Sunday, 20 May 2012


On 7 November 2001, BBC's Newsnight reported thus:

"January, 2001: The Bush Administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to ‘back off’ investigations involving the Bin Laden family, including two of Ossama Bin Laden’s relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living in Falls Church, Virginia, right next to CIA headquarters."
On 13 November 2001, President Bush issued Military Order No 1.

Under this order, Bush gave himself the wholly illegal right, in defiance of national and international law, to detain indefinitely any non-US citizen anywhere in the world. On 28 January 2003, during the State of the Union address, Bush told the citizens of the United States that the US had dealt with at least 3,000 non-US citizens in this way.

On 29 November 2001, the Jewish Board of British Deputies released this statement:

"The Prime Minister today held a meeting with lay leaders of the Jewish community: Sir Victor Blank, Sir Trevor Chinn, Lord Janner, Lord Levy, Gerald Ronson, Lord Rothschild, Alan Sennitt (Chair of UJS), Sir Sigmund Sternberg, Jo Wagerman, Lord Weidenfeld and Lord Woolf.

In an open and detailed discussion the Prime Minister responded with understanding and concern to the wide range of issues raised on behalf of the community."
On 27 August 1990, the verdicts in the notorious 'Guinness trial,' came in. The same Gerald Ronson who met with Tony Blair in November 2001, was found guilty of conspiracy, theft and false accounting, fined £5,000,000 and jailed for one year.

The other 3 defendants were Austrain immigrant, Ernest Saunders, (born Ernest Walter Schleyer) Sir Jack Lyons and Anthony Parnes. Saunders and Lyons were convicted of conspiracy, theft and false accounting. Parnes was found guilty on the theft and false accounting charges.

All four men were accused of 'insider trading,' having conspired to drive up the price of shares in Guinness during a 1986 take-over battle for the drinks company, Distillers. Their downfall came about after the arrest for insider dealing of US stockbroker Ivan Boesky. In a plea bargain, Boesky told the US authorities of the share dealing arrangement involving Guinness and an investigation was started.

On 1 September 1990, The Times said this:

"All four defendants... are Jews... In folk prejudice the 'Jewish banker' is an unkind cliché, but herein lies the problem. He exists".
Saunders, Guinness's chief executive, was jailed for 5 years, which was reduced to 30 months on appeal. He didn't spend much time locked up, however, as he was freed after only 10 months when doctors diagnosed him as suffering from dementia. Interestingly, as soon as he was released, he staged a remarkable recovery and was still alive the last time I looked. Indeed, he was in such rude intellectual health that, as of 2003, he was working as a company consultant.

Parnes was sentenced to 30 months for false accounting and theft, which was reduced to 21 months at an appeal in 1991.

Lyons spent no time in jail at all. It was determined that he was not well enough to be banged up. However, he was stripped of his knighthood and fined £3 million. On appeal, one count of conspiracy was quashed and his fine cut to £2.5 million.

In 1996, Saunders' conviction was ruled 'unsafe' by the European Court of Human Rights. In the year 2000, the same top-bloke institution reached the same verdict in cases brought by the others. However, in 2001, the UK's Court of Appeal dismissed the men's claim not to have received a fair trial.

Three of the Guinness four are/were Jewish, as is Ivan Boesky. Ernest Sundres' father was also Jewish.

The Guinness Trial was the most expensive court action in British legal history up to that time.

On 28 December 2001, the most popular Zionist Weekly in the USA, The Forward, quoted Michael Sterner, former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs and former representative of the Saudi national oil company, thus:

"There are many people in and out of government who want to go after Iraq and other Arab states. It is basically an anti-Arab lobby and its members are mostly pro-Israel. They have come out of the woodwork lately."
The Forward then added:

"Sterner named Richard Perle, a former Reagan administration official and current chairman of the Defence Policy Board, as the most powerful advocate of this anti-Arab stance outside of government. Mr. Sterner pointed to Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz as the main proponent of this anti-Arab stance within the Bush administration. Both Mr. Perle and Mr. Wolfowitz are Jewish."
On 2 December 2001, The Jerusalem Post reported from Ground Zero, as Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, posed with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and a group of firemen and police officers.

