Dec 29 2006

US State Department Covered Up Murder And Act Of War

Published by at 2:45 pm under All General Discussions

The reporting now out that Yasser Arafat was terrorist thug is not news in terms of Arafat’s bloody past – but it is news that the US State Department covered up for his terrorist activities and culpability in the deaths of two US citizens. There are laws against hiding evidence of murder and attack on the US. There are laws against aiding and abetting enemies of the state and murderers. The killing of a US Ambassador and his aide is an act of war. And yet the State Department covered this up.

What I want to know is whether this cover up had Presidential approval (Nixon at the time) and how many future Presidents covered this up. It would seem clear Bush was aware and that is one reason he never once gave any credibility to Arafat – letting him die isolated in his bombed out HQ. But Bill Clinton and Madelline Albright have a lot of explaining to do. In the decade that led up to 9-11, as this country was attacked over and over again by Al Qaeda, Clinton hosted a terrorist more than any other ‘leader of state’ (gads it is hard to choke out the descriptor).

How bad was Clinton’s judgement? Arafat committed an act of war on this country and Clinton treated him like some kind of dignitary. No wonder Al Qaeda thought the US was incapable of mustering a self defense. This is why you cannot just flail wildly on foreign policy – like Clinton did. All Billy-boy cared about was is pathetic little legacy. No thought whatsoever about what kind of dangerous message it would send terrorists to host Arafat as an equal on the world stage. Bin Laden must have thought if Arafat got so many invites to DC from killing two people in his Jihad, he would be able to set a permanent residence with 3,000 deaths.

Clinton and Albright made us all look like total dupes when they treated this bastard as head of state. He should have been arrested and charged the minute he stepped foot into this country.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “US State Department Covered Up Murder And Act Of War”

  1. erp says:

    Thanks so much for this post. It’s been a long time coming exposing the big cover-up. When the ostriches in the media and the Democrat leadership are forced to get their heads out of the sand, there has to be a huge chain reaction. The fiasco surrounding Arafat’s prolonged death scene in Paris when his huge fortune was divvied up, it’s certain some of it filtered back to Clinton’s retirement fund.

    I wish I dared be optimistic that Bush is orchestrating a big finale and he’ll leave office with the stygian stables of Clinton’s administration, including Hillary’s part, open for all to see.

  2. crosspatch says:

    Well, this is where the cynical world of intelligence and diplomacy touches real life. There can be many reasons for not acting on this information. We might have decided that to reveal what we knew would have exposed how we were getting this information and it could potentially save more lives down the road it keep it under wraps than to expose our sources in a trial or by even letting them know that we knew.

    There might only be one or two possible ways we could have known of this information and to expose that we knew it would expose the source. Yes, sometimes people die to protect sources that have a potential to save a lot more lives later. I will give you an example. During World War II, the British intercepted and decoded a message using Enigma. The message concerned a planned bombing raid on Coventry. As we had obtained this information from only that one source, to alert Coventry that an attack was coming could have tipped the Germans off that we had intercepted their communications and broken their cipher. So the terribly difficult decision was made not to alert the defenses or population of Coventry and allow the raid to progress as if we had never intercepted the message so as to protect that source and save more lives further along in the war.

    I don’t know the particulars in this case, but things like this happen all the time in that world. There was a Discovery Times documentary that people should see if they ever get the chance. It is called “Stars On The Wall” and is about the stories behind some of the stars on the wall at CIA Headquarters that represent fallen heroes of this country whose stories many will never hear of. And sometimes it is ordinary people and sometimes it is diplomats who give their lives for their country without even realizing it at the time.

    I wouldn’t be so quick to judge on this story until more information is available. There is often much more than meets the eye and sometimes they are decisions made at the time that in hindsight turned out to be wrong, and sometimes they are right, but at the time you can’t know how the future will unfold.

  3. Ken says:

    Do you know why Arafat was treated with less than violence by America, childlike AJ? I will tell you two reasons.

    One, the PLO would have focussed much more on America in its
    war against Israel and the ruling class feared such increased enmity.
    Two, Arafat’s opponents, Hamas and other religious factions, were righly considered even more dangerous to Israel and ,accepting an intransigent America, to the latter. You see, AJ youjust can’t come to grips with how hopelessly and suicidally unpopular America is in the Mideast.

    Unlike Clinton, Bush refused to deal with and then lashed out against secular Moslems, Hussein and Arafat, who had reigned in the religious Moslems. Your myopic praise for this ignores the defeat in Iraq, accompanied by increasing the prestige and power of religious
    Moslems in the form of both Sunni and Shia, Iraqi and Iranian.
    Thankfully, 80% of Americans realize we have lost this phase of the
    “battle” against Islam (9/11/2001-present) and are ready to deal at the table with the stronger enemy.

