This Could Get Ugly.....

[Bullypulpit]

Actually because it's already been admitted that Richard Armitage 'leaked', not the admin. Then there is the whole non-case of Plame/Wilson.

Here's more on Berger, from today's online WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009591

<blockquote>Leak case timeline

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is being tried on five counts related to the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name in 2003. Some important events in the case:

2003:

• Jan. 28: President Bush says in his State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

• May 6: New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reports that a former ambassador, whom he does not name, had been sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium report. The column says the former envoy reported to the CIA and State Department well before Bush's speech that the uranium story was unequivocally wrong and was based on forged documents.

• May 29: Libby asks Marc Grossman, an undersecretary of State, for information about the ambassador's travel to Niger. Grossman later tells Libby that Joseph C. Wilson IV is the former ambassador.

• June 11 or 12: Grossman tells Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that State Department personnel are saying Wilson's wife was involved in planning the trip. A senior CIA officer gives him similar information.

• June 12: Cheney advises Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA.

• June 14: Libby meets with a CIA briefer and discusses "Joe Wilson" and his wife, "Valerie Wilson."

• June 23: Libby meets with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. He tells Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

• July 6: The New York Times publishes an opinion piece by Wilson titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," and he appears on NBC's "Meet the Press." Wilson said he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently and thought Cheney's office was told of the results of his trip.

• July 7: Libby meets with then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Libby notes that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that the information is not widely known.

• July 8: Libby meets with Miller again and tells her that he believes Wilson's wife works for the CIA.

• July 12: Libby speaks to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and confirms to him that he has heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip. Libby also speaks to Miller and discusses Wilson's wife and says that she works at the CIA.

• July 14: Syndicated columnist Robert Novak reports that Wilson's wife is a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction and that two senior administration officials, whom Novak does not name, said she suggested sending her husband to Niger to investigate the uranium story.

• Sept. 26: A criminal investigation is authorized to determine who leaked Plame's identity to reporters. Disclosing the identity of CIA operatives is illegal.

• Oct. 14 and Nov. 26: Libby is interviewed by FBI agents.

• Dec. 30: U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago is named to head the leak investigation.

2004:

• January: A grand jury begins investigating possible violations of federal criminal laws.

• March 5 and March 24: Libby testifies before the grand jury.

2005:

• Oct. 28: Libby is indicted on five counts: obstruction of justice and two counts each of false statement and perjury.

2006:

• Sept. 7: Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage admits he leaked Plame's identity to Novak and to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. Armitage says he did not realize Plame's job was covert. Woodward taped his June 13, 2003, interview with Armitage.

Source: Associated Press</blockquote>

So much for Richard Armitage's "admission".

 

[musicman]

Your point? Whatever he did, if anything, didn't result in thousands of US troops killed

Actually, that's debatable. He helped Bill Clinton to conceal his prior knowledge of the dire seriousness and scope of the terrorist threat. Bill Clinton had a responsibility to this country; he blew it off because he didn't think a strong effort would play well in the polls. That's who this bastard is. He ought to have to own up to it; complicit criminals in the Democrat Party, the media, and Clinton's inner circle keep allowing him to hide. Meanwhile, we're treated to nonstop coverage of this Plame non-event - and Berger's clear-cut crime? It never happened. Sandy who?

...More thousands maimed for life...untold billions squandered...countless thousands of innocent Iraqis dead...All on a tissue of lies.

WE'RE AT WAR, BULLY!!!! Could you please stop hating "Chimpy McPresident" long enough to acknowledge that Islamic thugs, stuck in the seventh century, and hell-bent on destroying Western civilization, have been waging war on us for thirty years? I'd like to squash a pie into George Bush's face, but I'll give him credit for actually recognizing the fact that we're at war, and had better do something about it.

I like the way the left "do something about it" - pursuing horseshit stories like this one, undermining America's efforts at every turn, and endangering our soldiers in the name of political power. Soulless bastards.

