Wilkerson was tapped to serve as a military and foreign policy adviser for the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2015

In 2013 the former chief of staff for then-Secretary of State General Colin L. Powell suggested that Israel was responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria (No, I do not miss Bush) and now we understand: (1) why Colin Powell was pushing the Israelis out of Gaza (2) why Powell in now a Democrat (3) what was really running the GOP establishment and now apparently the radical left.

(Former Sanders adviser: 'Israel will be eliminated' By David Rosenberg)  Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who earlier in the campaign had advised Bernie Sanders, claims Israel will be 'eliminated'. Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is no stranger to controversy, with a legacy of questionable statements on Israel and the US government. In 2013 the former chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested that Israel was responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In 2007 Wilkerson appeared in a Dutch documentary, claiming that American foreign policy was dominated by “the Jewish lobby”. Despite his history of inflammatory rhetoric and frequent conspiracy theories, Wilkerson was tapped to serve as a military and foreign policy adviser for the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2015. In the wake of yet another controversial interview, however, it appears that the Sanders campaign dropped Wilkerson, a point Wilkerson noted while speaking earlier this month to The Real News Network. “The last time I spoke this way on your show, I compromised my ability to work for the Bernie Sanders Campaign. So now I’ve probably foreclosed my ability to work for anyone.” True to form, the former Sanders adviser made yet another series of over-the-top claims during the interview, asserting among other things that Israel had “captured” the US government, a common claim employed by fringe elements and white supremacists. “[T]he ultra-right wing of Israel has captured AIPAC, and AIPAC has captured the United States Congress. And to a certain extent the oval office as well.” While Wilkerson dedicated much of his criticism to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he also claimed that Zionism per se sought to dominate much of the Middle East, with designs on Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. "So the future for Israel, as contemplated by Netanyahu, is a greater Israel. Having secured the West Bank. Jerusalem as its capital, perhaps gotten Gaza back, parts of Lebanon, parts of Syria that’s now looking like it’s falling apart. And parts if not all of Jordan. This is Netanyahu’s ultimate goal. This is the Zionist ultimate goal. And so, that’s very dangerous because it’s not tenable. What you’re going to have is you’re going to have a one state solution. That state is going to be increasingly apartheid as the West Bank and Jerusalem are now." Wilkerson frequently invoked comparisons to apartheid-ridden South Africa, and asserted that Israel was doomed to annihilation by either the international community or its Arab neighbors. "And as Israel proper is becoming more and more alike, that state’s going to be apartheid, it’s going to be untenable, it’s going to be eliminated by the international community if not the 350 to 400 million people around it who are opposed to it." Wilkerson went on to offer his views on internal Israeli politics, blaming Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud party for the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. "The current ultra-right wing leadership in Israel under Bibi Netanyahu - to give a historical context - actually probably contributed to the tension and the incredible shift in political momentum in Israel that lead to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. It’s not going too far to say that Netanyahu and his group created the circumstances that produced the assassin." Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by Yigal Amir, an opponent of the nascent Oslo Accords unaffiliated with the Likud party.

@CriticalAnalyst #GeneralColinPowell was a bust, which is y he eventually left. As for ##Wilkerson, hv a listen --> https://t.co/PGGdvDONAN

— TheNatSecRoundtable (@nsroundtable) April 21, 2016

Listen to this clip of Colin Powell's former Chief-of-Staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, being interviewed on 'progressive media' channel, Current TV, which was founded by former Vice-President Al Gore, who sold it for $500 million a few months ago to Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera. h/t 

Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Colin Powell's chief of staff during the Bush administration, talks with Cenk Uygur about how President Obama should handle early evidence that Syria may have used chemicals weapons. "I think the president's statement was very circumspect, very prudent," Wilkerson says. "We don't know what the chain of custody is. This could've been an Israeli false flag operation, it could've been an opposition in Syria, ... or it could've been an actual use by [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad. But we certainly don't know with the evidence we've been given. And what I'm hearing from the intelligence community is that that evidence is really flakey."

Germany sold Syria chemicals with military potential

(Germany exported 111 tons of chemicals to Syria between 2002 and 2006 that could be used in the production of sarin gas, according to a government document published on Wednesday. )

Hostage Released From Syrian Prison Says he Overheard Rebel Captors Admitting Insurgents Used The Chemical Weapons (Video)

A Belgian writer who was held hostage with an Italian reporter for five months in Syria says that he heard their rebel captors deny that President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the Ghouta massacre. The two were kidnapped while working in the war torn country back in April and were released over the weekend.

International Business Times reported:

Pierre Piccinin said that he and fellow hostage Domenico Quirico, an Italian war reporter, heard their jailers talking about the chemical weapon attack and saying that Assad was not to blame.

Quirico confirmed to La Stampa newspaper that they had eavesdropped such a conversation through a closed door but added that he had no evidence to substantiate what he heard.

Piccinin said the captives became desperate when they heard that the US was planning to launch a punitive attack against the regime over the gas attack in the Damascus suburb.

“It wasn’t the government of Bashar al-Assad that used sarin gas or any other gas in Ghouta,” Piccinin told Belgian RTL radio after he was released.

“We are sure about this because we overheard a conversation between rebels. It pains me to say it because I’ve been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army in its rightful fight for democracy since 2012,” Piccinin added.

Here is an interview Pierre Piccinin had with RTL TV:

Watch with the captions. The translation is very poor, but it is clear that he doesn’t think that Assad released the chemical weapons.

Piccinin’s fellow prisoner said it would be “madness” to say that he knew for sure that Assad was not culpable.

“I do not know if this is true but nothing tells me it is,” he said.

Quirico said he listened to a Skype conversation between three individuals, whose names he could not confirm. One identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general.

The three contended that insurgents had used gas in Ghouta to trigger Western intervention.

“I have no evidence to confirm this theory and I do not know who these people were or if they are reliable,” Quirico said.

“It is impossible for me to say if this conversation was based on real events or on rumours and hearsay. It is not my habit to hold true conversations overheard through a door.”

Kidnapped in April, Piccinin and Quirico were freed by their captors and flown to Rome.

Quirico said he was treated badly. The Syrian revolution had turned into something “very dangerous” since he began covering it, he added.

Just one more hole in Obama’s “slam dunk” case.

