The American Spectator : Fed to the Wolves

Print Email

Text Size

Fed to the Wolves

By Jay D. Homnick on 10.21.09 @ 6:07AM

Entrapment and the arrest of Stewart David Nozette.

Jews who follow the traditional prayer book say a little rhyming couplet each morning:

Al teviaini lo liday nisayon
Velo liday bizayon…

A fair translation, mimicking the meter, would be:

Lord, let me not be tested
And let me not be detested…

The way to succeed as a moral person is not by thinking yourself impervious to temptation. If you do not recognize the weakness of your power, you will likely succumb to the power of your weakness. "Do not be sure of yourself until the day of your death," the Mishna warns.

In consequence, there is no more illegitimate investigatory enterprise than entrapment. To approach a person and offer him unethical or illegal goodies, then to accuse him of criminality if he accedes, is corruption of law rather than enforcement. No one needs to prove to me -- to grab a handy candidate -- that I can be moved to behave beneath my standard. Perhaps when I am too up, perhaps when I am too down, perhaps by flattery, perhaps by intimidation, perhaps by offers, perhaps by threats. Constant vigilance is required to avoid the occasions of sin, but the battle rages within, day in, day out.

What is my/your price? What would it take for me/you to sell my/your soul? Better we should never find out, never even see that borderline on the horizon.

WHICH BRINGS US to the grim tale of Stewart David Nozette. Nozette was employed until 1998 by various agencies of our federal government, among them NASA and the Department of Defense. In the course of his distinguished career, he is said to have memorized some information classified as… er, classified. How vital this eleven-year-old undocumented data might be we can only imagine.

From 1998 until 2008 Nozette worked as a consultant for an aeronautics company under Israeli ownership. This firm won Pentagon contracts, in the course of which Nozette came under suspicion for padding expense sheets. His financial documents were subpoenaed but he was never charged. Presumably this history afforded the FBI an inkling of Nozette's need or desire for ready cash and his willingness to take unwholesome steps towards its acquisition.

The FBI decided to play Cupid to his cupidity, sending an undercover agent to approach him in the guise of a Mossad spymaster. Nozette took the bait and agreed to sell his knowledge, again all from memory with no substantiating paperwork. The Feds closed in and charged him with espionage.

To sum up, this man was never suspected of spying in the past. He never approached any agency of any foreign government to offer his services or resources. If he ever committed a crime, it was ordering a hamburger and billing Uncle Sam for a steak. Forces of law enforcement detected in him an impulse toward gain that could accommodate even the ill-gotten. They manufactured a fictional crime and demonstrated that he was corruptible.

Where does this road lead? Should we send drug dealers past the home of everyone with a history of using illegal drugs, to see if they could be prompted to buy? Here is a scenario: this man will be tried before a judge, but if that judge has never been offered a sizeable bribe in an FBI sting, the verdict will be tainted. No one in society may be deemed a legitimate practitioner of a position of trust until the police have engaged to test his mettle by offering him a chance to steal. Baloney! This is a truly contemptible process.

MORE SHOCKING YET is choosing to induce a Jew to spy for Israel. The message sent by the current administration in targeting Nozette is that Israel is viewed as a hostile entity and every Jew is seen as harboring dual loyalty. Scratch the surface of every Jewish-American and there is a greedy spy just beneath. Maybe the next step is to collect all of them into internment camps where they can be observed more closely.

How is this different from the FBI offering to sell explosives to some angry Muslims who wanted to bomb a synagogue? In a number of ways. First, those guys were looking to make a buy. Then, similar to a spouse making inquiries about a hit man, it is legitimate to entrap and record. (Jewish law has this exception as well.) In this instance an actual criminal solicitation is intercepted before it can claim victims.

Second, the Muslims were willing to bomb a random place of worship, killing and destroying the innocent for malice without gain. Do you think Stewart David Nozette would have responded if the faux Mossad guy tried to enlist him in bombing a local mosque? And third, those people were out there loudly proclaiming their other loyalties to all who would listen.

This is a sad day in the history of American law enforcement and a slap in the face for Jews and Israel.

topics:
Israel, Espionage, FBI

About the Author

Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he performs his original composition, "Buy You (Bayou) a Drink".

Letter to the Editor View all comments (54) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 10.21.09 @ 6:57AM

The person who will not be corrupted, cannot be corrupted.

