organized religion in Israel. — The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction by Walter Laqueur, 1999

It is always good to hear the truth instead of more political spin.

I would like to quote a couple of his paragraphs…

First…

“The more cautious and thoughtful members of the Bush administration opposed offering Israel the full participatory collaboration of the United States on the grounds that:….

Second

“….The Israeli intelligence in this case was not entirely persuasive, recalling instances of flawed intelligence of similar origin that misinformed some key US actions before and during the Iraq war;…..

Two things jump out here…

“…..instances of flawed intelligence of similar origin that misinformed some key US actions before and during the Iraq war;…..

Now that is an understatement. Is he saying that “flawed Israeli intelligence”
affected some key US actions before and after the Iraq war?

If so what actions, and how did the “flawed intelligence” affect these “key US actions”?

Was this “flawed intelligence” more of the so called “cherry picking” of intelligence by Bushco to justify invading Iraq?

“The more cautious and thoughtful members of the Bush administration….”

Another tremendous understatement, is he implying that even today there are “more cautious and thoughtful members of the Bush administration?”

I thought any of these people, if they ever existed, were summarily fired, given a Medal of Freedom and dispatched to Cheney’s ranch to shovel horse manure (Cheney’s ranch= hell on earth) for daring to question how the prewar intelligence was being used to “justify ” invading Iraq.

The obvious conclusion here is that, and I will change his quote slightly, “if SANER members of the Bush administration” had prevailed 5 years ago we might not be in the mess we are in today.

I have nothing but great admiration and respect for Ray Close, Ray McGovern, Larry, Valerie Plame and countless others in the CIA who while operating in secrecy (which has to be done for them to be effective) are true patriots who believed that what they were doing was truly in the best interest of the the role of the US in the world.

How could they have know that a bunch of criminal thugs and greedy empire builders had taken reins of our and their government and used their hard work and devotion to their work for their own ends.

Of all the emotions one can feel, betrayal is probably the hardest to deal with.

All of them were betrayed in some fashion by their country as well as most of the rest of us.

Lastly I would like to express admiration for Larry’s friend and co-worker Valerie Plame. a classy lady who along with her husband deserves our praise,
thanks, and respect for their devotion to this great country of ours.

20 Ugandans and the commander of the rescue team, Yoni Netanyahu, brother of current opposition head Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud).

The hijackers, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the German Baader-Meinhof gang, demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners.

But according to the newly released documents, the Shin Bet and the PFLP are alleged to have teamed up in an “unholy alliance” in an attempt to change foreign policy in the Middle East.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527980537&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull#

Ahem…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6710289.stm

I don’t want to hear one more claim coming from Israel about SHIT!!

Last Updated: Wednesday, 6 June 2007, 11:16 GMT 12:16 UK

Israel hijack role ‘was queried’
By Dan Parkinson
BBC News

Idi Amin was thought to have colluded with the hijackers
It has been seen as a daring raid by crack Israeli troops to rescue dozens of their countrymen held at the mercy of hijackers.

But newly released documents contain a claim that the 1976 rescue of hostages, kidnapped on an Air France flight and held in Entebbe in Uganda, was not all it seemed.

A UK government file on the crisis, released from the National Archives, contains a claim that Israel itself was behind the hijacking.

An unnamed contact from the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association told a British diplomat in Paris that the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Bet, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) collaborated to seize the plane.

The flight was seized shortly after it took off from Athens and was flown to Entebbe, where 98 people were held hostage, many of them Israeli citizens.

Ugandans killed

Israeli commandos brought the crisis to an end, storming the airport and overpowering the seven hijackers and about 80 Ugandan soldiers in a 36-minute battle.

Two Israeli civilian hostages died in the shooting, and a third died later in a Nairobi hospital. One officer commanding the raiders was killed by shooting from the airport tower.

Ugandan President Idi Amin claimed the troops killed 20 Ugandan servicemen as well as all the hijackers.

The hijackers demands included a list of countries that should release Palestinians or others fighting for the Palestinian cause.

In the document, written on 30 June 1976 when the crisis was still unresolved, DH Colvin of the Paris Embassy writes of his Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association source: “According to his information, the hijack was the work of the PFLP, with help from the Israeli Secret Service, the Shin Beit.

“The operation was designed to torpedo the PLO’s standing in France and to prevent what they see as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans.”

The hostages were held at Entebbe Airport

He adds: “My contact said the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis.”

The documents also reveal that the British government debated whether or not to praise the Israeli raid after its completion.

It was decided in the days after the raid that it was not clear whether the Israeli offensive was justified under international law.

One document in the file reads: “The Israelis have been critical of the fact that the prime minister did not send a personal message of congratulations to Mr Rabin and that our public statement fell short of endorsement of the Israeli action at Entebbe.”

The file also contains correspondence from UK citizens to the government expressing concern that the government had not expressed support for the Israelis.

‘Collusion’

One letter reads: “I am writing to find out our policy towards terrorism. I find it deplorable that there was not a statement made congratulating Israel on the successful rescue.”

But in a document dated 9 July an official cautions against such a statement because there is likely to be “no internationally agreed view about the legality of the Israeli action”.

The document says the legality of it would depend on whether or not the Ugandans had helped the kidnappers.

In a draft document included in the file an official says it appears Idi Amin did collude with the hijackers.

It reads: “On balance it seems that there was a culpable degree of collusion between President Amin and the hijackers, and that the president’s attitude made it much easier for the hijackers to persist in their demands.”

The file does not make it clear how seriously the government took the claim that Israel also may have aided the hijackers.

Not greatly hopeful on that one, but Bush’s assault on Iran has been put into jeopardy? Or is this another part of the now you see it, now you don’t strategy?