Iranians Warned U.S. That Syrian Rebels Had Chemical Weapons Over a Year Ago…

September, 10, 2013 — nicedeb

According to leaked diplomatic correspondence obtained by the Christian Science Monitor, ‘Iran has been warning Washington since July 2012 that Sunni rebel fighters have acquired chemical weapons, and called on the US to send “an immediate and serious warning” to rebel groups not to use them.’ In one letter Iran stated that as a “supporter” of the rebels,  the US would be held responsible for any use of the chemical weapons.

Iran amplified those year-old warnings over the weekend in its strongest public comments to date linking the rebels with a chemical weapons, echoing Russia‘s dismissal of American assurances that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces were to blame. The comments come as the US Congress prepares to vote on military strikes.

“There is ample intelligence that takfiri  [extremist] groups are in possession of chemical arms,” Iran’sForeign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Sunday during a visit to Iraq, according to state-run PressTV. “Extremists and takfiris are a threat to the whole region.” Semi-official Fars News Agency headlined its story: “Iranian FM refutes US claims on Syria’s use of chemical weapons.”

Multiple warnings

Iran says that it warned the United States directly, in mid- and late- 2012, and at least once after that, about the risks of chemical weapons among the rebels. The letter acquired by the Monitor references messages from July 18 and Dec. 1, 2012.

According to the English translation that accompanies the one-page Persian document, the letter reads: “Alerting [worrying] news has been published about the preparations of insurgent forces in Syria for using chemical weapons/elements.”

Iran “holds responsible, in addition to the elements of violent forces, their supporter countries including the American government, for any resort to chemical weapons/elements by those insurgent forces,” it states.

The letter makes no reference to the possibility of chemical weapons use by Syria itself – holder of the world’s third-largest chemical arsenal. Nor does it acknowledge that if the same argument was applied to the regime, then Iran and Russia, Syria’s closest supporters, would likewise be held responsible for any regime use of chemical weapons.

The Iranian letter is undated and was produced by the previous government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to informed sources in Iran who provided a copy to the Monitor on the condition that they not be further identified.

Reuters reported back in May that the UN had collected testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas.

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

“This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” she added, speaking in Italian.

Hostages who were recently released from a Syrian prison say they overheard a Skype conversation between three rebels, one who identified himself as a Free Syrian Army general. The three contended that insurgents had used gas in Ghouta to trigger Western intervention.

On CBS’ Face the Nation, Sunday, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said  that the Obama Regime “embellished” its public statements on the situation in Syria.  Amash said that the evidence presented to Congress during briefings is “not as strong” as what the Obama administration has been telling the public.

Democrat Alan Grayson D-FL is also saying that the Obama administration manipulated intelligence in order to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country’s two-year civil war.

The Daily Caller reported that according to former military officers who had access to the original intelligence reports, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit was doctored so to lead the reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.

The doctored report was leaked to a private Internet-based newsletter that boasts of close ties to the Israeli intelligence community, and led to news reports that the United States now had firm evidence showing that the Syrian government had ordered the chemical weapons attack on August 21 against a rebel-controlled suburb of Damascus.

The doctored report was picked up on Israel’s Channel 2 TV  on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable  in Washington, DC.

According to the doctored report, the chemical attack was carried out by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, an elite unit commanded by Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother.

However, the original communication intercepted by Unit 8200 between a major in command of the rocket troops assigned to the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division, and the general staff, shows just the opposite.

The general staff officer asked the major if he was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. From the tone of the conversation, it was clear that “the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions,” the former officers say.

According to the transcript of the original Unit 8200 report, the major “hotly denied firing any of his missiles” and invited the general staff to come and verify that all his weapons were present.

The report contains a note at the end that the major was interrogated by Syrian intelligence for three days, then returned to command of his unit. “All of his weapons were accounted for,” the report stated.

This ties in with what Walid Shoebat has been reporting - Evidence: Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons (not Assad) and Yossef Bodansky’s blockbuster piece: Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

This morning Secretary of State John Kerry said the US is awaiting a proposal from the Russians about how Syria could agree to give up its chemical weapons, but will not wait for long.

Kerry told a House panel on Tuesday that the Obama administration will give any proposal a hard look, but that it must not be used as a delaying tactic and that it has to be verifiable, real, and include tangible conditions for Syrian President Bashar Assad to forfeit his chemical weapons.

Kerry is testifying in the House to persuade members of the Armed Services Committee to back Obama’s request for military action against Syria — a strike that could be avoided if Syria gives up its weapons.

Meanwhile, @AP: BREAKING: Senate Republican leader McConnell announces his opposition to military strikes against Syria.

Did Mandela’s friend supply chemical weapons to Syrian rebels?

Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Nelson Mandela

(Terry Crawford-Browne)(h/t Henri le Riche)

REPORTS from Syria by Jordanian journalists allege that it was Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia who distributed those chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels.

If true, it indicates the chemical attack in Damascus to have been a false-flag operation by the American war business.

This would be entirely in keeping with Prince Bandar’s history of organising the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s, the Iran-Contra weapons exchanges, Libya in 2011, the suppression of the Shia uprising in Bahrain, Saudi support for the coup d’etat in Egypt and support for Syrian rebels.

Other reports confirm that Prince Bandar also went to see Russian President Vladimir Putin last month and offered to buy $15bn worth of Russian weapons provided Mr Putin abandoned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr Putin gave him short shrift.

Prince Bandar was not only the Saudi ambassador in Washington for 22 years and friends of Ronald Reagan and the Bush family, but he also negotiated the 1985 £43bn Al-Yamamah weapons deal with Margaret Thatcher, which Tony Blair renewed in 2007 with the Al-Salaam weapons deal.

When the British Serious Fraud Office investigated the bribes which BAE Systems paid him, Prince Bandar allegedly threatened blood in the streets of London.

Mr Blair squelched the investigation citing “national security.” The Guardian newspaper revealed a couple of months later how BAE with collusion of the British government had laundered bribes to Prince Bandar of over £1bn through Riggs Bank in Washington DC and other US banks.

Most importantly, Prince Bandar and Ms Thatcher negotiated the Al-Yamamah deal under the British Official Secrets Act, meaning that it cannot be investigated in Britain.

Saudi Arabia ships thousands of barrels per day of oil consigned to the Bank of England, which is then distributed to Shell and BP.