  4. AJStrata says:


    Grow up, stop the insults or take a hike from here.

  5. Ken says:

    I should have said politically naeive, not childlike, but the problem here is, the State Department realized the terror was largely being caused by the US policy which allows Israel to oppress the Palestinians and to have agents in America attempting to finalize that oppression through grossly unfair “peace deals” leaving them in restricted squalor.

  6. patrick neid says:

    yawning….yet again.

    ok. ok. let’s all act shocked together. every person at the federal government level knew every detail of what arafat did. same goes for today’s terror leaders. are there really any people out there with more than double digit IQ’s who didn’t know that arafat was a murdering monster that ran a criminal organization that perpetually shook down the US and Europe for millions to keep palestians in ignorance and servitude? even now his success continues through hamas and hezzbollah etc.

    the same feigned stupidity is at work today. do we really need “FBI’ ish” evidence that the leaders of syria, iran, sudan, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr etc are killing us. we play dumb today, as clinton did for 8 years and those before him, because we lack the will and fortitude to execute these monsters on the same day and live with the aftermath of such actions. instead we opt for “blinders” so that when these monsters rear their collective ugly heads and ten’s of thousands die by one’s and two’s–perhaps adding up to even millions we can avoid it until we are finally shamed into resistance.

    we are cowards hiding behind nuance and faux diplomacy allowing these butchers to have their way. we deserve every bad thing that happens as did europe in the 40’s. they knew what hitler was just as we know what these terror masters are. it’s clinton narcissistically/foolishly thinking that letting the devil sleep in the lincoln room he could get a Faustian bargain in the middle east. history’s clearest lesson is you must, at the first light, execute tyrants. they are not hard to identify. most of the time we fail to heed this lesson–as we are doing now. think about it. our failure to do so has allowed the likes of al sadr to murder with abandon. hamas, hezzbollah and the like shoot rockets into israel and iran preaches genocide and organizes killing GI’s on a daily basis. the monsters in sudan have hit the 200,000 mark. these are the creatures we let live. not only do they live but pathetic “situational ethicists” make excuses why they should continue to commit murder from a prison cell–out of cowardice–i’m afraid they will become martyrs!
    the iranian leadership preaches israeli genocide and we fete them at the UN hoping that they don’t build too many nukes! you can’t make this stuff up. we certainly then can’t, many years later, feign ignorance that we really didn’t know what hitler said in Mein Kampf.

  7. crosspatch says:

    The difference is that Arafat was a political animal who wanted a political settlement that could co-exist with Israel. In other words, while he was a thug, he could be dealt with and ultimately it was possible to reach agreement with him. The problem was that he didn’t have absolute control of the areas he was negotiating with so while someone might reach an agreement with Fatah or the PLO or PA or whatever it was this week, there were other Palestinian groups not under their control. These other groups (PIJ and Hamas, for example) were religious based and would not tolerate the existance of Israel.

    Now had Israel gotten behind Arafat and encouraged him and supported him in some effort to wipe out other Palestinian groups, then maybe something might have come from all of that negotiating. But the very act of supporting Fatah would have caused Fatah to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinian supporters.

    So … Israel negotiated with Fatah, who didn’t have the ability to enforce its own agreements across the Palestinian political spectrum, nor could it accept Israeli support in quashing the other groups, nor could it really lift a finger against them lest they seem counter-palestinian or somehow defending Israeli interests.

    The entire situation there stinks. The agreements giving the Palestinians a state were basically in place with Fatah, the trouble is that Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas might as well be separate states existing alongside Fatah. None of the groups wants to appear subordinate to the others. Of course, the only result is eventually going to be a fight amongst themselves until two are beaten into submission and one rises to the top.

    Until that happens, the Palestinians are doomed. There is absolutely nothing the US, Israel, or anyone else on this planet can do.

  8. clarice says:

    He couldn’t be dealt with..the Oslo accords with a lying murderer weren’t worth the paper they were written on. It was a ruse to pretend to do something to deal with an intractable problem.It was a prelude to the idiotic deal with Kim Jong.

    In any event, the story is even worse than was originally reported.

    But the story is even worse.

  9. Ken says:

    “Until that happens, the Palestinians are doomed. There is absolutely nothing the US, Israel, or anyone else on this planet can do.”

    The US could enforce UN edicts and force Israel off the West Bank and Samaria, which would be far easier than pacifying Iraq.

  10. Ken says:

    A question: if instead of driving Iraq out of Kuwait, the US would
    have helped finance his takeover, would you have been surprised if a
    patriotic Kuwaiti group had operated thusly?

  11. Barbara says:

    The US could enforce UN edicts and force Israel off the West Bank and Samaria, which would be far easier than pacifying Iraq.


    And what would they demand after that?