Bob| 10.21.09 @ 7:48AM

I disagree. Possessing classified information is justification enough to use a sting operation, period. Surely Mr. Homnick must concede that those in the intelligence community are justifiably held to a higher standard with respect to the public trust they hold regarding the information they possess. And, the Nozette case absolutely does not rise to the level of "entrapment" in any legal sense (not even close). Finally, the whole "how could you do this to a Jew" thing is simply demeaning.

JP| 10.21.09 @ 11:22AM

I do agree with you Bob. But I must point out that there appears to be a double stanard at play. Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives, of which many have never been found. Berger wasn't authorized to remove them, and according to his testimony he hid them in a rail yard, from which they disappeared. President Bush'a Justice Dept cut him a deal in which he was fined and he lost his law license for a period of time. As far as the public record shows, the FBI never investigated him for treason.

Mr Nozzette never possessed any documentation, and the information he allegedly passed on was from memory.

Berger committed a far more serious crime, and never once did jail time for it.

John H| 10.21.09 @ 5:22PM

I agree with JP. I am not trying to dismiss what Mr. Hommick did, but there seems to be a pattern with this administration to try really hard to "prove" things that they spew out of their hateful mouths. Remember when all ex-military personnel, tea party goers, and anyone who disagreed with Obama was a "potential terrorist and probably a militia member?" I do and it was insulting. The double-standard makes me sick. Sandy Berger should have done jail time. He was simply trying to cleanse Bill Clinton's record (not to mention his own) from the stigma of not accepting Osama Bin Laden when they had a chance. To do this he had to steal classifed documents from the National Archives - documents that had not been recorded yet so we will never know exactly what he stole. Whatever!

Bob| 10.21.09 @ 10:45PM

I agree with both of you. Berger should have gone to jail (along with John Deutch). They are all criminals. Motives are irrelevant. They are all criminals who - along with each and everyone else from any administration who divulges or fails to protect. classified information should servelong prison terms. At least that will increase their "price".

William R| 10.21.09 @ 8:01AM

The Dark Side of the ‘Special Relationship’

http://original.antiwar.com/ju.....ationship/

Martin j smith| 10.21.09 @ 8:03AM

I have not paid careful attention to this case but I would simply say this: If the FBI wanted to set up a sting on anyone with sensitive information who they think might might be in league with foreign governments I think half or more of our bureaucracy might be in jail. For example leakers in the CIA during the Bush years. Those in the State Dept who have anitipathy against Israel and Jews and on and on. I agree breaking the law is no excuse and anyone-not matter who should be prudent and not disobey the law even if it might gaul them. There are individuals who are spying for Russia,China,Iran,France,you name it. There is no denying this happening now as we speak.
However and here is where Ido saympathize with the writer: For a Jew vis a vis Israel there is a special case. Yes, in some ways there is an element of anti-semitism in dealing with those who spy for Israel. So here is the joke-equal treatment for all spies. No just kidding. Don't break wthe law. And now for a contradiction: If I had information, that in my judgement would make real life or death difference for Israel's very existence--I might just be willing to take a risk. And indeed knowing full well it is a risk--for that is what espionage is all about. Happily for me the only things I know about about are about rocks and fossils so who cares.

vectorsrule| 10.21.09 @ 8:19AM

It is an ongoing case so I doubt Jay (the writer) has all the information to make a judgement on entrapment. That said, he did commit treason when given the first opportunity which proves the FBI approached the right guy.

I've had access to to Top Secret information in the past. Nobody tried to get me in a sting because it would have been pointless for people who know my character. Get the point Jay?

JohnD| 10.21.09 @ 9:13AM

I disagree. If you have a price, any price, for which you are willing to betray your country, then you are a traitor. An honest man rebuffs any offer of corruption, no matter his need, no matter the price offered, and he would prefer to die penniless and starving in the gutter than to sully his good name and betray his country.

They should throw the book at this guy. He had every chance to do thr right thing, and he even asked for cash in increments of less than $10K a pop. He conspired to betray his country, and violate the trust placed in him, and should pay the price.

Appleby| 10.21.09 @ 9:56AM

100% correct. Remember the old story of Mark Twain's -- the man who asked a woman "Would you sleep with me for $1 million?" When the lady agreed, he asked, "Would you sleep with me for $5?" and she indignantly asked, "What kind of girl do you think I am?"