If Sandy Berger has committed a crime, he should be brought to trial and face the consequences of his actions. But as far as anyone can tell, at this point, his crimes are nothing more than another fabrication of the right-wing noise machine.

You don't even believe that yourself, Bully. You might think the rest of us are that stupid, but I know you've got more self-respect than to swallow THAT.

 

[Annie]

<blockquote>Leak case timeline

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is being tried on five counts related to the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name in 2003. Some important events in the case:

2003:

• Jan. 28: President Bush says in his State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

• May 6: New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reports that a former ambassador, whom he does not name, had been sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium report. The column says the former envoy reported to the CIA and State Department well before Bush's speech that the uranium story was unequivocally wrong and was based on forged documents.

• May 29: Libby asks Marc Grossman, an undersecretary of State, for information about the ambassador's travel to Niger. Grossman later tells Libby that Joseph C. Wilson IV is the former ambassador.

• June 11 or 12: Grossman tells Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that State Department personnel are saying Wilson's wife was involved in planning the trip. A senior CIA officer gives him similar information.

• June 12: Cheney advises Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA.

• June 14: Libby meets with a CIA briefer and discusses "Joe Wilson" and his wife, "Valerie Wilson."

• June 23: Libby meets with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. He tells Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

• July 6: The New York Times publishes an opinion piece by Wilson titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," and he appears on NBC's "Meet the Press." Wilson said he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently and thought Cheney's office was told of the results of his trip.

• July 7: Libby meets with then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Libby notes that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that the information is not widely known.

• July 8: Libby meets with Miller again and tells her that he believes Wilson's wife works for the CIA.

• July 12: Libby speaks to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and confirms to him that he has heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip. Libby also speaks to Miller and discusses Wilson's wife and says that she works at the CIA.

• July 14: Syndicated columnist Robert Novak reports that Wilson's wife is a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction and that two senior administration officials, whom Novak does not name, said she suggested sending her husband to Niger to investigate the uranium story.

• Sept. 26: A criminal investigation is authorized to determine who leaked Plame's identity to reporters. Disclosing the identity of CIA operatives is illegal.

• Oct. 14 and Nov. 26: Libby is interviewed by FBI agents.

• Dec. 30: U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago is named to head the leak investigation.

2004:

• January: A grand jury begins investigating possible violations of federal criminal laws.

• March 5 and March 24: Libby testifies before the grand jury.

2005:

• Oct. 28: Libby is indicted on five counts: obstruction of justice and two counts each of false statement and perjury.

2006:

• Sept. 7: Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage admits he leaked Plame's identity to Novak and to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. Armitage says he did not realize Plame's job was covert. Woodward taped his June 13, 2003, interview with Armitage.

Source: Associated Press</blockquote>

So much for Richard Armitage's "admission".

LOL! He admitted, then you brush off. It's much more likely that Berger was covering up something that may well have cost the loss of life, but you keep ignoring that elephant.

 

[theHawk]

<blockquote>Leak case timeline

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is being tried on five counts related to the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name in 2003. Some important events in the case:

2003:

• Jan. 28: President Bush says in his State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

• May 6: New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reports that a former ambassador, whom he does not name, had been sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium report. The column says the former envoy reported to the CIA and State Department well before Bush's speech that the uranium story was unequivocally wrong and was based on forged documents.

• May 29: Libby asks Marc Grossman, an undersecretary of State, for information about the ambassador's travel to Niger. Grossman later tells Libby that Joseph C. Wilson IV is the former ambassador.

• June 11 or 12: Grossman tells Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that State Department personnel are saying Wilson's wife was involved in planning the trip. A senior CIA officer gives him similar information.

• June 12: Cheney advises Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA.

• June 14: Libby meets with a CIA briefer and discusses "Joe Wilson" and his wife, "Valerie Wilson."

• June 23: Libby meets with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. He tells Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

• July 6: The New York Times publishes an opinion piece by Wilson titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," and he appears on NBC's "Meet the Press." Wilson said he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently and thought Cheney's office was told of the results of his trip.