Sharon said:

"Terrorism will be defeated. Democracies will win this war… Under the courageous leadership of President Bush, we will win this struggle against terror. Democracies will fight against terror and we will win."
On 10 December 2001, in a speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel, Ian Duncan Smith, leader of the Conservative Party, said this:

"I was optimistic that the State of Israel, a lighthouse of democracy in a troubled region, would feel a little safer and a little more secure. I wanted very much to celebrate with you the first day of Chanucah, the festival of lights…

The bombing of the World Trade Centre was not an attack on America's policy towards Islam. It was an assault on scientific, technological and economic achievement - it was an attempt to destroy democracy, capitalism and the rule of law. It is this fanatic hatred of the West and its values that give us a warning that Al Quaeda, Hamas and others will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. Who knows what biological, chemical or nuclear weapons terrorists would unleash if given the opportunity?

Our fight against terror must not stop in Afghanistan. The days of safe havens for terrorists are over. No longer can we appease or turn a blind eye to regimes that support terrorism…

One of our historians, Sir Martin Gilbert, made an astute observation. He said: 'Israel is often the centre of world attention. This is seldom for her achievements, which are considerable, or for the quality of life which she has created, and which is the envy of many nations.’ I agree…

All across the world Jewish organisations and others work hard to support Israel, whether it is through philanthropy or by actively sending volunteers to help in Kibbutzim, hospitals or schools. Other organisations like the Conservative Friends of Israel do so much to ensure that Israel's voice is heard in Westminster and Whitehall…

Where would we be without the social entrepreneurship of those who have done so much to set up successful Jewish schools like the Joy and Stanley Cohen Primary School in Hertsmere?

Where would we be without the social entrepreneurship of those behind organisations like Jewish Care that do so much to assist the vulnerable, or like the Jewish Marriage Council, which helps keep families together?…

The modern miracle that is Israel should be celebrated and encouraged. I am proud that the majority of my Parliamentary party are members of CFI. The level of support which CFI has, shows all too clearly the depths of warmth and feeling that Conservatives have to Israel and all she stands for. CFI has an enviable record of achieving worthy objectives and I congratulate Director Stuart Polak for over ten years of exceptional work.

I am delighted that Gillian Shepherd who does so much for CFI is now our Party Vice Chairman and is now responsible for selecting our next generation of Parliamentary Candidates."
Following this speech, The President of the Board of Jewish Deputies, Jo Wagerman, commented:

"It is reassuring that the Israel’s right to defend its citizens is being so powerfully advocated by British political leaders."
On 9 December 2002, in a speech given before the retiring Israeli Ambassador to the UK and the Conservative Friends of Israel, Duncan-Smith said this:
"Appeasement is not an option… Every democracy has a right to defend itself against such attacks. Israel is no exception. Israel is a part of the front line for democracy against terrorism. It must not stand alone. And, Mr. Chairman, we will not let it stand alone…

Saddam Hussein is a constant and dangerous threat… There is no doubt that he is obsessed with building and acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to Israel, his earlier attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal were prevented…

As the Prime Minister has said: if Saddam fails to disarm ‘the consequence is that the weapons will be disarmed by force.’ Not 'may be' or 'could be', but 'will be.’ It is this approach that will lead to the disarmament of Iraq. And it is this approach that will lead to greater security for Israel…

Our party supports the Tenet peace plan and the Mitchell proposals…
If there is one section of our society that is in a state of preparedness it is the Jewish community. As I have seen in every visit I have made to Jewish organisations across the country, instead of waiting for the State to solve a problem, you get together and try to solve it for yourselves…

The Community Security Trust does so much to ensure that Jewish people are able to worship in freedom and to combat anti Semitic abuse. The CST has been invaluable in providing information to relevant authorities about individuals and organisations with links to terrorists. I pay tribute to the Jewish Community for this initiative and to its supporters, who I am pleased to see here today…

Thank goodness for the CST… we have not yet vanquished terrorism or anti Semitism. We have a long way to go. As well as establishing mechanisms for protecting Jewish people in Israel, through the work of CFI, you ensure that the needs of Israel are heard and represented throughout the Conservative Party.

