From: Ad 


>>> George
>> Rubbish. This has been confirmed in various statements coming out from
>> the Israeli post-mortem known as the "Winograd
Commission". I know it
>> sounds like a std Russian town  but.....
>>
>>
>> They had a plan prior to the kidnapping & indeed your own dear Mr Bolton
>> has confirmed these statements.
>>
>
> The Israelis had a plan, no doubt.  Show me where the US conspired in
> this.  Maybe you have read something I haven't.
>

Read more....but to short circuit the long & winding road...

Just to take one report:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/834549.html

Olmert has stated that:

(A) He had decided on the plan in March in consultation with the IDF.

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Winograd Commission that his
decision to respond to the abduction of soldiers with a broad military
operation was made as early as March 2006, four months before last summer's
Lebanon war broke out. "


(B) He had consulted with Bush, Blair & Chirac on making the Lebanese
remove Hizbullah from the border (& disarm them) & to put the
Lebanese army on the border:


"In May 2006, Olmert was informed by then-National Security Council
head Giora Eiland and former prime minister Ehud Barak that the Lebanese
government would agree to implement Resolution 1559 in return for an
Israeli withdrawal from Shaba Farms. Olmert thought that it was best to
implement the decision through diplomacy, and raised the issue with U.S.
President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French
President Jacques Chirac.

During deliberations last June, following Shalit's abduction, Olmert told
the committee he was certain there would be a similar attempt to kidnap
soldiers on the Lebanese border. He ordered the IDF to prevent this. "


So given Israel had no intention of returning the Shaba farms (it's
official position remains that it's Syrian territory) then one wonders what
the discussions wrt getting Hizbullah out of the border region, disarming
them etc entailed.

One also wonders how it is that given the last paragraph quoted above, that
the IDF were so incompetent as to fall int exactly the situation that
Olmert had planned for.

Further to that we have Mr Bolton's interesting comments & indeed
Rice's wrt not undermining the (pro-American) Lebanese government. i.e.
that disarming Hizbullah by force was planned for & was OK (& would
be supported ) by the US.

As such it seems more than likely that Olmert having taken the decision
& being sure that the event would occur, raised the issue with the US
admin during the referred to discussions. Whether he raised the same issue
with Britain & France is likely & would not be without precedent
(e.g. Suez in the 50'es).

Obviously the US & Israeli govs are not about to admit that they'd
pre-agreed a war of pretext (A) because that would be illegal (given the
precedent wrt Gleiwitz  vs the eventual "war of aggression"
charge & (B) because it would cause severe harm to the US in the ME
& (C) It would strip them of any pretense of "self defence"
which then goes back to point (A).

However the truth wrt Gleiwitz (& indeed the burning of the Reichstag)
only came out later as the official story denied the truth for obvious
reasons.

The truth will out in dribs & drabs.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5