• July 7: Libby meets with then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Libby notes that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that the information is not widely known.

• July 8: Libby meets with Miller again and tells her that he believes Wilson's wife works for the CIA.

• July 12: Libby speaks to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and confirms to him that he has heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip. Libby also speaks to Miller and discusses Wilson's wife and says that she works at the CIA.

• July 14: Syndicated columnist Robert Novak reports that Wilson's wife is a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction and that two senior administration officials, whom Novak does not name, said she suggested sending her husband to Niger to investigate the uranium story.

• Sept. 26: A criminal investigation is authorized to determine who leaked Plame's identity to reporters. Disclosing the identity of CIA operatives is illegal.

• Oct. 14 and Nov. 26: Libby is interviewed by FBI agents.

• Dec. 30: U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago is named to head the leak investigation.

2004:

• January: A grand jury begins investigating possible violations of federal criminal laws.

• March 5 and March 24: Libby testifies before the grand jury.

2005:

• Oct. 28: Libby is indicted on five counts: obstruction of justice and two counts each of false statement and perjury.

2006:

• Sept. 7: Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage admits he leaked Plame's identity to Novak and to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. Armitage says he did not realize Plame's job was covert. Woodward taped his June 13, 2003, interview with Armitage.

Source: Associated Press</blockquote>

So much for Richard Armitage's "admission".

You're timeline conveniently leaves out Joe Wilson's employment record. If you had included it, you'd see clearly that he did not work for the CIA. He was never officially sent to Niger to do any type of investigation. Nor did you include his joining the Kerry campaign to be an adviser to Kerry, proving that he is nothing but a political hack.

 

[Roopull]

This is all just another Crapitol Hill investigation into nothing in search of perjury. It's been done before over a blowjob & it'll continue to happen so long as you have republicrats in office...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

LOL!!!! Of course. It has to be the democrats fault.

Congratulations, you're finally catching on.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

<blockquote>Leak case timeline

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is being tried on five counts related to the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name in 2003. Some important events in the case:

2003:
2003, interview with Armitage.....

Source: Associated Press</blockquote>

So much for Richard Armitage's "admission".

You are truly delusional. This is not a personal attack, merely an observation as one would observe a baseball game.

To deny Berger committed a crime, when its public record, and continue to deny it, you are simply delusional and not worth the time of day.

DELUSIONAL.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Neither did Scooter Libby's? Funny how you will jump one and insist on deaths for another. All depends on party, I guess.

The detail you're omitting is that Libby's actions were part and parcel of this Administration's efforts to use false and fabricated information to lead this nation into an illegal and unjust war, and then cover up those efforts.

 

[Annie]

The detail you're omitting is that Libby's actions were part and parcel of this Administration's efforts to use false and fabricated information to lead this nation into an illegal and unjust war, and then cover up those efforts.

No they weren't. That's an accusation, not a fact. Fitzgerald knew about Armitage and let the admin. be hounded by the left. Why? Beats me. To think that Sandy Berger just decided to go steal from the National Archives on his own volition seems much more far fetched.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You are truly delusional. This is not a personal attack, merely an observation as one would observe a baseball game.

To deny Berger committed a crime, when its public record, and continue to deny it, you are simply delusional and not worth the time of day.

DELUSIONAL.

I didn't do anything of the sort. Just another poorly crafted fabrication on your part, leaving one to think that it is you who are delusional.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Actually, that's debatable. He helped Bill Clinton to conceal his prior knowledge of the dire seriousness and scope of the terrorist threat. Bill Clinton had a responsibility to this country; he blew it off because he didn't think a strong effort would play well in the polls. That's who this bastard is. He ought to have to own up to it; complicit criminals in the Democrat Party, the media, and Clinton's inner circle keep allowing him to hide. Meanwhile, we're treated to nonstop coverage of this Plame non-event - and Berger's clear-cut crime? It never happened. Sandy who?

