NeoCons and Classified Information

To hitchhike on a previous discussion of dual citizenship of certain NeoCons, perhaps it is wise to add a bit of history, which explains my concern for these dual citizens having access to classified information:

The read is a bit long, but the information contained in the article is completely verifiable, if you tend to question credibility of unknown writers or researchers (something every discerning reader should do , by the way)

Please offer comments :


9 Responses to “NeoCons and Classified Information”

  1. Em Says:

    On the prevous post, you commented “”this is such a liberal thing to do”

    your post was quite fine without this inclusion

    your argument was good, up to that point

    why drag politics into it?”

    I agree with you; however, aren’t you are being a little hypocritial? How can you say this when most of your posts/comments contain references to Neocon?

    Any research done on the other side of the house or are the only dual-citizenship folks with access to sensitive information citizens of Isreal? Just curious, any other countries found…how many folks have dual citizensships?

  2. scottie Says:

    did you read the article?

    do the contents concern you at all?

    or do you find a better course of action to try and trap me in some game of semantics?

    i do not have a problem with your comments, but i would be remiss if i did not mention that you are missing the bigger picture, in my opinion

    but i will try to be less hyprocritical in my next entries

    best wishes


  3. Em Says:

    Haven’t read it yet :o). Have a “real” job and a kid…looking forward to it though…

  4. scottie Says:

    no offense taken, by the way, about the “real” job comment, even though i surmise it was meant in a jocular manner.

    to quote an old friend, i had my feelings “surgically removed” long ago


  5. JohnnyB Says:


    I will say the dual citizenship does concern me. I do have major concerns when the Israelis sell American arms to the Chinese, but take note that in 1997 so was America, under Clinton. So at that time the Israelis didn’t see any harm in doing so. This was the greatest scandal of his administration, in my opinion.

    The best argument against providing military aid to an ally is that the ally will switch sides, or covertly do so, by aiding another enemy (China is not an enemy, yet). Don’t know if Israel is still doing so after Rice went over there about a year ago.

    I do think that Israel has produced more than the angst of nations as indicated by the Iranian head of state.

  6. scottie Says:

    i agree with you about clinton and arms sales to china

    in fact i remember vividly when the issue first came up

    i remember terms like “treason” being used , and that issue went away and lewinsky hung around

    incidentally, do you know why the media turned on clinton?

    if you recall, clinton was their darling for the first term and much of the second term.

    and then , the lewinsky story broke … the media would not stop covering the issue. so the question is why did they choose to go after clinton on this issue, and let other issues fizzle, like arms sales to china?

    i have checked into the timeline on this one quite closely, and i have the answer i believe.

    let’s see if bloggers can figure it out. if you throw in the towel, let me know, and i will gladly answer it.

  7. JohnnyB Says:

    I heard Tillawi say something about Clinton taking a more pro-palestinian stance before the Lewinsky (Jewish) story broke. He reversed his stance and was more pro-Israel, but that didn’t stop the press. So I don’t know how seriously I take that theory.

  8. scottie Says:

    The Lewinski story broke because of Clinton and his sudden pro-Palestinian stances, or really his more balanced stance.

    He welcomed Yasser Arafat on the White House Lawn, and made Ehud Barak agree to a major peace initiative, under the behest of Clinton, and unfortunately for the Palestinians, politics ruled the day.

    The peace deal offered by Barak was for 98% of the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for recognition and security guarantees by the Palestinians, and this was a monumental offer by the Israelis, who had basically subscribed to the Kissinger “stalemate” policy since the early 70’s.

    Yet Arafat did not accept the deal because his power was waning, and in a vain attempt to secure more of his historic control of the Palestinian issue, he said NO.

    It was the nail in the coffin for the Palestinian cause.

    Yet Clinton tried to make it happen, and when you go against the ideologies of the people who put you in power, you get the dogs sicced on you.

    And that’s what happened with Clinton.

    You must remember that he had many Jewish cabinet members, and was decidedly pro-Israel until his attempt at a peace deal, and the media loved him and showered him with praise until his betrayal.

    And that’s what started the ball rolling ….

    He had extra-marital sex with a Jewish intern and he had recently betrayed the pro-Israel groups in Washington by inviting a “terrorist” on the White House lawn to broker a deal with the noble state of Israel;

    it was quite the sell-out from the point of view of the elite power structure

  9. Logipundit Says:

    Does anyone know at what point Arrafat started showing up at the White House? He was the most frequent visitor after all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: