freethefly

His justification was a bold face lie. Fact is is that if Saddam did have any weapons they were placed there by the U.S. government and therefore the government should had known firsthand and not had to rely on some bogus report that they sold to the guilable as truth when they knew that they were selling a lemon to those who are easily fooled and love to be onboard for the patriotic flag waving. Bush knows well enough that many americans love the notion of a grand war (untill the body bag supply runs low) and are more than willing to send their neighbor to an unforgiving place. What Bush and his band of warmongers did may not be (wholly) an impeachable offense but, it is damn close and unforgivable. People should do the research and follow the paper trail concerning the weapons that Bush and comrades "claim" that Saddam was "secretly" hiding. Also, follow the links in my post concerning Jonathon Pollard as he is a key element in this whole mess. U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds Michael Dobbs - Washington Post - December 30, 2002 J4JP Prefacing Note: Jonathan Pollard's arrest in 1985 shone an unwelcome light on the involvement of the US and its key officials in arming Iraq with non-conventional weapons of war at a time that this was a closely guarded secret from Congress and from the American people. Fearing exposure, the US directed its unbridled fury at Pollard, securing an unjust and grossly disproportionate life sentence for him. This sentence was the means by which US officials attempted to bury Pollard and the government's dirty secrets about Iraq forever. Pollard continues to languish in prison in his 18th year of a life sentence with no end in sight. But the government's dirty secrets are coming out all the same... *** High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally. Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions. The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys." A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction. "It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department." "Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible." What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene. By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies. "You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse." To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory. Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld. Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level." In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq. Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year. As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979. Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist. Iraq Lobbies for Arms While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town. "He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community." One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs." According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit. At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world. Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein. When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes. A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide." Chemicals Kill Kurds In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad. "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis." Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States. The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks. Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad. Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation." The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq." "Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation." "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

This sheds light on Pollards reason for his action (written by Pollard himself). Also, the link in my orignal post will take you to the Pollard page where you will find more links to documents that shed even more light on the crimes that our government has commited to bring us to where we are today. I can only believe that Pollard knows far more than what is being let out. Reason for the U.S. government to keep him confined and monitored. Appeasement of Iraq Made Me A Spy by Jonathan Pollard The Wall Street Journal - Originally published February 15, 1991 Posted to Web November 4, 2002 JONATHAN POLLARD: ....the photos that I turned over to the Israelis were of a number of Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing plants which the government did not want to admit existed. Why? ....What the administration was really concerned about was being placed in a position where it would have to admit that it had tacitly condoned the creation of an Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing capability. Introduction - Wall Street Journal -February 15, 1991 In 1985, my son, Jonathan Pollard pleaded guilty to providing Israel with information about the military capabilities of Arab states, including Iraq. Today he sits in a basement cell, in isolation 23 hours a day, serving a life sentence. Jonathan was never accused of or indicted for treason, because he did not commit treason. He was indicted on one count of passing information to an ally, Israel. Abdel Kader Helmy, an Egyptian American rocket scientist, participated in a scheme to illegally ship ballistic missile technology to Egypt - technology later used to help increase the range of Iraq's Scud-B missiles. Mr. Helmy got less than a four-year sentence. Jonathan who warned Israel about Iraq's capabilities, got life. America is now fighting a war with Iraq, while the one person who tried to warn Israel about Iraqi threats sits in jail. In a 1989 letter excerpted below, Jonathan wrote to an American rabbi from his cell that America would have to go to war against Iraq if we failed to prevent the completion of chemical facilities that we knew were under construction. How right he was. Morris Pollard *** Dear Rabbi, My name is Jonathan Pollard and I am currently serving a life sentence due to my activities on behalf of Israel. Lest you labor under a false impression, Rabbi, I want to state quite categorically that I do not consider myself to be above the law. I fully appreciate the fact that I must be punished for my activities however justified I may have felt them to be. That being said, I do not believe that the draconian sentence that was meted out to me was in any way commensurate with the crime which I committed. Nowhere in my indictment... was I ever described as a "traitor," which is hardly a surprise given the fact that the operation with which I was associated actually served to strengthen America's long-term security interests in the Middle East. Notwithstanding [then Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger's disingenuous opinion, any objective examination of the record will show that no American agent, facility or program was compromised as a result of my actions - not one. But this salient fact was conveniently overlooked by Mr. Weinberger, who felt that I deserved the death penalty for having had the audacity to make Israel "too strong." In retrospect, perhaps one of the worst things that the Reagan administration did to Israel during the course of my trial was that it purposely distorted the nature of my activities in such a way as to leave the impression that Israel had somehow become a threat to the national security of this country. So, by intent, the subsequent sentence that I received was an arrow aimed directly at the heart of the US-Israel "special relationship." The case of Mr. and Mrs. Abdel Kader Helmy appears to be yet another instance where the political aspects of an espionage trial have been of paramount concern to the government. As you'll recall the Helmys are Egyptian-born US citizens who were accused last year of funneling highly sensitive ballistic missile technology to their native land. At the time of his arrest on June 24, 1988, Mr. Helmy was a senior propulsion engineer who held a "secret" level security clearance from the US Department of Defense. According to a 36 page affidavit filed by the Customs Service ... US customs agents searching [Mr.] Helmy's trash found handwritten notes outlining how to work with carbon-carbon fiber material used in rocket nose cones and "stealth" aircraft; instructions on building rocket exhaust nozzles; a description of an extremely sensitive microwave telemetry antenna; and a complete package needed to build or upgrade a tactical missile system. Although there is no public evidence linking [Mr.] Helmy directly with the Iraqis, intelligence sources have indicated that the Egyptians have used [Mr.] Helmy's expertise to help Baghdad modify its stockpile of Soviet-supplied Scud-B ballistic rockets. His principle responsibility, however was to ensure the success of an Egyptian-Iraqi missile program which had encountered some developmental problems. Code named BADR 2000 by the Egyptians and SAAD-16 by the Iraqis, this Argentine-designed weapon has an estimated range of 500 to 1000 miles, and from what I've been told, figures prominently in Arab strategic planning against Israel. If one compares the way in which the government responded to my affair with the soft-pedaling of the Helmy case, the existence of a double-standard becomes apparent. Firstly at the insistence of the State and Defense Departments, all espionage-related charges against Mr. and Mrs. Helmy have been quietly dropped.... [T]he administration has done