Care to provide any documentation to support that claim?

WE'RE AT WAR, BULLY!!!! Could you please stop hating "Chimpy McPresident" long enough to acknowledge that Islamic thugs, stuck in the seventh century, and hell-bent on destroying Western civilization, have been waging war on us for thirty years? I'd like to squash a pie into George Bush's face, but I'll give him credit for actually recognizing the fact that we're at war, and had better do something about it.

Yet again, I don't "hate" the President. He is simply not worthy of such emotional excess. And you're right, I shouldn't refer to him as Chimpy McPresident. From now on I will refer to him as Kommander Koo-Koo McKrazypants.

And you should really review your history. Islamic fundamentalism is the blow-back resulting from Western policy in the region in the aftermath of WW II. By propping up corrupt and ruthless regimes in order to maintain the free flow of oil from the Middle East, Western powers virtually guaranteed such a result.

As for "<b>WE'RE AT WAR</b>", I don't recall Congress declaring war. The war we are involved in is one of Kommander Koo-Koo's choosing, after Congress unlawfully abdicated their authority in the matter.

I like the way the left "do something about it" - pursuing horseshit stories like this one, undermining America's efforts at every turn, and endangering our soldiers in the name of political power. Soulless bastards.

The only one putting our troops in harms way is the Decider-in-Chief, Kommander Koo-Koo. Those opposing his policies, including a growing number of Republican lawmakers and his own JCS are trying to extricate our troops from the middle of a civil war. As it stands now, The Decider-in-Chief is choosing to support the Shi'ias in the form of al-Maliki's government which, in case you've forgotten, is in political bed with Iran's resident Koo-Koo, President Imadinnerjacket...or is it Ahmedinejhad? Darn furrin names anyways. In turn, while a majority of the world's Muslims now hate America, half of them are going to hate America even more...You know the Sunnis...Our allies in Saudi Arabia...Guess we can look forward to our oil supplies from them being cut off.

You don't even believe that yourself, Bully. You might think the rest of us are that stupid, but I know you've got more self-respect than to swallow THAT.

You should have the self-respect to think for yourself and stop lapping up the spew and BS this administration puts out each day. Stand back and look at the bigger picture, and you'll see that they've lied to America from the start of this debacle. "Scooter's" trial is showing us just how they did it.

 

[theHawk]

And you should really review your history. Islamic fundamentalism is the blow-back resulting from Western policy in the region in the aftermath of WW II. By propping up corrupt and ruthless regimes in order to maintain the free flow of oil from the Middle East, Western powers virtually guaranteed such a result.

I agree with you that what is driving the Islamics crazy is Western policy in the region after WWII. Though I disagree it was the West's 'propping up corrupt and ruthless regimes'. The Islamic fundamentalists could care less about ruthless regimes in power, in fact thats what they prefer. What they are so bent out of shape about is the formation of the Israeli state by the West. The West took the land from them, and gave it to the Zionist Jews to appease them. Since then they have formed racists policies to only allow Jews to immigrate there and buy up land. So when President Billy Blow Job or President McChimpy get in front of a camera and tells middle eastern people that Israel is a "role model of democracy for the middle east", you can bet for damned sure non of them are going to trust us. We blindly support Israel's apartheid practices with billions in tax dollars every year. Sadly, both democrats and republicans in this country have been brainwashed into believing that our country's preservation somehow hinges on that of Israel's. Until liberals like yourself and the neocons accept this fact and do something about it, the middle east will always see us as 'the Enemy'.

 

[Roopull]

The West took the land from them, and gave it to the Zionist Jews to appease them.

Actually, the land was already owned by the Jews... at least the vast majority of it. The Muslims didn't get their panties in a bunch until the nation was formed. So, the Muslims attacked, got their collective asses handed to them & have been bitter about it ever since. It reminds me of the US civil war (although it's clearly debatable who started it,) there are still people down here who are pissed about "us" losing.

We blindly support Israel's apartheid practices with billions in tax dollars every year.

