posted January 02, 2007 01:54 PM            

In America, the main stream media have given terrorists cover for more than 30 years and now, it comes out that our own State Department has been hiding Arafat's involvement in killing American diplomats.

So, exactly why did the idiot Carter attempt to cast Arafat as a "seeker" of peace and attempt to engage Arafat in the so called "peace process"?

More to the point, why was Yasser Arafat the most frequent overnight visitor to the White House during Commander Corruption's administration?

The big lie the MSM would rather not expose

Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post notes the demise of "the longest-running big lie" -- the claim that Yasser Arafat had no involvement in the 1973 murder of U.S. diplomats seized in Khartoum, Sudan. Glick generously acknowledges Scott's role in pressing the U.S. State Department for, but not receiving, the truth about this matter. She notes that for 33 years, under seven consecutive presidential administrations, the State Department denied any knowledge of involvement by Arafat or Fatah in the execution of its own people.

As Scott reported last June, the State Department finally released the 33 year-old memo that states:

"The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy."[

The release of the cable causes Glick to ask several questions. First, why has our MSM which prides itself on exposing government cover-ups ignored almost totally the cable? Second, what would have happened, and how many lives would have been saved, if rather than advancing a policy that made Arafat our "peace partner" (and the most frequent foreign visitor to the White House during the Clinton administration), the U.S. had demanded his extradition and tried him for murder?

I'll leave the second question to others. The answer to the first, I think, is that Arafat's role in killing American diplomats runs counter to the MSM's narrative about our world and is, therefore, information that it would prefer the public not know.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016371.php