everything it can to reduce the notoriety of the Helmy affair. The problem ... lay in the fact that many of the photos that I turned over to the Israelis were of a number of Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing plants which the government did not want to admit existed. Why? Well, if no one knew about these facilities the State and Defense Departments would have been spared the embarrassing task of confronting Iraq over its violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which banned the use of chemical weapons in war. You have to remember... that at the time of my sentencing the massacre of Kurdish civilians in Halabja had not yet occurred, and what little concern was being voiced over Iraq's apparent use of poison gas was largely ignored by the administration which did not want to anger the Arab world by criticizing the use of such barbaric weapons against Iran. The photos I gave Israel, though, if "compromised" would have jeopardized the administration's policy of callous indifference to this issue, in that they constituted hard, irrefutable proof that Iraq was indeed engaged in the production and wide scale use of chemical weapons. What the administration was really concerned about was being placed in a position where it would have to admit that it had tacitly condoned the creation of an Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing capability. Once the atrocity of Halabja had occurred though, the White House was placed in a rather awkward position. On the one hand the US Intelligence community did not want to be accused of having failed to keep an eye on Iraq's burgeoning chemical weapons arsenal. Then again, the CIA ... could not very well confirm the existence of the Iraqi poison gas plants without running the risk of compromising the Reagan administration's policy towards these facilities. After a few days of "soul searching," the State Department finally admitted that the US had intercepted some Iraqi Intelligence communications which indicated that lethal gas had, in fact, been used against unarmed Kurdish civilians. The Iranians had astutely outmaneuvered them, though, and the issue had to be "contained" before it caused a rift in US - Arab relations. Certainly, confirming the undeniable operational employment of chemical munitions by the Iraqis was preferable to describing the exact dimensions of their poison gas plants, which would have raised some uncomfortable questions on Capitol Hill. Thus in attempt to recapture the moral "high ground," so to speak, from Iran, the White House evidently decided that it would be better for the US to be seen as leading the public denunciation of Iraq rather than the Ayatollah Khomeini. As it was though, the Administration still managed to salvage its standing in the Arab world by preventing Congress from imposing any punitive sanctions against Iraq. In essence, then, what I did by passing satellite photos of the Iraqi poison gas plants to Israel, was to endanger the Reagan Administration's pro-Saudi political agenda, not the intelligence community's "sources and methods." According to the prosecution, there were two reasons why the government refused to tell Israel about Iraq's poison gas plants: 1) fear of compromising the KH-11 [intelligence] system and 2) concern over Israel's probable reaction once they recognized the threat these facilities posed to their survival. What the Israelis would actually have considered was a preventative attack on the Iraqi chemical factories before they had become fully operational. Once they had come online, you see, and the Iraqis had been able to disperse their arsenal of chemical munitions, these plants, like the ones in Syria, would only have been attacked either in war time where the idea of a preemptive strike is valid, or in a clandestine sabotage campaign aimed at slowing their production of poisons. This was the same reasoning, by the way, that lay behind the Reagan Administration's desire to bomb the Rabta industrial complex before the Libyans had had the opportunity to complete its construction. The crisis over the Rabta plant does beg the question, though: If the Reagan administration felt justified in its desire to eliminate what it perceived to be an impending Libyan chemical threat to our national security, why was it so unwilling to grant Israel the same right of preventative self- defense with regard to Iraq's poison gas manufacturing facilities? So what was I supposed to do? Let Israel fend for herself? If you think that is what I should have done, then how can we condemn all those ... who during the Second World War consciously participated in the abandonment of European Jewry? Seriously, Rabbi, what would be the difference between what they did and a decision on my part to have kept silent about the Iraqi poison gas threat to Israel? I'd rather be rotting in prison than sitting shiva for the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who could have died because of my cowardice. Jonathan Pollard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J4JP Post Script: As America again prepares to go to war against Iraq in 2002, the above written by Jonathan Pollard and published in the Wall Street Journal in 1991 is both timely and relevant. It was political self-interest which caused America to ignore Iraq's violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and to turn a blind eye to its amassing an arsenal of non-conventional weapons which now threaten the world. It is the same kind of political expedience and indifference to the truth concerning America's role in the arming of Iraq which permits the blatant injustice of the Pollard case to continue to this day. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