Love you longtime, but to equate what's happening in Israel with what happened in South Africa is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? I mean, afterall, the blacks in South Africa weren't signing peace deals with one hand & blowing up school children with the other. I'll be the last to say that Israel is blameless, but this Carteresque apartheid business is exceedingly biased.

 

[theHawk]

Actually, the land was already owned by the Jews... at least the vast majority of it. The Muslims didn't get their panties in a bunch until the nation was formed. So, the Muslims attacked, got their collective asses handed to them & have been bitter about it ever since. It reminds me of the US civil war (although it's clearly debatable who started it,) there are still people down here who are pissed about "us" losing.

Love you longtime, but to equate what's happening in Israel with what happened in South Africa is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? I mean, afterall, the blacks in South Africa weren't signing peace deals with one hand & blowing up school children with the other. I'll be the last to say that Israel is blameless, but this Carteresque apartheid business is exceedingly biased.

Question, how many Jews lived in Israel before WWII, and how many live there now?
Do you deny that Israel's laws restrict non-Jews from immigrating into and buying land in Israel?
I'm not saying that Palestinians aren't at fault for their cowardly terror tactics. As I have stated many times before I could care less if the Jews and Arabs fight over the land, and I have no objections to any zionist movement. What I object to is paying one side for their war, and being held accountable for it by the other side. Its not my war.

 

[Annie]

Question, how many Jews lived in Israel before WWII, and how many live there now?
Do you deny that Israel's laws restrict non-Jews from immigrating into and buying land in Israel?
I'm not saying that Palestinians aren't at fault for their cowardly terror tactics. As I have stated many times before I could care less if the Jews and Arabs fight over the land, and I have no objections to any zionist movement. What I object to is paying one side for their war, and being held accountable for it by the other side. Its not my war.

If you look to sources that are not preaching for the end of Israel, you can sometimes find some information. There are links:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_land.php

What about land? Does Israel discriminate against Arabs owning land?

While often repeated, the assertion that Arabs cannot obtain land in Israel is based on misconception, error and outright invention. In fact, most of the land in Israel is government-owned, and it is equally available to all Israelis, whether Jewish or Arab.
History of Land Ownership in Israel

In order to purchase land for the resettlement of Jews in their ancient homeland, the Fifth Zionist Congress (1901) created a private charitable organization called the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, land purchased by the JNF was not resold but was instead leased out on a long-term basis to create kibbutzim and other forms of Jewish settlement.

After 1948 state-owned lands formerly in the possession of British Mandatory Authorities, together with property abandoned by Arab refugees, passed into the control of the new Israeli government. Some of this land was sold by the government to the JNF, which had developed expertise in reclaiming and developing waste and barren lands and making them productive.

In 1960 under Basic Law: Israel Lands, JNF-owned land and government-owned land were together defined as "Israel lands," and the principle was laid down that such land would be leased rather than sold. The JNF retained ownership of its land, but administrative responsibility for the JNF land, and also for government-owned land, passed to a newly created agency called the Israel Land Administration or ILA.

Of the total land in Israel in 1997, the Israel Government Press Office statistics say 79.5% is owned by the government, 14% is privately owned by the JNF, and the rest, around 6.5%, is evenly divided between private Arab and Jewish owners. Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in Israel.
Who can access Israel Land Administration (ILA) land?

The crux of the issue then, is who can actually access the land that is almost completely controlled by the ILA? The statement that "Arabs cannot buy land in Israel" is largely true, but meaningless since Jews cannot buy land either, bound by the same ILA restrictions. In actual practice, ILA lands are leased and both Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel have equal access. Some classes of Arab citizens, e.g. Bedouins, have been the beneficiaries of highly subsidized land programs in Israel, so beneficial that Jews have gone to court to try to get the same terms. Affirmative action programs for Bedouins have been upheld by Jewish courts to the detriment of Jewish citizens.
Special case of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) land

JNF land, even when managed by the Israeli government, is restricted by the formal charter of the JNF. The purpose of the JNF was to purchase land for the settlement of Jews, and this has been interpreted to mean that JNF land should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews. The agreement that placed the JNF land under government administration incorporates the restriction.

