Posted on 05/23/2003 8:58:26 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
And here I always thought it was because Pollard and Peltier's supporters didn't come up with enough of the ready to make it worth the Billster's while....
for a few pics of my trip to the Republika Srpska on behalf of Pedal in Peace 2003
The official site is here, it is enduring a smoldering DOS attack on the host server.
Reason and Justice both say Pollard should be freed and deported, or retried in fair public trial. Yet both of those base attributes of men's pysche are absent in this modern Dreyfuss case.
I don't know about your reasons, but many of his "defenders" are only doing this because he is part of their "racial/ethnic/religeous" group. It smacks of bigotry to me. Where are these same people when it comes to unfair treatment of non-Israeli spys?
Besides, part of all of this really is about Israel proving that it protects its spys. If they get a rep of not helping free guys like Pollard, it will be harder for them to recruit. I have no interest in assisting them in their efforts to make traitors out of Americans. The mossad should be ashamed of how they treat the country that funds and supports them. It has back fired on them and the Pollard harping just keeps reopening the wound. Of course Israel has always been very poor at PR.
Not only were we told not to divulge, but we signed an oath not to.
You forgot to mention the life time travel restriction, and publication restriction.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I had no idea that John Loftus was a liberal activist or a Democrat. I received the link in a right wing Torah Nationalist e-mail and thought the contents might be of interest to FReepers.
Two points: first, while the liberalism of the source certainly must be taken into account, I wish to point out that Israel-haters have never hesitated to invoke the most radical leftists (Gore Vidal, Normal Mailer, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Vanessa Redgrave, Ralph Nader, Lyndon LaRouche, even Joseph Stalin) whenever the statements of these people agreed with their own positions. Their response has always been that at least these leftists are "honest" or represent cases where leftism has slipped out of the "control" of its "creators." I say this not to lump you in with such company (since I know nothing about you), but merely to point out that even a broken clock is right twice a day and the liberalism of the source, while it may be an influence on his conclusion, does not necessarily disqualify his conclusions.
Secondly, the infiltration of the State Department during the Roosevelt-Truman administrations is so well known and well documented as to be beyond debate. However, I wish to point out that that same notoriously leftist State Department is the same government department that has been fanatically anti-Israel and pro-Arab for some sixty years. Coincidence?
...These particular agents are now a major embarrassment to the Saudis and to the handful of American spy chiefs who had employed these Saudi intelligence agents on the sly. Some of the names on this list—such as Osama Bin Laden—turned out to be leaders of terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood and what we now call Al Qaeda. ...
...During the Reagan-Bush administrations, the National Security Council wanted to throw the Soviets out of Afghanistan using Arab soldiers instead of American. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but no one thought about the long-term consequences. In imitation of the Soviet strategy of hiring terrorists, we asked the Saudis to recruit a proxy army of Islamic terrorists whom we would supply with guns and pay indirectly, according to intelligence sources. By having the Saudis hire the "freedom fighters," we could avoid embarrassing questions in Congress about giving the taxpayers money to known Arab terrorists. ...
... The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989. The naive Americans walked away from the Frankenstein monster they had created, but the cynical Saudis kept the terrorists on the payroll. From the Saudi perspective, it was safer to keep paying the terrorists groups to attack Israel, Bosnia or Chechnya rather than letting them all back into Saudi Arabia. ...
... In this "Keystone Cops" affair, one wing of U.S. intelligence was hunting terrorists while another winked at the Saudis’ recruitment of them. I have spoken to numerous FBI and CIA counter-terrorist agents, all of whom tell a similar story. Whenever the FBI or CIA came close to uncovering the Saudi terrorist connection, their investigations were mysteriously terminated. In hindsight, I can only conclude that some of our own Washington bureaucrats have been protecting the Al Qaeda leadership and their oil-rich Saudi backers from investigation for more than a decade. ...
... In his autobiography, Oliver North confirmed that every time he wanted to do something about terrorism, Weinberger stopped him because it might upset the Saudis and jeopardize the flow of oil to the U.S. John O’Neill, a former FBI agent and our nation’s top Al Qaeda expert, stated in a 2001 book written by Jean Charles Brisard, a noted French intelligence analyst, that everything we wanted to know about terrorism could be found in Saudi Arabia. ...
... O’Neill warned the Beltway bosses repeatedly that if the Saudis were to continue funding Al Qaeda, it would end up costing American lives, according to several intelligence sources. As long as the oil kept flowing, they just shrugged. Outraged by the Saudi cover-up, O’Neill quit the FBI and became the new chief of security at the World Trade Center. ...
... The "blue book" Pollard stole flatly establishes that all the dots were connected many years before 9/11, and the only thing the intelligence chiefs did competently was cover up the fact that we had long known about the Saudi-terrorist link. ...
I don't know how reliable the author is (Loftus), but this portion of the article certainly fits with my perception of the situation, that Bin Ladin was a Saudi agent, that his efforts to foment Wahab insurgencies from the Balkans to the Philippines were in service to Saudi policy, as were his efforts to seize control of Central Asia (if you're going to dream, dream big). That the US was complicit, helping where we could, and turning a blind eye where we couldn't, that Saudi control of US foreign policy was strong under previous administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr,) but reached its height under Clinton. That GW began to back away from them with his embrace of Putin (and his coincident backing away from the Chechens). And that while Bin Ladin's attacks on the US were probably not intended by the Saudi Government, that they were the logical outcome of Saudi and Wahab ideology if not policy.
I believe that this is the reason that Clinton did not arrest Bin Ladin when he had the chance, that Bin Ladin and his camps were Saudi operations, and by extension tolerated by those members of our government who are, or were, Saudi agents.
I can't help but wonder if Bin Ladin was free-lancing for Saddam when he hit us, or if he was just starting to believe his own sermons. In any case, our half-hearted slaps at him during the Clinton years were intended not to destroy him, but to re-direct him away from attacking us.
Tell me I'm crazy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.