November 12, 2005
Or, The Israeli evacuation story that won't go away.
Despite Haaretz recanting its first version of
events at the Radisson SAS in Amman, Jordan, Israeli sources are saying
they have heard that the timeline of events is indeed true.
From the LA Times: The
Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israelis staying at the
Radisson on Wednesday had been evacuated before the attacks and
escorted back home "apparently due to a specific security threat."
Amos
N. Guiora, a former senior Israeli counter-terrorism official, said in
a phone interview with The Times that sources in Israel had also told
him about the pre-attack evacuations.
"It means there was
excellent intelligence that this thing was going to happen," said
Guiora, a former leader of the Israel Defense Forces who now heads the
Institute for Global Security Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve
University in Cleveland. "The question that needs to be answered is why
weren't the Jordanians working at the hotel similarly removed?" Okay, let's take this slowly.
1.
Haaretz writer says Israelis were evacuated prior to the bombings. The
Haaretz link makes the rounds on the internet, goes up on a few hundred
blogs. 2. Several hours later, same writer, same url, but the story
recants the earlier version and alludes to "contrary to earlier
reports". Who reported this and who later denied the initial report is
not mentioned.
3. LA Times decides to dig further and calls a
former senior intelligence official who says he heard from sources in
Israel about the pre-bombing evacuations.
Repeat: Sources in Israel. Not on this blog, no, Guiora did not call me and ask me for advice on what to tell the LA Times.
Nevertheless, some have come here comparing me to Hitler's anti-Jewish phobia while others said I was screaming conspiracy.
What
conspiracy? I am merely doing your homework for you, showing you what
some in the media are saying. You can draw your own conclusions based
on your take of the above.
In fact, it seems to me that raising the conspiracy flag before anyone has even cried conspiracy is quite telling. Why?
A
few days ago, this blog reported excerpts of General Karpinski's
interview with an Arab TV network. She said Israelis had come to Abu
Ghraib to train Americans on the finer points of ... ahem ...
questioning.
Conspiracy!! was cried from the highest rooftop over that one.
A week ago, I wrote a blog called For the Love of Israel. Yes, indeed, without fail, the word conspiracy was brought up again.
Is anyone sensing a pattern here?
When
an Arab or Muslim mentions the word Israel, eyebrows are raised. When
the phrase "Israel behind" is used the raised eyebrows turn into a
frown. Try and point to what others have said about the issue, and you
are labeled everything from an Islamo-fascist to a Neo-Nazi.
No, thanks, I like my hair. Fine Mislawi stock.
But
let us examine the word conspiracy for a second. Was there or was there
not a conspiracy to unseat Mohammed Mossadaq (Mossadegh)?
You
know, Mossadaq who was the Shah's finance minister and nationalized the
oil industry in Iran in 1951. The man who was re-elected by parliament
and chose to resign in 1952 over differences with the Shah. When
another, Ahmad Qawam, became prime minister and retracted the
nationalization, Iranians took to the street to demand Mossadaq's
return.
He returned, fired several military officers and managed
to earn top spot as persona non grata for the CIA and the Brits. So, in
1953, they conspired to remove him with the help of disgruntled former
Iranian army officers (Gosh darn it, why does this sound
familiar???!?!!?)
Go look up Operation Ajax, which was only
revealed by the CIA in the 1970s, 17 years after Mossadaq was removed
and put in house arrest.
Naturally, oil was put back in the hands of the western oil companies.
Oil, again, huh?
No, no, am an Islamo-fascist for mentioning this.
Back
to Amman. Does no one find it at all strange that four Palestinian
officials were killed, two of whom were senior PA security officials?
Does no one find it at all strange that three Iraqi oil ministry officials were killed?
Or that CNN quoted a witness who said the Jordanian Prime Minister's car was parked at one of the hotels?
Or that an eloquent, outspoken Arab nationalist film maker - Mustafa Aqqad - was also killed?
Is it a crime to ask questions?
And
let's not go very far, let's talk about Iraq. Everyone who believes
this war was to liberate the Iraqis and usher in freedom and democracy
raise your hands.
Now, everyone not a Republican, not a pro-Bushist and not being paid to maintain a blog raise your hands.
Let's try word association. If I throw the word Libby at you, what will you think of?
How about Cheney? And Halliburton? Okay, I cheated there.
Let's
try Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. No? Too Jewish? Okay, excuse my
chutzpah, I've been totally going meshuggah what with being an
Islamo-Fascist and all.
Okay, more word associations: Niger?
Aluminum tube?
Mushroom cloud?
No? Boze, boze moj! (No, that's Serbian)
See, it's typical. Raise the lid a lil bit and they come after you like you bothered a hornet's nest.
See what happened to LA Times columnist Robert Scheer:
On
Friday I was fired as a columnist by the publisher of the Los Angeles
Times, where I have worked for thirty years. The publisher Jeff
Johnson, who has offered not a word of explanation to me, has privately
told people that he hated every word that I wrote. I assume that mostly
refers to my exposing the lies used by President Bush to justify the
invasion of Iraq. Fortunately sixty percent of Americans now get the
point but only after tens of thousand of Americans and Iraqis have been
killed and maimed as the carnage spirals out of control. My only regret
is that my pen was not sharper and my words tougher.
Who did they hire in his place? Jonah Goldberg, good ol' Goldberg who is notorious for saying: 'Never
again' was the new rule after 9/11, and â€" after ousting the Taliban â€"
Saddam was the next obvious target. He applauded the attack, funded
suicide bombers, defied the international community and, we now know,
pretended he had WMDs. Remember: 'Regime change' became the official
policy of the U.S. in 1998, not 2002. Post-9/11, where would you start?
I am not even going to go into the factual errors above, but hey what do I know, am just a lifeless Arab goylomim, huh?
Remember
what happened to Phil Donahue, the only talk show host on network
television to say invading Iraq was a bad idea? They fired him and
hired Michael Savage, infamous homophobe.
So the LA Times fire
someone who has the cajones to sense the pulse of the country and write
about the folly of the Iraq war and hires someone who is a neocon
Zionist (Hey, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith called, he wants his hairpiece
back) who still thinks the war was valid, and everything therein is
holy duty.
Hmmm.
Maybe those screaming conspiracy would like to fire all the war veterans over at OpTruth.org for criticising Bush's 11/11 speech:"Those
of us who fought in Iraq deserve to know why we became Veterans in the
first place. On today of all days there should be consensus on the need
to rise above partisan bickering over who said what in Washington and
begin real investigations into prewar intelligence. It's unfortunate
that the President doesn't think he owes that to the people who have
been unwavering in their bravery while carrying out his plans." Polls
show, oh hell, frag that, America, just fire yourself. Then you can
have all the high-profile Goldbergs, Coulters, Krauthammers, and
Limbaugh's do their own laundary instead of riding the backs of
tax-paying Middle America.
Well, this was fun boys and girls,
no? I want to thank God, my momma, the producers over at Hellblazers
Movies, Emigre and you the fans. This blog wouldn't have been possible
without you.
|