"Madam," he said, "we have established that. All we are doing now is establishing your price."

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.21.09 @ 10:46AM

Wow! lots of sinless people here today casting their first stone!

Innocent until proven guilty isn't it?

John Navratil| 10.21.09 @ 10:59AM

Innocent until proven guilty, it is! But it doesn't look too good. And that is precisely why we have judges. It seems the only place judgement is allowed, any more.

Tim| 10.21.09 @ 10:54AM

I would guess we are safer if all those folks who hold classified data know that they may be tested one day by the FBI.
Given that no damage was done here, the penalty should be light.

james wilson| 10.21.09 @ 11:28AM

Do not spend your sympathy for this person. To the contrary, you only benefit by demanding not equality, but higher standards of him than of others.
That is not to say that we can any longer trust the F.I.B. or federal prosecutors to not be the crime itself.

bugalugs| 10.21.09 @ 11:33AM

Disagree completely - there is no such thing as entrapment. To say such a thing is to say it is ok to undertake a crime. If someone comes to you with any inducement to perform an illegal act then you should be criminally liable. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Taken to its logical conclusion any male should not be arrested if a good looking police officer come prostitute offers favors for money... but wait - they do! Or if someone offers a reduced price on their drug of choice - "that's entrapment! How could I resist such unfair temptation?!?!"

Note the threat of violence is different and is classified as such in law.

So, sir, you may admit your moral turbidity, but quite frankly if you accept a bribe or other inducement to commit a crime then you deserve to feel the full extent of the law.

In your article this guy should be convicted, but of course since the crime is not severe his punishment should reflect this.

Le Cracquere| 10.21.09 @ 2:00PM

Just because some forms of entrapment are (lamentably) legal doesn't nullify their existence. I don't think much of the law-enforcement practices that you cite, and though I stand in no personal danger from either, would be happy to see them stopped. There are enough actual misdeeds out there without the authorities' attempting to provoke them, and enough wrongdoers without attempting to create them.

Might as well thrust your hand into a dog's face until he finally bites, then euthanize the animal for viciousness.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 11:45AM

"The message sent by the current administration in targeting Nozette is that Israel is viewed as a hostile entity and every Jew is seen as harboring dual loyalty."

Norman Podhoretz not only believes that Jews harbor "dual loyalty", but that this dual loyalty is not sufficiently tilted toward the foreign state of Israel. Witness him here bemoaning the fact that not enough Jews vote according to which candidate would be best for a foreign state rather than for America:

"Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75% -- far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group.

Yet there were reasons to think that it would be different in 2008. The main one was Israel. Despite some slippage in concern for Israel among American Jews, most of them were still telling pollsters that their votes would be strongly influenced by the positions of the two candidates on the Jewish state. This being the case, Mr. McCain's long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him a distinct advantage over Mr. Obama, whose own history consisted of associating with outright enemies of the Jewish state like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the historian Rashid Khalidi. . . .

In 2008, we were faced with a candidate who ran to an unprecedented degree on the premise that the American system was seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record powerfully indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, I hoped that my fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism to which they have remained in thrall long past the point where it has served either their interests or their ideals."

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....01498.html

I sincerely hope Mr. Homnick will write a response to Mr. Podhoretz's sinister allegations, which seem to me to be pure projection - because Mr. Podhoretz puts Israel's welfare before America's he assumes that other Jews do (or at least should) as well.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 12:14PM

To continue with the nefarious allegations of “dual loyalty”, David Gelernter in the Weekly Standard argued vociferously that American Jews should base their vote on which candidate is best for a foreign state instead of America, and that refusing to do that is “a lesson in self-destructive nihilism” – as though the loyalty of Americans of Jewish descent should be no different than those of Israeli citizens visiting Disneyland:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....v.asp?pg=1

At the Jerusalem Post, Jennifer Rubin (of Commentary, I believe) expresses extreme frustration that some Jews might not base their vote on who is “the most resolute candidate in defending Israel”, and choose instead to vote for the candidate whom they believe will be best for America:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/S.....e/ShowFull

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 12:14PM

And lastly, Joe Lieberman exhaustively sought to exploit the “dual loyalty” he attributed to Jews when he argued to Jews in Florida that they should vote for McCain because of his “pro-Israel voting record”:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/946058.html

Perhaps Mr. Homnick could do a series of pieces condemning these execrable characters and their abominable, malignant presumptions of Jewish “dual loyalty”.