In one post you state that it is "personal interpretation" and then in another you rail him on his personal interpretation!!!! There is no such thing as personal interpretation in regards to the bible if one is inclined to be religous. You either follow it as it is written or you face the fact that you only use it as you see fit. If it is the latter, then write your own book. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

You are now on George's list of evil doers - expect quick an desisive action any day now "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Telling the truth is an extremely dangerous thing to do. The last thing any government wants the world to know - what is really going on. Vanunu is still paying the price. Pollard will, most likely, die in prison. To what level the U.S. government went to protect the Saudis, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would be anyones guess. I think there is no extreme that certain people would go to protect that information. If the truth was ever revealed, those certain people would be taking Pollards place in prison. It is, without doubt, a jigsaw puzzle that has brought the world to where it is today and Pollard is a piece of that puzzle. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Earlier today, there was a small bit on the evening news concerning John Pollard and Israels support to have him released. For some years, there has been those who claim Pollard was but a pawn in a far spreading cover up to protect the Saudis, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda its self. Searching through a number of archives, I ran across this article. The most interesting part is towards the end of the article. The more I read about the Pollard case the more clear it is that he was, in fact, used by some extremely powerful people. Also, this is strangly connected to 9-11. Any opinions on this? Also,http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm Pollard Was Blamed for Crimes of Arch-Spies Ames and Hannsen / 13 Shevat 5798 As supporters of Jonathan Pollard prepare for a prayer rally on his behalf at the Western Wall on June 4, it appears that one of the most important questions surrounding his case has been answered. As supporters of Jonathan Pollard prepare for a prayer rally on his behalf at the Western Wall on June 4, it appears that one of the most important questions surrounding his case has been answered. Former federal prosecutor John Loftus, in an article in the June issue of Moment Magazine, writes the following: "There is a good reason why neither Congress nor the American Jewish leadership supports the release of Jonathan Pollard from prison: They all were told a lie - a humongous Washington whopper of a lie. The lie was [that] Pollard had supposedly given Israel a list of every American spy inside the Soviet Union... Soviet agents in Israel, posing as Israeli intelligence agents, passed the information to Moscow, which then wiped out American human assets in the Soviet Union... "A week after [Pollard was sentenced to life in prison], the Washington Times reported that the United States had identified Shabtai Kalmanovich as the Soviet spy in Israel who supposedly worked for the Mossad but was actually working for the KGB; he had betrayed American secrets to Moscow. Washington insiders winked knowingly at one another: Pollard's contact in Israel had been caught. Just to make sure that Pollard was blamed, U.S. intelligence sources, several months later, leaked word to the press of the Kalmanovich connection... Citing 'American intelligence sources,' the UPI announced that the 'sensitive intelligence material relayed to Israel by Jonathan Pollard had reached the KGB.'" Loftus then fires off his bombshell: "But it was all untrue. Every bit of it. Pollard wasn't the serial killer. The Jew didn't do it. It was one of their own WASPs - Aldrich Ames, a drunken senior CIA official who sold the names of America's agents to the Russians for cash. Pollard was framed for Ames' crime, while Ames kept on drinking and spying for the Soviets for several more years… Ames was arrested in February 1994, and confessed to selling out American agents in the Soviet Union, but not all of them. It was only logical to assume that Pollard had betrayed the rest of them, as one former CIA official admitted shortly after Ames' arrest… "No one dreamed that yet another high-level Washington insider had sold us out to Soviet intelligence. Years passed, and eventually a Russian defector told the truth. A senior FBI official - Special Agent Robert Hanssen - had betrayed the rest of our agents. Hanssen was arrested in February 2001, and soon confessed in order to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole." Loftus then writes that a low-level decision was finally made in the Navy's intelligence service to re-examine the Pollard case, and "with sickening chagrin, the Navy discovered that the evidence needed to clear Pollard had been under its nose all along" - namely, that Pollard did not have the special "blue stripe" clearance needed for access to the room in which the list of secret American agents inside Russia was kept. "There is no way on earth," Loftus concludes, "that Jonathan Pollard could have entered the file room, let alone the safe where the list was kept." Loftus also writes that he then "began to realize that Pollard's tale was only the beginning of a much bigger story about a major America intelligence scandal" - a cover-up of the deep ties between Saudi Arabia and terrorists such as Osama Bin-Laden. "Whenever the FBI or CIA came close to uncovering the Saudi terrorist connection," Loftus writes, "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." Loftus continues: "I am not the only one to reach this conclusion. In his autobiography, Oliver North confirmed that every time he wanted to do something about terrorism, [then-Defense Secretary Weinberger, whose secret memo led to Pollard's life sentence] 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. In a bitter irony, the man who could have exposed his bosses' continuous cover-up of the Saudi-Al Qaeda link was himself killed by Al Qaeda on 9/11..." "Pollard never thought he was betraying his country. And he never did, although he clearly violated its laws. He just wanted to help protect Israelis and Americans from terrorists. Now in prison for nearly two decades, Pollard, who is in his late 40s, grows more ill year by year. If, as seems likely, American bureaucrats choose to fight a prolonged delaying action over a new hearing, Pollard will probably die in prison. There are people in power inside the Beltway who have been playing for time. Time for them ran out on 9/11. Sooner or later, they are going to be held accountable. I hope that Pollard lives to see it." The full text of Pollard's attorneys' largely-laudatory response to Loftus' article is available at "www.jonathanpollard.org/". Click here for our free Daily News Report from Israel Published: 12:35 May 26, 2003 Last Update: 06:14 January 19, 2038 "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Why don't you read the rest of my post rather than cherry pick the words you want to use to mock my religious faith with. Chris I did read the entire post, I was not mocking your faith nor did I cherry pick. You stated that your religion was the one true church and I asked, in regards to your statement if catholics view other churches as false. Sorry if I offended you. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