Over the years a surplus has developed, which is guesstimated to be worth over $150bn. Its purpose is a) to guarantee British and US support for the Saudi royal family against domestic insurrection and b) to fund covert destabilisation of resource-rich countries in Asia and Africa under the guise of the war on terror.

Having targeted Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and other countries over the years, Syria and Egypt are Prince Bandar’s current targets. When will SA be targeted by the American and British “war business” given our country’s mineral wealth?

Saudi Arabia made lavish donations to the African National Congress. Prince Bandar was also the only foreigner present at Nelson Mandela’s secret wedding to Graca Machel, and was a frequent visitor to SA when the arms deal was being negotiated.

Obama’s Smoking Gun Proof That Assad Was Behind Chemical Weapons Attack Was Doctored?

Alan Grayson

(Nice Deb) What?

The Daily Caller reported this a week ago – and somehow I missed it???

Alan Grayson (D-Bag) had to bring it to my attention after asking about it at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday.

Via US News:

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who is aggressively lobbying against a military strike on Syria, says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country’s two-year civil war.

Grayson made the accusation in an interview published Wednesday by The Atlantic and offered more detail in a Thursday discussion with U.S. News. He says members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons.

Grayson said he cannot discuss the classified briefings, but noted details in the administration’s public, non-classified report are being contested.

The White House released its four-page public report Aug. 30, arguing that Assad’s government killed 1,429 people on Aug. 21 with a planned chemical weapon attack. Evidence cited in that report included “intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used.”

Grayson, however, says “the claim has been made that that information was completely mischaracterized.”

He points to an article published by The Daily Caller that alleges the communications actually showed Syrian officers were surprised by the alleged chemical weapon attack. The communications, according to unnamed sources paraphrased in article, were intercepted by Israeli intelligence and “doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion.”

What’s Alan Grayson doing reading the Daily Caller?

Never mind that… What Kenneth Timmerman reported in the Caller last Thursday is quite stunning. He charges that the Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify the military strikes on Syria, basing his assessment on the testimony of former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports.

According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.

The doctored report was leaked to a private Internet-based newsletter that boasts of close ties to the Israeli intelligence community, and led to news reports that the United States now had firm evidence showing that the Syrian government had ordered the chemical weapons attack on August 21 against a rebel-controlled suburb of Damascus.

The doctored report was picked up on Israel’s Channel 2 TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable in Washington, DC.

According to the doctored report, the chemical attack was carried out by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, an elite unit commanded by Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother.

However, the original communication intercepted by Unit 8200 between a major in command of the rocket troops assigned to the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division, and the general staff, shows just the opposite.

The general staff officer asked the major if he was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. From the tone of the conversation, it was clear that “the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions,” the former officers say.

According to the transcript of the original Unit 8200 report, the major “hotly denied firing any of his missiles” and invited the general staff to come and verify that all his weapons were present.

The report contains a note at the end that the major was interrogated by Syrian intelligence for three days, then returned to command of his unit. “All of his weapons were accounted for,” the report stated.

This ties in with what Walid Shoebat has been reporting - Evidence: Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons (not Assad) and Yossef Bodansky’s blockbuster piece: Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

Just wow…….

Egypt used chemical weapons in the 1960s; no one did anything then either:

Arabs, allied with Russia, kill hundreds of other Arabs with chemical weapons. A cover-up of chemical weapons use and angry denials, allowing Western nations stand by and do nothing for political reasons.

In 1967.

FromChemical and Biological Warfare: A Reference Handbook,by Albert J. Mauroni (2007):

The Yemeni Civil War (1962-1970) pitted the Yemeni royalists of the deposed imam against the Yemen republican forces in North Yemen, with Saudi Arabia and Jordan supporting the royalists and Egypt supporting the republican forces. This war was fought for five years until the two forces reached a stalemate in 1967. Although there had been occasional mentions of Egyptian military employment of mustard agent—filled bombs between 1963 and 1966, in 1967 these attacks became more frequent. International journalists began reporting that Ilyushin heavy bombers were dropping mustard-filled and phosgene-filled bombs on cities and rebel bases.

In January 1967, a gas attack near Sada killed more than 125 people. In May, two villages suffered 75 casualties from phosgene-filled bombs. Between 1967 and 1968, it is estimated that more than 1,000 Yemeni were killed as a result of exposure to CW agents. An International Red Cross mission sent doctors to assist the wounded, and the doctors testified to what they saw. Al-though they were careful to clarify that they did not see any evidence of actual attacks taking place, the signs and symptoms of the victims included burning eyes and trachea, pulmonary edema, internal thorax pain, extreme fatigue, and anorexia. Their findings were that in all probability these victims had inhaled toxic gases (Cookson and Nottingham 1969).The doctors were reluctant to identify the specific chemical warfare agents used, in part because they wanted to retain their neutrality and access to war victims. Although it appeared conclusive that mustard and phosgene had been used, a few cases suggested the use of nerve agent—filled bombs as well. The problem was how to prove the use of chemical warfare agents and who was responsible for using them. Because there were no arms control experts assigned to monitor or investigate these attacks, there was very little evidence other than eyewitness accounts from civilians and what could have been propaganda from the royalists. Although bodies and samples were sent to Saudi Arabia for more study, again, it was difficult to accuse any specific nation. Egypt claimed it had not used chemical weapons in Yemen, and, according to some sources, this may be true if Soviet air crews were manning the Egyptian-marked bombers that attacked those cities.

When Saudi Arabia and the royalists tried to get the United Nations to investigate, the UN's secretary general, U Thant, declined. On March 1, 1967, he stated that he was "powerless" to investigate the issue, and that the facts were in sharp dispute. Although he almost certainly knew exactly what was going on in Yemen, he had made a political decision to stay out of the affair. The U.S. government, occupied with answering criticisms about the use of Agent Orange and riot control agents in Vietnam,chose not to get involved. The U.S. military decided that the chemical warfare attacks were an aberration and not reflective of any requirement to worry about future chemical warfare attacks (and in 1972, chose to disestablish the Chemical Corps). The United Kingdom was attempting to reestablish relations with Egypt at that time, so it chose not to say anything publicly against Egypt or Soviet affairs in the Middle East (Seagrave 1981, 124-125). The incident became a political nonevent, fodder for the arms control community but not much else.
This incident teaches several interesting lessons. The first is the failure of the world's nations to react against the use of chemical weapons against civilians and military forces that were not similarly armed. This was not a clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, since Egypt was not then (and still is not) a signatory of the Geneva Protocol, unless it could be proven that Soviet crews were in those bombers. The reason that some military analysts believe there were Soviet crews in the bombers was twofold: First, they do not believe that the Soviet Union would have allowed Egypt to own or employ chemical weapons in 1967, Egypt having just started its interest in an offensive CW program. Second, the bombers dropped their munitions upwind of their targets for maximum effect, and in some cases, MiG fighter planes came back to drop high explosives or napalm on and near the targets to reduce or eliminate the evidence. These same tactics were seen years later when the Soviet air force attacked Afghani villages with chemical weapons. Because the attacks occurred in such remote locations and because post-mortem examinations took place days or weeks later, it was very difficult to directly attribute the cause of death to the bombing attacks.
This was the first instance of Arabs attacking Arabs with chemical weapons.