Tim| 10.21.09 @ 3:58PM

Toddard stop interrupting Toddard and let Toddard speak.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 5:30PM

Haha.

Anneke| 10.21.09 @ 11:47AM

While I don't agree with Nozette's actions, my first thought upon hearing this story was it is just one more attempt by the Obama administration to discredit the Israelis. I can't say that I blame the Israelis for trying, though. They've been pushed to the wall by an administration intent on propping up the terrorist Palestinian regime/s. They've decided to fight the crocodiles rather than appease them.

You kind of missed the point!| 10.21.09 @ 1:05PM

Ummm...Anneke...there were no "Israelis...trying" anything in this scenario. It was the US gov't POSING as Mosad, who approached Mr. Novette, a U.S. citizen. Perhaps you were confused by his contracting for an Israeli company? But there is no indication in the article that anyone within the company (the Israeli private sector) was trying to get U.S. secrets out of Mr. Novette, let alone the Israeli gov't. Capiche?

martin j smith| 10.21.09 @ 11:49AM

Re-examining the article--and perhaps I have missed something--so sue me !!--it sounds like this guy might be more of a crook. Now believe me he does not exactly get the Gold Medal. The element of his "spying" --again if I understand this article is the notion that the FBI assumed that if they pretended to offer big bucks to help Israel ( the big bucks being the operative issue and baite ) then the guy would bite The FbI.allegedly over looked padding of his books. So did the FBI have information related to the padding directly to espionage or did they just assume the following: He works in sensitive areas,he is jewish,he will take money for information so lets see what happens. Some how I doubt that the "truth" will come out.At best the guy was a fool and a crook at worst he is a spy--but a very bad one at that. So I do not feel too sorry for the guy .

Bob Miller| 10.21.09 @ 12:18PM

1. SL Toddard assumes that there is a basic conflict between Israel's defense interests and America's. Minus that assumption, which Toddard has not backed up with facts (pesky things), Toddard's criticism of Podhoretz' piece vanishes like smoke. If there issues today where America really should favor Iran or Syria or terrorists over Israel, Toddard should explain what these are.

2. Any government employee or contractor should be smart enough to sniff out sting operations and avoid getting stung.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 12:32PM

"SL Toddard assumes that there is a basic conflict between Israel's defense interests and America's"

I did? Where?

"Minus that assumption, which Toddard has not backed up with facts (pesky things), Toddard's criticism of Podhoretz' piece vanishes like smoke"

Hardly, since whether Israel's defense interests conflict with ours did not enter into the equation at all. No, my criticism had to do the presumption of "dual loyalty" in Podhoretz's urging Jews to vote based on which candidate would be best for a foreign state.

"If there issues today where America really should favor Iran or Syria or terrorists over Israel, Toddard should explain what these are"

Why would that be my responsibility? I have never written that I believe we "should favor Iran or Syria or terrorists over Israel." All I have done is agree with Mr. Homnick that accusations and assumptions of "dual loyalty" are malignant and abominable. Contrary to what Mr. Podhoretz, Ms. Rubin and Mr. Gelernter think, most Jews are loyal Americans who base their vote on which candidate they believe would be best for *their* country, and are not the sort of disloyal 5th columnists (whose first loyalty is to an alien state) as the Commentary and Standard crowds wish.

You also missed the point!| 10.21.09 @ 1:10PM

SLT, from the frequency with which you miss respondents' points, I take it you find it amusing to selectively quote something out of context and pretend it means something other than it does. Clearly, US treatment of Israel is a US FOREIGN POLICY issue, which does NOT require "dual loyalty" on anyone's part (Jews or otherwise), to take a position that favors Israel, over such obvious alternatives as Syria and Iran. Thus your criticisms do, in fact, "vanish" since they are completely false.

I know that in spite of the brevity and clarity of this post, you will find some way to weasel out of admitting the fundamental errors in your values and thinking, so go for it, it's (almost) always an entertaining spectacle for us Spectators! \;-)

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 1:16PM

Yes, it is one of countless foreign policy issues. And yet the Commentary/Standard crowd believe American Jews should vote according to that *lone* issue: that they should vote according to which candidate is best for a foreign state. It is the definition of dual loyalty.