It was reported that Foley first approached him when he was underage. Face it, Foley is a sick bastard and I hope they hang the creep. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

So, do catholics believe that the rest are but lies and not really religions at all? If there is a god, I would think he or she or whatever has been shaking his or her or whatevers head in disbelief since humans learned to kill each other in his, or hers or whatevers name. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Cool deal... Did the WBC protesters ever show up anywhere in the vicinity, or did they keep their stupid asses home? According to their website, they canceled. Also, according to their website, God hates Canada (somewhat, understandable) and Sweden. How can any god hate the Swedish bikini team

I agree "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Been watching fuel price drop in this area. 100LL and Jet A are both at $3.34 and the cost of a jump is still at $21.00. Hell, fuel could drop well below $2.00 and I seriously doubt that the cost of a jump will ever drop. I wonder why jump price only follows fuel cost when it rises and not when it falls? Cheaper fuel = higher profit. http://www.airnav.com/fuel/ "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Been disgusted since the Arms for Hostages deal back in the 80's. The more you know, the more you realize that it is not a government by the people, for the people but, a government for the selected few. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Reason he confessed to the Jon Benet murder, he knew he would be exonerated. Your right, he knew what he was doing. Can Thailand have him extradited back to face charges there? The more I see scum like him walk, the less faith I have in the system to protect children. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

You know, Max, that is a great idea. You just can't go wrong, with a cowboy hat It worked for The Duke (John Wayne, that is). "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Just heard that child molester John Mark Karr has be cleared of all charges against him due to lost evidence. This scum is now free to molest again "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

A friend and myself created this back in 1977 at North County Tech offset litho 11th grade in St. Louis county (found it in an old H.S. yearbook today while cleaning out a closet). I did photoshop the blue into it. I always wore my cowboy hat, even to class. I always thought the saying was quite profound. Not sure if we came up with the saying or got it from something else. We tacked it up all around St. Louis. Anyways... I need another cowboy hat. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/topic.aspx?topic=funeral_protests A law was passed here in Missouri that has a time restriction. Other states have also passed such laws. St. Joseph, Mo. has passed a local ordinance. Phelps group is challenging these laws. On a legal note they are right (damn, just saying that makes me feel like shit), on a moral note they are lower than worm nuts. Wouldn't mind hearing that the whole lot of them run off of the road and... Would be a funeral worth celebrating at. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I can only believe that they wrote their own bible. Sadly, this is the downside of free speech. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I can imagine that there is more, other than this one. No doubt, he is scum and should be charged to the full extent. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is it not the GOP that are always screaming that the Dems are pro-gay? Does anyone care if he is gay? I doubt it. This is about misconduct towards an underage boy. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Or, he can just change his appearence and just hang with the bluehair old ladies at the salon. One suggestion... "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

The investigation has only just begun. There are indications that there are more emails that point to sexual misconduct. His quick departure and then checking himself into rehab points towards guilt as he is quick to blame this on alcohol. He knows he has been caught and he is quickly trying to weasel out. As with any online predator, he should be charged accordingly, if there is reason to charge. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

How about sending sexually explicit emails to underage boys? Damn shame that Dateline didn't catch this scum on camera. I hope he is charged and convicted to a life of misery behind bars. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

PROOF!!!!!! "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young