In practice, however, JNF land has been leased to Arab citizens of Israel, both for short-term and long-term use such as leases on a yearly basis to Bedouins for use as pasture. In other cases, JNF land has been traded for other, unrestricted, land so it can be leased to Arabs.
Private land in Israel

There are no restrictions on private land transfers in Israel. Private land can be purchased or leasaed by Israeli Arabs or by non-citizens. Such land can be, and has been, purchased by Israeli Arabs and by foreigners, including Arab foreigners.

The Israeli government has announced plans to privatize much of Israel's state-owned land and offer cheap building permits to Israelis willing to move to less-desirable parts of the country, away from the crowded central area.
Contrast with Arab Policies

The relatively unrestricted access to land in Israel is in sharp contrast with Arab policies. During the 1948-1967 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), for example, Jews were forbidden to live there under pain of death. In 1973, under the direct instructions of King Hussein, the government of Jordan passed the Law for Preventing the Sale of Immoveable Property to the Enemy. The "enemy" defined in Article 2 as:

* ... any man or judicial body [corporation] of Israeli citizenship living in Israel or acting on its behalf.

This law, or equivalent, continued in effect under the Palestinian Authority (PA). By 1997, 172 people had been sentenced to death under this law, although "only" about 10 have been executed. The law is invalid under the Oslo II agreement and is one of the many violations of the Oslo peace process agreements by the PA. Palestinian land dealers in PA controlled areas have been murdered as "collaborators", a practice that was publically condoned by Yasser Arafat.

In 1995, following the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the Jordanian Parliament repealed the 1973 law and replaced it with milder statutes that still effectively bar Israelis from purchasing or leasing land in Jordan.

 

[Annie]

a little more from the State Department:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71423.htm

...Only approximately 7 percent of land was privately held, according to Adalah. Most citizens who controlled land, either for residential or business use, including farms, leased their land from the Government on long-term leases. Of the 93 percent of the land not in private hands, the Government directly controlled the vast bulk, but approximately 12.5 percent was owned by the state through the quasi-public Jewish National Fund (JNF). The Israel Land Administration, a government agency, manages both the land directly owned by the Government and the JNF land. The JNF's charter prohibited it from leasing land to non-Jews. In addition, the Jewish Agency, an organization that promotes Jewish immigration to the country and develops residential areas on both public and JNF land, as a matter of policy does not lease land to non-Jews. In 2000, the High Court ruled that the state may not allocate land to its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality, even if it allocates the land through a third party such as the Jewish Agency. The Court's decision precludes any restrictions on the leasing or sale of land based on nationality, religion, or any other discriminatory category. JNF complied with the ruling by publishing announcements about land sales in publications available to both Jews and non-Jews, but it remained unclear whether or not non-Jewish citizens would actually be able to purchase the advertised properties.

In October 2004, civil rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice to block a government bid announcement involving JNF land that effectively banned Arabs from bidding. The Government then halted marketing of JNF land in the Galilee and other areas of the north, where there are large Arab populations. In December 2004, Adalah petitioned the High Court to require the Government to apply nondiscriminatory procedures for allocating land and to conduct open land sales or leases to Arabs as well as to Jews. In January 2005, the attorney general ruled that the Government would not discriminate against Israeli-Arabs in the marketing and allocation of lands it manages, including lands that the Israel Land Administration manages for the Jewish National Fund. Adalah criticized the attorney general, however, for also deciding that the Government should compensate the JNF with land equal in size to any plots of JNF land won by non-Jewish citizens in government tenders...

 

[Annie]

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/david_gregory_w.html

Plenty of links.

