STING2 said:
So what do you think of Hezbolah and the supplies from Iran that often ends up in Humas's back pocket in Israel? [/B]
I don't think the US has been able to tie the Hezbolah to any terrorist action for more than 10 yrs.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15601
The U.S. has also complained about Syrian, and indeed Iranian, sponsorship of "terrorist" organizations like Hizbollah. Although no one except Israel and Washington define Hizbollah as terrorists, the administration's liberal use of the adjective, "terrorist," is geared toward a domestic audience - a strategy that worked very well in the case of Iraq.
Some telling quotes:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11938
Osama: The Pentagon?s Battle With Powell Heats Up
By Jason Vest, Village Voice
November 20, 2001
And updating to the Wolfowitz Cabal the Reagan-era view of then CIA director William Casey that all terrorist groups were interconnected via the Soviet, the links between Saddam, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and just about every other Middle East Islamist group are clear?thus necessitating the speedy deployment of bombs, and possibly even troops, to Iraq as well as Syria and Lebanon.
At a meeting in the White House Situation Room last month, Feith was so impassioned on this point that he took to banging his fist on the table, saying it was essential that the historically Hezbollah-controlled Sheikh Abdullah barracks north of Beirut be bombed. Others interviewed by the Voice report that there have been "epic shouting matches" in White House meetings over the issue of war expansion, and personnel at both Foggy Bottom and Langley have found their patience increasingly tried by the Wolfowitz Cabal. Indeed, despite the CIA's cowboy image, the Agency's old Afghan and Middle East hands marvel at what they consider lunacy. "The Agency as an institution would never offer up a view of these people, but if you ask individuals, they think these guys are more than a little nuts," says a veteran of the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
Adds another longtime case officer: "I think there's a common view in the intelligence community that if we're really serious about dismantling Osama bin Laden's network, intelligence is key, and for that, we necessarily have to work with our allies to get the best intelligence we possibly can, which is going to take time and cooperation. Powell's done a good job of putting a coalition together and keeping it together?he recognizes the reality that any coalition will break apart in a nanosecond if there's a call to go after Iraq. And going after Hamas or Hezbollah would be a terrible mistake?neither has broad-based support in Palestine, neither is an exclusively terrorist organization, neither is attacking Americans, and if we do go after them, they'll start targeting Americans. Attack those places and there will be consequences that we simply will not be able to deal with. But Perle and Wolfowitz are absolutists, and they're stupid."
According to both Pentagon and intelligence sources, in mid September the Project for the New American Century?a hawkish private policy group whose membership overlaps with the official Defense Policy Board?sent President Bush a letter after a two-day conference, declaring that failure to promptly remove Saddam would constitute a "decisive surrender in the war against terrorism." Ominously, it also held that if Syria and Iran refused to drop all support for Hezbollah, "the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism."
This is once again "Peace thru War" initiatives of Perle and Rummy & Wolfy being brought back as the next step. Jan. 2005 may be to late to stop these insane warmongers.
I'd venture to say that Saudi is a much more likely source of support, with much more $ than the Hezbolah.