The second was the Iran-Iraq War, where some 45,000 are believed to have been killed by chemical weapons.

Al-Qaeda Members Arrested With Chemical WMD’s in Iraq for Attacks on America and Europe

From BBC: The authorities in Iraq say they have uncovered an al-Qaeda plot to use chemical weapons, as well as to smuggle them to Europe and North America. Defence ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said five men had been arrested after military intelligence monitored their activities for three months. Three workshops for manufacturing the chemical agents, including sarin and mustard gas, were uncovered, he added. Remote-controlled toy planes were also seized at the workshops. Mr Askari said they were to have been used to release the chemical agents over the target from a “safe” distance of 1.5km (0.9 miles), reports the BBC’s Rami Ruhayem in Baghdad. All of the arrested men had confessed to the plot, and said they had received instruction from another al-Qaeda offshoot, he added. As the defence ministry spokesman spoke on Iraqi TV, footage was shown of four men with black hoods on their heads, our correspondent adds. Three of them were wearing bright yellow jumpsuits and a fourth was in a brown jumpsuit. Soldiers wearing gas masks hold bottles containing chemicals.

Israeli jets buzz Assad palace, bomb chem weapons site outside Damascus

I have not seen this reported anywhere else in Israel yet, but UPI is reporting from Maariv (one of our Hebrew papers) that Israeli jets buzzed the Damascus palace of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday, and then went on to bomb a chemical weapons facility outside Damascus.

The Free Syrian Army says Israeli air force jets flew over President Bashar Assad's palace and bombed a chemical weapons site near Damascus, Maariv reported.

The report said the Israeli jets entered Syria's airspace close to 6 a.m Saturday and flew over Assad's palace in Damascus and other security facilities before striking a chemical weapons compound near the city.

The Hebrew language daily said a Syrian army air defense battery positioned in the city fired at the Israeli jets that left Syria's airspace unscathed. FSA rebels posted a video showing smoke rising up from the headquarters for chemical weapons. There were no reports of the extent of damage or casualties.

Neither Damascus or Jerusalem responded to the report.

In January, the IAF allegedly attacked a convoy moving Syrian weapons of mass destruction to Hezbullah in Lebanon. In 2006, the IAF buzzed Assad's summer palace on its way to Lebanon.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

CHEMICAL ALERT: Syrian “Rebels” More Dangerous Than Assad’s Thugs…Al Qaeda/Salafists In The Forefront

The idiom,“separating the forest from the trees”, is often bandied about, but mostly devoid of context. Hence, its targeted import becomes entirely lost, or muddled at best. Not only that, but when it comes to the Middle East, said confusion is as explosive as countless pyromaniacs running loose, in the largest forest of all!

In this regard, it is absolutely the case, the Pyromaniac-in-Chief set the region FURTHER ablaze, giving the advantage to Al Qaeda related jihadis. You know, those same hardened terrorists who fight under the banner of the late, non-lamented Osama Bin Laden! In fact, to up the odds of his Brotherhood picks ( “cousins” of Al Qaeda ) he has unleashed those very same forces – who primed their techniques fighting Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan – to run rampant all over the region. They are currently ensconced in the Egyptian Sinai (Israel’s southern border) and abutting Israel’s northern Golan border. Pincer-like. More than a bastard.

“Leading from behind”, he has no intention of dealing with the Iranian menace through hyper-American muscle tactics. Thereby, demonstrating to its Hitlerite regime what their fate will be, if they don’t cease & desist their genocidal weapons program. Instead, for 4 + years, he opts for jaw-jaw, hardly likely to scare any of the basket cases in the world, let alone the cagey mullahs.
In other words, the west’s imperative, to break the “Iranian axis of evil”,  thus weakening Assad’s/Hezbollah’s back, never entered the fray. As such, he not only left Iran stronger, but gave the upper hand to those fighting Assad, every bit as much killing machines as Assad. However, now Israel’s border is hotter than ever, as the “rebels” have ZERO reservations about utilizing chemical warfare, unlike Assad, knowing full well that said move would bring the IDF down on his head! 
But now, Jerusalem (and other capitals) is dealing with non-state actors, thereby, making the region more than a tinderbox. Alas, a six year old could have planned a better campaign. And that’s the point. Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s intent is to weaken American interests, with Israel at the forefront! Forget about his recent “visit”. Radical politics took center stage, even as the regional upheaval demanded his full attention. Yes, he can walk and chew gum at the same time. More than a pyromaniac. My head hurts.
In the main, the leader of the free world has ensured that chemical weapons would be introduced, something which Assad’s terror forces knew was off limits, regardless of regional tensions. However, now that the “rebels” have introduced chemical warfare, all bets are off, as reported, at this blog, almost most 4 months ago - adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/02/urgent-syrian-update-reported-movement-of-chemical-weapons-addendum-to-the-coming-encirclement-of-syria-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Most rational folks realize by now – including the Commander-in-Chief and his surrogates – Islamists are bloodthirsty, whatever their stripes - adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/31/islamists-whatever-their-stripes-are-bloodthirsty-assads-butchers-his-opponents-too-six-of-onehalf-dozen-of-another-addendum-toislam-blood-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/…even if the POTUS feigns otherwise, no, he didn’t pick his Brotherhood (with remnants of Al Qaeda) jihadis over the rest. And this matters, mainly because he really stood still when he shouldn’t have, back in 2009, when Iranian freedom fighters were attempting to break the back of their Hitlerite regime.

Therefore, no one should be surprised, that under his watch chemical weapons have been unleashed, and the fingerprints lead straight back to his “rebels”.