 

[glockmail]

...
That [Sandy Berger] committed this crime - FOR WHOM he committed it - WHO benefitted from it and HOW - these are absolutely beyond serious dispute. You're right - that only leaves a lot of "why?" 's. Why are these people getting a pass? Why does this ongoing criminal enterprise continue to flourish in the face of blatant theft, perjury, treason, and maybe worse? Why are the Clintons exerting power and influence on the American political scene, instead of sporting orange jumpsuits?

The Clintons are very powerful people. Just wait until Hillary gets in. Only a 50 caliber can stop her.

 

[Roopull]

Question, how many Jews lived in Israel before WWII, and how many live there now?

Dunno... more now, I'd guess.

Do you deny that Israel's laws restrict non-Jews from immigrating into and buying land in Israel?

No. Never said that.
Israel in comparison to her neighbors is a very free nation... specifically when referencing religious laws.

What I object to is paying one side for their war, and being held accountable for it by the other side. Its not my war.

I'd have no complaints if we were to end just about all the foreign aid we now dish out... including that to Israel AND her enemies. I know the media isn't very fond of mentioning it, but we've been very generous to Israel's enemies, too. The latest puke worthy grant going to Lebanon.

 

[musicman]

Care to provide any documentation to support that claim?

Documentation??!! That's a good one! There IS no documentation; Sandy Berger saw to that. How about a smoking howitzer: the criminal enterprise whose interests were served (that is to say, whose asses were saved) by Berger's theft? Follow the money, as they say in jurisprudence.

You're such a Bullypulpit. You're OUR Bullypulpit, though - so I'll keep batting this around with you.

Yet again, I don't "hate" the President. He is simply not worthy of such emotional excess. And you're right, I shouldn't refer to him as Chimpy McPresident. From now on I will refer to him as Kommander Koo-Koo McKrazypants.

I actually prefer "Festering Pustule-Ridden Whore of the Illuminati" - but I digress.

And you should really review your history. Islamic fundamentalism is the blow-back resulting from Western policy in the region in the aftermath of WW II. By propping up corrupt and ruthless regimes in order to maintain the free flow of oil from the Middle East, Western powers virtually guaranteed such a result.

Islamic fundamentalism is basically unchanged since the seventh century: "Accept the loving, merciful theocracy or I'll chop your head off". Maybe they'd change if we were nicer to them; that tack seems to be working out beautifully for the Europeans.

As for "<b>WE'RE AT WAR</b>", I don't recall Congress declaring war. The war we are involved in is one of Kommander Koo-Koo's choosing, after Congress unlawfully abdicated their authority in the matter.

This particular war (Islamic designs for the enslavement of humanity vs. Western democracies - that larger war, of which Iraq is only a transitory, strategic battle) chose US, Bully. Congress can go diddle itself, for all this war cares. It finally flew right the hell into our homes on Sept. 11, 2001, and we can't ignore it any more. Not that Bill Clinton didn't give it the old college try...

You should have the self-respect to think for yourself and stop lapping up the spew and BS this administration puts out each day.

Oh, yeah - because I'm such a die-hard supporter of this administration...

Stand back and look at the bigger picture, and you'll see that they've lied to America from the start of this debacle. "Scooter's" trial is showing us just how they did it.

I AM looking at the bigger picture, Bully - and it's a sad sight. The American left is on familiar ground - on the wrong side, just as they've been on the wrong side of every national security issue since the advent of the Cold War. Vietnam was a strategic, transitory battle in a war we HAD to win, and we did - no thanks to the left. Vietnam/Watergate represents, to them, their template for the acquisition of power, and they're playing it by the numbers. They're dragging at this country's heels, and eating her away from within. This "Scooter" horseshit is baseless; the left know this, but it doesn't matter - it's all about bloodying the Republicans. It emboldens our enemies and places our soldiers in greater danger, but what does the left care?

There's only one problem with this approach: 1974 is long gone. The baby boom generation - some of us, at least - have grown up. We know that there ARE moral absolutes; there ARE things worth fighting for. The left is playing a losing hand; it will ultimately be disastrous for them. Hide and watch, Bully.