Or, really, disloyalty.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 1:18PM

I'm sorry - I've just discovered where you've misunderstood me. I agree that it "does NOT require "dual loyalty" on anyone's part (Jews or otherwise), to take a position that favors Israel, over such obvious alternatives as Syria and Iran." It does, however, demonstrate "dual loyalty" when one bases his choice for president according to which candidate is best for an alien state rather than for America.

JP| 10.21.09 @ 1:25PM

SL,

Why didn't the FBI pose as Russian, Polish, or Chinese spies? It is the FBI that is making assumptions about Nozette's loyalties, and I would assume that will be part of their case.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 1:31PM

"It is the FBI that is making assumptions about Nozette's loyalties"

Assumptions that proved....?

JP| 10.21.09 @ 2:39PM

...that because he was Jewish that it was best to pose as Mossad agents instead of say, the Russian intelligence service or the CHICOMS. That is, the prosecution will rely on Nozette's race is a motivating factor, instead of say greed and avarice.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 5:29PM

Look, we don't really know all that much about why the FBI set the sting up. Is Mr. Homnick implying that the FBI targeted him because he was Jewish? I think it far more likely they had at least a reason to think he would be willing to commit treason. It seems unlikely to me that they set up this sting based on nothing other than his Jewishness.

All we know at the moment is that Nozette is alleged to have been willing to betray his country. It has not been proven in court, and the allegation comes from the FBI, who are infamous for their lawbreaking and underhandedness.

Rich| 10.21.09 @ 12:37PM

That's a bit of a double edge sword...what supports the assumption that America's interests are universally consistent with Israel's interests....pesky details you know.

On a separate note, I am disappointed to learn that Mr. Nozette has been a long and consistent contributor to Republican candidates.

Bob Miller| 10.21.09 @ 1:43PM

Rich,

No one has suggested that there is universal consistency. Nevertheless, there is enough consistency to negate Toddard's attempted hatchet job on Podhoretz, which tried to say that American Jewish backing of Israel's policies is in itself proof of dual loyalty.

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 3:11PM

"which tried to say that American Jewish backing of Israel's policies is in itself proof of dual loyalty"

False. I wrote that it demonstrates "dual loyalty" when one bases his choice for president according to which candidate is best for an alien state rather than for America.

ncatty| 10.21.09 @ 3:09PM

Israel a hostile entity? Maybe. Ask the sailors on board the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967.

JP| 10.21.09 @ 3:42PM

Are you saying that the FBI had every right to assume because Nozette had Jewish blood that he would readily betray our nation? Should we assume the same with the President's Chief of Staff? After all, he served in the IDF many moons ago.

Tim| 10.21.09 @ 4:00PM

I rooted for the Royal Navy in the Falklands war, should I be investigated?

Bydand76| 10.21.09 @ 7:40PM

I root for Scotland in the world cup...
Oh crap!

S.L. Toddard| 10.21.09 @ 5:21PM

There are plenty of reasons to doubt Rahm Emmanuel's loyalty. His being a member of the IDF is only one of them.

ncatty| 10.21.09 @ 4:08PM

JP, I am not sure how your comment is a reply to mine. However, your comment about "Jewish blood" leads me to ask if you believe a person is defined by his ethnicity, race or, as you say, "blood"?

Margie| 10.21.09 @ 6:07PM

I believe that Mr. Homnick is trying to justify Mr. Nozette's breaking of the law. (And I actually thought he may have been joking!) If Mr. Nozette was willing to break the law by cooking the books, already, then he would in fact be willing to break other laws. That is also a fact of Human Nature. I think it was a good thing that the FBI did their job to find this out, and for all of our sakes.

Bydand76| 10.21.09 @ 7:57PM

I think this is all much ado about nothing.
Let the trial take place and see what happens from that.
All of this is nothing more than conjecture and trying to find some type of conspiracy.
If the guy was crooked and has a dual loyalty then fine he has a dual loyalty. A Lot of people do. We are Americans after all. Think of Mexico and legal Mexican Immigrants. Isnt Cinco De Mayo a bigger celebration here in the United States than it is in Me heee Co?
I myself am particular to Scottish/Irish politics , games, whiskey (ha ha ) and everything else related to the culture because well.. I am Scots Irish and thats how we grew up. YEAH! I wear a kilt, so what?