‘Alarming Footage: Syrian Rebels Used Chemical Weapons’

by Ted on MARCH 25, 2013 

By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat
In December of last year we revealed that the rebels had in their hands potent chemical weapons and were testing them on rabbits, and we predicted that they will use them on innocents.
Well now it is happening.
And now, new evidence translated from Arabic sources reveals the likelihood that it was the Muslim rebels (FSA) and not the Assad regime that carried out a chemical attack on the town of Khan al-Assal, west of Aleppo.
We have captured clips that were never translated (until now) showing rebels revealing heavy arsenals including weapons of mass destruction that contain chemical agents.
Russia says that it was the FSA that carried out the massacre while the White House says that there is no evidence that the rebels are responsible.
In the Arab circles, the blaming goes back and forth. The Syrian government blames the FSA and vise versa.
So who do we believe?
Even if we examine the sources in Arabic we find that the reporting on this story is usually done by masters of confusion. For example, how can an FSA reporter film an exploded chemical rocket at a close distance and remain alive?
But if we examine the videos during all the clashes between the FSA and the Syrian military we find much evidence from footage never seen in the West (until now) showing that weapons cache of scuds, tanks, Sam-7 rockets and even weapons of mass destruction (chemical as well as biological) are falling into the hands of FSA rebels.
In one video that we found, the Syrian rebels, after taking an airbase, show the substantial amount of scud missiles now in their hands:
And just when you think that these rebels are too primitive to figure out how to fire these missiles, here is a video of them actually launching one:
The chemical attack in Khan al-Assal is said to have been done by Assad, but as people are swayed to believing the jihadist rebels, we have first hand testimony from just one of the multitude of victims of this tragedy:
Also, there are some important facts that we have to take into perspective.
The assault happened in the town of Khan al-Assal, a predominately Shiite town. The Syrian revolution is a Sunni movement, and one of its main goals is to remove the Shiite Assad regime. The town has also been a common victimof attacks by Al-Qaeda, a Sunni organization. This is thus an indication that the attack was conducted by Sunnis, and not the government which is Shiite.
Moreover, neither the rebels nor the government denies that amongst the victims were military personal. In fact, it is said that out of the 26 dead 16 were Syrian soldiers.
Why would a Shiite government orchestrate a terrorist attack on its own soldiers especially in a Shiite town?
Assad is very loyal to his own sect–the Alawites–which is a part of Shia Islam, and they in turn are loyal to him. This allegiance is so strong that, according to Middle East expert Walid Phares, if Assad ever escaped from the rebels and hid in the northwestern part of Syria, where most of the Alawites live, and his enemies came to attack there, he would use chemical weapons “to defend his own community.”
Khan al-Assal, the place of the attack, is in the northwestern part of Syria, to where Assad would flee, and the region that he would be willing to defend.
Furthermore, a medic at the local civilian hospital said that he personally saw soldiers attending to the wounded at the scene of the attack.
Another factor that deserves attention is that the device used for the attack was not advanced; both American and independent weapons analysts confirm this. If the Assad regime had done last week’s incursion, then it would have utilized something of a more sophisticated arsenal.
Also, if the government was behind this, the attack would have killed more than just 26 people, since Syria is said to own the largest chemical arsenal in the region.
It is reported that the syrian military believes that the assault was done by launching into the town a home-made rocket containing CL17, a type of chlorine that can be found at your local swimming pool.
Though this was a small attack, chlorine can be used to implement very significant destruction on human populations. According to Benjamin Brodsky, writing for the Monterey Institute of International Studies:

The worst industrial accident in history is illustrative: 40 metric tons of methyl isocyanate was released from a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, on December 3, 1984. The resulting plume killed at least 3,000 people downwind and injured more than 100,000. A sufficiently large release of elemental chlorine may be capable of exacting a comparable toll, particularly if it were to be discharged in a highly populated civilian area.

Another point is that if Assad was indeed the attacker in this scenario, then the media would be making full scale reports affirming that he is the perpetuator. The White House would be confirming it, the U.N. would be confirming it–but they are not.
It makes no sense that Assad would all of a sudden order such a strike in the first place, since he is worried about the repercussion of negative international responses. Walid Phares has made this point:

He is going to try not to use it [the chemical weapons] as much as as he can because he knows the international reaction is going to be very tough.

But, all of these facts have not stopped John Mccain and Lindsay Graham from calling for U.S. intervention and the granting of weapons to the jihadists. In a recent joint statement, the two Republican senators wrote:

We are extremely disturbed by reports that chemical weapons have been used today in Syria. President Obama has said that the use of weapons of mass destruction by Bashar Assad is a ‘red line’ for him that ‘will have consequences.’ If today’s reports are substantiated, the President’s red line has been crossed, and we would urge him to take immediate action to impose the consequences he has promised. That should include the provision of arms to vetted Syrian opposition groups, targeted strikes against Assad’s aircraft and SCUD missile batteries on the ground, and the establishment of safe zones inside Syria to protect civilians and opposition groups. If today’s reports are substantiated, the tragic irony will be that these are the exact same actions that could have prevented the use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

The facts do not stop Republican Mike Rogers from affirming that it is a “high probability” that Assad used chemical weapons, as can be found in a recent interview:
America is in, to a degree, intervening in the Syrian situation.
One diplomatic source has stated

Scores of U.S. military advisers in Jordan are training the rebels in

It has also been said that that training and weapons has been financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and that the goal of the U.S. and NATO is to make the rebels into a formidable fighting force “capable of countering the Syrian Army.”
Our primary concern should be that one day our own nation will work with NATO to militarily strike the Assad regime and allow the revolutionaries to prevail. Such an act will not only enable Islamic fundamentalism to further expand, but empower Turkey to commence its much aspired empire–that is–a revived Ottoman empire.
shoebat.com/2013/03/25/alarming-footage-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons/
BOTTOM LINE: Now that the above has been set in motion, and Al Qaeda has captured the main highway bordering Israel, Jordan and Syria, and a major tributary too - www.debka.com/article/22852/Al-Qaeda-brigade-captures-Syrian-Israeli-Jordanian-border-junction-…part of his mission to Israel (aside from  ”Alinskyite” indoctrination of Israel’s university students and his ONLY major speech in Israel - adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/24/the-convergence-of-obamas-diety-saul-alinsky-his-channeling-to-israeli-students-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/) was to tamp down the fires. According to DEBKAfile Intelligence: “During his visit to Israel, US President Barack Obama struck a deal with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for military action against Syrian chemical weapons. The new issue will flesh out that core decision with exclusive revelations on NATO’s role in setting up the expedition, its participants, targets and ramifications, including likely responses by Moscow and Tehran”.
More than deserving of his Satan-like status! adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/19/the-swirling-likeness-of-barack-hussein-obama-to-satan-history-channels-the-bible-series-oh-me-oh-my-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/.
UPDATE: herein lies the crux of the above thesis (Obama’s incendiary handiwork)… and reading it, after today’s commentary posting, is more than noteworthy - www.debka.com/article/22855/Arab-League-Summit-The-empty-leadership-chair-in-Doha

