Dec 29 2006
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.