To suggest that having a dual loyalty to something doesnt always imply that you are going to go out and seek to undermine one or the other. Seriously. I thought all of those people dancing in the streets were Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Not Jewish people and I dont buy for an instance that Mossad knew about the strikes on 9/11 for one minute. Thats about as bad as saying we did it to ourselves. Honestly, thats just retarded!

I havent heard that if Mr Nozette thought he might be doing something that protected Israel AND the United States. Seriously, If he sold secrets that he held within his head but had no tangible phyisical hard secrets or whatever that were passed down to the FBI, I think that this will be a very hard case to prosecute, but then again I am not a lawyer either so I am hesitant to advocate that position.

BTW Toddard? You are a complete Knee Biter and so is your boy Carl Greenwald!! Coward!

bluecollarbytes| 10.21.09 @ 10:21PM

It's clear Obama has taken a stand against Israel. I don't see how this guy's alleged wrongdoing and subsequent arrest has anything to to with that, or that it's wise to try to make the connection.

JimE| 10.22.09 @ 1:32AM

The whore intended to comit a crime F**K him!

C. Bonner| 10.22.09 @ 3:22AM

Leave the politics and religion out of this. This was a criminal case investigated by the FBI presumably under the guidance of the U.S. Attorney's Office and pursuant to the Attorney General's Guidelines (last revised under the Bush Administration) that govern national Security and Criminal investigations. In order to avoid "entrapment" the government (in this case the FBI) must prove that the subject, Nozette, is "predisposed " to commit the crime. In this case it is espionage. In as much as this case is still on-going, the evidence of Nozette's predisposition will probably not be disclosed until trial or an exclusionary hearing. Nozette worked for an Israeli firm engaged in defense contracing. The FBI must have had intelligence that Nozette was doing something against U.S. national security interests to come under suspicion. The FBI does not engage in such investigations arbitrarily. More information will surface regarding the extent of Nozette's alleged crimes. I will bet that this sting is only the tip of the iceberg. It will more than likely be revealed that he had a long standing relationship with Mossad in passing classified material to Israel. This is not the first time Israel has sought to compromise U.S. security. Recall Jonathan Pollard who is serving a life sentence for passisng secret material to the Israelis. Nozette will more than likely plead guilty to avoid a public humiliation and suffer the same fate as Pollard. Remember, it is not entrapment if the subject is predisposed to commit the crime. I am confident the evidence will prove that Nozette was indeed predisposed.

JP| 10.22.09 @ 9:15AM

Predisposed to give 11 year old classified information from memory? And why pose as the Mossad and not the CHICOMS? The only predisposition I can see is the FBI's idea that since Nozette is Jewish he has dual loyalties.

c. Bonner| 10.22.09 @ 9:12PM

It is what it is. Stop politicizing it with a religious slant. As I said, this is the tip of the iceberg. Wait until this is played out. Nozettte had no relationship to Chicoms,. Acting as Mossad gave the sting more credibility in tah it was known he dealt with them. Cut and dry

chuck the surfer| 10.22.09 @ 8:07PM

Endgame: Holder had the guy set up to provide anti-Israeli ammo to HRH, Obama I. This was done to burn Israel, not find a "spy." Expect to see a lot more of it, like, maybe, classified info "found" in Limbaugh's or Palin's car.

C. Bonner| 10.22.09 @ 9:16PM

That is a stretch. I am no fan of Holder, but the FBI will deal with spies wherever they find them. They even went after spies in their own organization, Robert hanson and Earl Pitts.

James Corbin| 10.23.09 @ 7:11PM

Why is it that the "regular" media conveniently left out the fact that Nozette is Jewish? Is this not relevant? As for the American Spectator's hand-wringing over the implication that Israel being viewed as untrustworthy and Jews in America having dual loyalty, perhaps there is something to that. Despite their denials, Israel certainly still has spies in America. As far as a reliable ally, they have sold off many of our defense secrets to the highest bidder, usually China. As for the dual loyalty of Jews in America, do you see Italians, Germans, British, etc. in America having so much loyalty to their "homeland?" If they love Israel so much, move there!

www.sunglass-mall.com| 4.5.10 @ 9:21PM

You won't have to worry about having your sunglass merchandise to gather dust on its display racks waiting for the summer season to commence www.sunglass-mall.com

Joe Heffel| 3.22.12 @ 2:44PM

Hey Homnick, the Feds aren't indicting your precious Israeli Raptureland, they're going after a domestic security risk. That's their job. What's yours, evangelism?