via adinakutnicki.com

this is not going to end well for Jewish people. I was against intervention, but I'm not seeing a choice if the rebels have access to chemicals weapons. It is important to not be tied to any policy.

The Facts of the #Pollard Case- Points 1-55 | #JonathanPollard #Clinton #Israel #WMDs

1. Jonathan Pollard was a civilian American Naval intelligence analyst. In the mid 1980's (circa 1983-1984), Pollard discovered that information vital to Israel's security was being deliberately withheld by certain elements within the U.S. national security establishment.
2. Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.
3. The information being withheld from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities - being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.
4. When Pollard discovered this suppression of information and asked his superiors about it, he was told to "mind his own business", and that "Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don't need to know."He also learned that the objective of cutting off the flow of information to Israel was to severely curtail Israel's ability to act independently in defense of her own interests.
5. Pollard was painfully aware that Israeli lives were being put in jeopardy as a result of this undeclared intelligence embargo. He did everything he possibly could to stop this covert policy and to have the legal flow of information to Israel restored. When his efforts met no success, he began to give the information to Israel directly.
6. Jonathan Pollard was an ideologue, not a mercenary. The FBI concluded after nine months of polygraphing that Pollard acted for ideological reasons only, not for profit. This fact was recognized by the sentencing judge who declined to fine Pollard. (See theaddendum for further details.)Furthermore, on May 11, 1998, Israel formally acknowledged Jonathan Pollard had been a bona fide Israeli agent. This fact wiped out any remaining doubt about Jonathan Pollard's motives. Being an official agent is, by definition, the polar opposite of being a mercenary.
7. In 1985, his actions were discovered by the U.S. government. His instructions from Israel were to seek refuge in the Israeli embassy in Washington. When Pollard and his former wife sought refuge there, they were at first received and then summarily thrown out into the waiting arms of the FBI.
8. Jonathan Pollard never had a trial. At the request of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, he entered into a plea agreement, which spared both governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.
9. Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution.
10. Nevertheless, Pollard received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled - in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.
11. Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for harming the United States.
12. Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for compromising codes, agents, or war plans.
13. Jonathan Pollard was never charged with treason. [Legally, treason is a charge that is only applicable when one spies for an enemy state in time of war.]
14. Jonathan Pollard was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States.
15. Prior to sentencing, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger delivered a 46-page classified memorandum to the sentencing judge. Since then, neither Pollard nor any of his cleared attorneys have ever been allowed to access the memorandum to challenge the false charges it contains-a clear violation of Pollard's constitutional rights.
    The day before sentencing, Weinberger delivered a four-page supplemental memorandum to the sentencing judge. In it, he falsely accused Pollard of treason. Also in the supplemental memorandum, Weinberger advocated a life sentence in clear violation of Pollard's plea agreement. The implication that follows from Weinberger's false characterization of Pollard's offense as "treason" is that the country Pollard served, Israel, is an enemy state.
16. Pollard was shown the supplemental Weinberger memorandum only once, just moments before sentencing - hardly adequate time to prepare an appropriate defense to rebut the false accusations in it.
17. No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally - only Jonathan Pollard. The median sentence for this offense is two to four years. Even agents who have committed far more serious offenses on behalf of hostile nations have not received such a harsh sentence.
18. Pollard's attorney never appealed from the life sentence. The time to file for such an appeal was within ten days of sentencing. Years later, with a different attorney, Pollard filed a habeas corpus challenge to the sentence.The Court of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, rejected the challenge, largely on procedural grounds.
    The majority placed heavy emphasis on the failure to appeal from the life sentence in a timely manner, and on the resulting far heavier burden faced by Pollard in seeking to challenge the sentence via habeas corpus. [Note: "Habeas corpus" is a procedure by which an incarcerated person may bring a court challenge to the legality of his or her incarceration - often long after the underlying case has been concluded.]
    In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Williams called the case "a fundamental miscarriage of justice," and wrote that he would have ordered that Pollard's sentence be vacated.
19. In November 1995, Israel granted Jonathan Pollard Israeli citizenship. The official presentation took place in January of 1996. This publicly signaled to the U.S. Israel's willingness to accept full responsibility for Pollard.
20. U.S. government sources falsely accuse Pollard in the media of passing "rooms full of classified information" and "hundreds of thousands of documents" to Israel. This volume of information is an absurdity! Pollard would have needed to make numerous "drops" using a moving van to have transferred such a large volume of information. In actual fact, Jonathan Pollard made a grand total of eleven "drops" to the Israelis, using only a small briefcase to hold the documents.
21. The government used an insidious formula to exaggerate the volume of information that Jonathan Pollard passed to Israel. The formula was: if only one page or a single sentence of a document was passed to the Israelis, it was counted as if the whole document had been transmitted. Even referenced documents and sources were counted as having been transmitted in toto. Using this calculation, a single page could be counted as 50 hard-bound 500 page volumes!
22. There is no Mr. "X".
The CIA claim that another highly-placed spy in the U.S. had to exist in order to give Jonathan Pollard his highly specific tasking orders is a complete fabrication. To understand how Pollard was tasked by Israel to secure specific documents, see: Was there another U.S. spy tasking Pollard? - Mr. ‘X' Exposed.

23. On May 12, 1998 , in the same statement in which the Government of Israel publicly acknowledged Jonathan Pollard as an Israeli agent, it accepted full responsibility for him, and indicated its commitment to securing his release and repatriation to Israel.
24. Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private letters to the President and others. He regrets having broken the law, and is sorry he did not find a legal means to act upon his concerns for Israel. (See Remorse Page.)
25. Jonathan Pollard has been openly linked to the Middle East Peace Process since 1995.The Israeli government recognized long ago that Jonathan's sentence was unjust, that the documents he delivered to Israel did not remotely cause the damage that the prosecution claimed but never proved. As a result of this recognition, various Israeli administrations have negotiated, as a matter of basic fairness, to secure Jonathan's release.
    Since 1995, within the context of the peace process, the US has repeatedly exploited the plight of Jonathan Pollard to extract heavy concessions from Israel.
    However despite express promises made by the United States to Israel, Jonathan Pollard remains in jail.
26. It was the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who, in 1995, first began openly to negotiate for Jonathan's release as part of the peace process.Although President Clinton promised Prime Minister Rabin that he would release Jonathan as part of a Middle East peace settlement, the President refused to honor his promise after Rabin was assassinated.
27. Rabin's successor, Prime Minister Shimon Peres, continued to link Jonathan to the peace process, and even went so far as to include a spy swap proposal as part of the deal for Pollard's release.
28. The Wye Plantation summit is a prime example of U.S. exploitation of Jonathan Pollard.Both before and again during the Wye summit negotiations in the fall of 1998, President Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was the deal-maker at Wye which enabled the accords to be completed.
29. At the last minute, with the eyes of the world focused on the Wye Accords signing ceremony which was about to take place in Washington, Clinton reneged on Pollard's release, creating a storm of negative publicity for Israel.
30. How the Wye fiasco came about:In September, 1998, just before the mid-term Congressional elections, President Clinton (who at the time was facing impeachment hearings and in need of a foreign policy PR victory) asked Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to attend a three-way summit with the Palestinians at Wye River, Maryland.
    Clinton knew that a successful summit at Wye just before the Congressional elections would be good not only for his image, but would also reap great political benefits for the Democrats in their bid to regain control of Congress. As an inducement to Netanyahu, Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard within the context of the summit.
    Understanding the value of Jonathan Pollard for his own re-election bid, and needing him as a sweetener to sell any kind of "peace" deal to the Israeli people, Netanyahu ignored the entreaties of Republican friends like Newt Gingrich and agreed to attend the summit. (Gingrich would later repay Netanyahu by leading the Republican charge of slander and lies against Jonathan Pollard.)
31. Once the Wye summit was underway, Clinton quickly "forgot" his promise to free Jonathan Pollard and there was little Netanyahu could do.
32. Talks at Wye broke down over the release of Palestinian murderers with Jewish blood on their hands and over Israel's request for the extradition of Ghazi Jabali, the chief of Police in Gaza who was wanted for his role in planning and executing terrorist attacks in Israel.
33. To break the stalemate, the Palestinians suggested Jonathan Pollard as the solution. They proposed that Pollard be sold to Netanyahu once again: the US would give Jonathan to Israel in return for Israel's freeing of hundreds of Palestinian terrorists and immunity for Ghazi Jabali.
34. The US and Israel agreed to the Palestinian plan to swap Pollard for terrorists and murderers.President Clinton personally worked out the details of the deal in a late-night private session with a Palestinian and an Israeli representative.
35. According to the deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu was to receive a side letter from President Clinton the next morning (one of approximately 30 side letters the Americans had promised) guaranteeing Pollard's release for November 11, 1998, one week after the US House elections.The Pollard negotiation was the deal-maker at Wye which allowed the summit to be successfully wrapped up and a signing ceremony to be planned for the next morning in Washington, on Friday October 23, 1998.
36. Only hours before the signing ceremony, P.M. Netanyahu received all of the American side-letters that had been promised to him, except one - the one guaranteeing the release of Jonathan Pollard.Netanyahu threatened not to attend the signing ceremony unless he got the Pollard side letter. Clinton said, "Trust me." Netanyahu, knowing he was about to be double-crossed by Clinton over Pollard for the second time, refused.
    Netanyahu demanded that in the absence of a side letter of guarantee, Pollard should be freed into his custody immediately, or no signing ceremony. Arik Sharon supported Netanyahu and they threatened to leave Wye without signing the accords.
37. In order to take the pressure off of President Clinton, CIA chief George Tenet quickly leaked the news of Pollard's imminent release to the media in a deliberate - and ultimately successful - attempt to torpedo the deal.He sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to hold emergency meetings with leading Senators and Congressmen to enlist their support in publicly denouncing Pollard's release. Many lies were told by the CIA emissaries about Jonathan Pollard to convince the legislators to act swiftly and in unison. Believing the lies, the legislators complied and began an unprecedented series of public actions to prevent the release of Jonathan Pollard.
38. Meanwhile at Wye, under heavy pressure and still fearful that Netanyahu would not back down, Clinton quickly negotiated a private fall-back position with Netanyahu: Clinton would publicly promise to do a "speedy review"of the Pollard Case and he would use that review to free Pollard a few months later, parallel to the release of the 750 Palestinian terrorists who were part of the price Israel had agreed to pay for Pollard.Under heavy public pressure and betrayed by his own Minister of Defense, Yitzhak Mordecai*, who closed ranks with Clinton, Netanyahu folded and accepted this private deal. The signing ceremony was held in Washington as scheduled. *(Mordecai himself is now on trial in Israel in 2001 for sexual assault.)
39. Netanyahu's capitulation at Wye, the public spectacle of his being brought to heel by the Americans, and the lopsided deal he brought home from Wye now that Pollard was no longer perceived to be a part of it, would shortly cost him his premiership.
40. After Wye, the White House falsely accused Netanyahu of having injected Pollard into the Wye summit at the last moment.However, eye witnesses to the Pollard deal at Wye, including the Israeli and the Palestinian who had negotiated the deal with Clinton and the former Israeli Cabinet Secretary, all later contradicted the White House version of events and affirmed that President Clinton had committed himself to the release of Jonathan Pollard as an integral part of the Wye Accords.
    

    Note: Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first prime minster of Israel to agree to free Palestinian terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. That is the price the Americans demanded for Pollard at Wye. To this day, this represents a keen embarrassment for Netanyahu and his party, even more so since he did not receive Pollard but the Palestinian murders were released nonetheless. That is why no official source from the Netanyahu government ever wants to publicly admit to it. They keep the details to a minimum, but all concur that Pollard's freedom was bought and paid for by "concessions"at Wye.

41. When Netanyahu returned to Israel after Wye, he created a firestorm of publicity by releasing 200 Palestinian common criminals from Israeli prisons.The Palestinians were outraged, and insisted that these common criminals were not the prisoners that they had bargained for at Wye. The Americans angrily protested. Netanyahu reminded the Americans that the Wye Accords do not specify exactly which prisoners Israel must release. Critics wondered if the Prime Minister had lost his mind to antagonize the Americans this way.
    Only those close to Prime Minister Netanyahu understood that this was Netanyahu's private, pointed reminder to Bill Clinton that if he was thinking of double-crossing him yet a third time over Pollard, he should think again. No Pollard, no release for the Palestinian murderers and terrorists.
    Unfortunately for Jonathan Pollard, Netanyahu's government fell before he was able to act on this.
42. In a meeting with Netanyahu right after his electoral defeat in the Spring of 1999, Jonathan Pollard's wife, Esther, received assurances from the former prime minister that the new prime minister, Ehud Barak, had been fully briefed about what had been agreed to at Wye and about the fall-back position; that is to say, Israel had yet to free the 750 terrorists with blood on their hands and was still supposed to receive Pollard home in a "parallel gesture" from President Clinton.
43. Not long after Barak took office, the 750 Palestinian murderers and terrorists walked out of prison as free men. Jonathan Pollard remained in his American jail cell.
44. In an attempt to justify Clinton's reneging at Wye, a story was leaked to the press that George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, had threatened to resign as head of the CIA if Pollard were released.The story, though not logical, sounded plausible and it became popular to cite the opposition of the American Intelligence community as the reason Clinton did not honor his commitment at Wye to free Pollard.
    This was soon exposed as the lame excuse it was when Clinton freed a group of unrepentant FALN terrorists in the fall of 1999, in an attempt to improve his wife's popularity with New York State's Hispanic community in her election bid for the Senate. (See Senate Race Page.)
    To this day, the same lame excuse continues to be used to justify the unjustifiable failure of Clinton to honor his commitment.
45. In September of 1999, despite strenuous opposition from all of his government advisors and agencies, President Clinton freed 14 unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists, members of the FALN, charged with bank robbery and various acts of terrorism, including over 130 bombings in the US, and the deaths of American police officers.Clinton ignored a solid wall of opposition from the Justice, Intelligence and Defense departments and Congress, invoked his powers of executive clemency and set the FALN terrorists free. In doing so, he unequivocally put the lie to the notion that any government agency might tie his hands or influence his decision in matters of clemency. (See FALN Page and Clemency Page.)
46. More than two years elapsed after Wye. President Clinton did no review. Jonathan Pollard remained in prison while the US continued to extract Israeli concessions for his release.
47. Those who still believed the myth that it was the American Intelligence Community that was tying the hands of President Clinton, also clung to the belief he would finally honor his many promises to release Jonathan Pollard - including the commitment he had made at Wye - at the end of his term, when he could do so without fear of political reprisal.
48. Beginning in 1991 Rabbi Mordecai Eliyahu, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, and Jonathan's rabbi, offered himself to the U.S. Justice Department as Jonathan's guarantor. The offer was ignored.Rabbi Eliyahu repeated the same offer every year after that in private letters to President Clinton.
    Every offer went unacknowledged until the fall of 2000, when Esther Pollard received a letter from the White House indicating that the President was aware of the former chief Rabbi's offer and that it would be part of the President's consideration in reaching a final decision on her husband's case.
49. President Clinton never kept his promises.When he left office in January 2001, Jonathan Pollard was not included among those that to whom Clinton granted clemency:
    
    • in spite of his repeated express commitments to Israel to free Pollard in return for numerous heavy concessions
    • in spite of his commitment to free Pollard as an integral part if the Wye Accords
    • in spite of the appeals of the Jewish community, and
    • in spite of the gross injustices of the Pollard case which include:
      • a grossly disproportionate sentence
      • a broken plea agreement
      • use of secret evidence
      • a false charge of treason
      • ineffective assistance of counsel
      • ex parte communication between prosecutors and judge
      • a lack of due process
      • a sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies
    On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to 140 people. Many who received executive clemency had been convicted of very serious offenses, including murder, robbery and drug dealing. Some of those pardoned had served no prison time at all before being pardoned. Among those pardoned were Clinton's brother, and a former head of the CIA. (See Clemency Page.)
50. In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, filed a motion in the US District Court of Columbia to vacate his sentence.The motion, supported by documentation, presents a compelling and very disturbing picture of serious government misconduct that went unchecked by Mr. Pollard's then-counsel. As a result of that misconduct, and as a result of his attorney's ineffectiveness Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison on the basis of false allegations, and under circumstances that violated his plea agreement. (See Legal Doc: Declaration of Jonathan Jay Pollard In Support of Motion for Resentencing. See also Legal Doc: Memorandum of Law in Support of Jonathan Jay Pollard's § 2255 Motion for Resentencing.)
51. Since he was sentenced in 1987, none of Jonathan Pollard's security-cleared attorneys have been able to see the classified portions of the docket in order to challenge them in a court of law or to defend him in a clemency proceeding.In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys filed a separate motion requesting that attorney Eliot Lauer be allowed access to the secret portions of the Pollard court docket. (See Legal Doc: Motion to Unseal the Pollard Record.)
52. On January 12, 2001, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson denied the attorneys' request to allow Eliot Lauer access to the complete Pollard docket, upholding the government's claim that Lauer's seeing the secret portion of the record poses a risk to American national security.Both Lauer and Semmelman hold TOP SECRET level security clearances, which they obtained from the Justice Department in order to be eligible to see their client's full record.
    A motion for reconsideration was filed January 18, 2001. (See Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order.)
53. Amicus briefs supporting Jonathan's new legal cases have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as by top American legal authorities. (See Amici Briefs on the Court Case Page.)
54. Five Prime Ministers of Israel and three Presidents of Israel have requested Jonathan Pollard's release from the United States. Israel has pledged to be responsible for its agent who has served many years in prison under harsh conditions, and who has fully and repeatedly expressed his remorse. (See Remorse Page.)Between close friends and strong allies, that ought to be enough.
    

    On November 21, 2012, Jonathan Pollard entered the 28th year of his life sentence, with no end in sight.

via 9-11domorethenneverforget-stopislam.blogspot.com