I am proud that the Conservative Party Deputy Chairman Gillian Shephard is also the Parliamentary Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

That two thirds of the Conservative Parliamentary party are also members of CFI… Your Excellency, shortly you will return to Israel after giving unstinting service as Israel's Ambassador in Britain. You will know by now who are real friends of Israel."
So, in the build up the invasion of Iraq, we learn from IDS that 'two thirds of the Conservative Parliamentary party' were 'members of Conservative Friends of Israel.' We also learn that 'Gillian Shepherd, who does so much for CFI' and was Chairwoman of the CFI at the time was 'Party Vice Chairman and… responsible for selecting' the 'next generation of Parliamentary Candidates.'

So, yes, Mr. Duncan-Smith, thanks to you, we do now know, who, along with Tony Blair, are the 'real friends of Israel.' I think we also know now why the Iraq war was fought and why our politicians forced us in to it.

The majority of the MPs who voted for war seem to have been members of some 'Friends of Israel' group or other. They seem to have been a thousand light years up the behind of people like Sir Stanley Kalms; Sir Martin Gilbert; Joy and Stanley Cohen; Stuart Polak; the Israeli Ambassador and Senator George Mitchell, all of which Jewish worthies are eulogised in the speeches that IDS delivered before the Jewish audiences cited in this document.

The Community Security Trust, which Duncan-Smith also praises, tells us at the Home Page of its website that:

'The Community Security Trust advises and represents the Jewish community on matters of security' and represents 'the Jewish community on police, governmental and communal bodies on matters of security and antisemitism.'

The CST adds:

"We now have four offices and 49 members of staff… The ethos of the CST is that the Jewish community is responsible for its own security.

The CST draws upon a network of 3,000 trained volunteers throughout the country… These personnel are trained by the CST, and by the Police, so that they can provide the highest level of security for the Jewish community."
Vigilantes, then.

Nothing wrong with vigilantes, especially when the police, the Judiciary and the Government don't seem to give a monkey's what happens to you.
However, I thought vigilantes were politically incorrect? I thought we were supposed to frown upon vigilantes, not get them trained up by the boys in blue. Looks like one law for one lot and another law for the rest to me.

I wonder if the CST and Tony Blair's government would mind would mind if I, as an Anglo-British Englishman, got together 'four offices and 49 members of staff' and organised a 'network of 3,000 trained volunteers' 'so that the highest level of security' could be provided for the indigenous British community in this country.

I wonder if it would concern such folk if I announced that my 'ethos' coincided precisely with that of the CST? To whit: the British community 'should be responsible for its own security.'

I wonder if the police would help me train my vigilantes?

I'll tell you what else I wonder. I wonder if the CST is keeping an eye on you and me. I wonder if they'll howl up a storm when the information here becomes known. I wonder if a bloke who considers himself a 'representative' of the British people 'on matters of security,' insofar as everyone who is British should be, would fall foul of an organisation like the CST, who 'represent the Jewish community on matters of security.'

If they are in the business of preventing such as myself from telling those truths that might not reflect too well on the wider Jewish community, wouldn't this suggest that the security and happiness of the British people and the security and happiness of the Jewish people are mutually exclusive as far as an organisation like the CST is concerned?

This is a rhetorical question. I know the answer, as do you and the CST.
Anyway, now you know what I know. You know that Ian Duncan-Smith, two-thirds of the Tory Party, Tony Blair and the Blairite faction of the New Labour Party would rather snuggle up to Israel and the US Neoconservatives than all the sons of Albion who would be called upon to fight and die in this latest unwanted war.

You think that's too strong? You think it was fought for oil as well? Well of course it was. The two things are utterly complimentary. But was it the oilmen who made it happen? Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and co. were all top guns in the business before they attained the political heights but it wasn't them who were clamouring for a second war with Iraq from the moment the first one ended.

The US Neconservative movement saw to it that the most intellectually challenged President in history took us to war in April 2003 and about 90 percent of the Neocons are Jewish.

Still doubtful? Still think I must be exaggerating? On 3 April 2003, Tom Friedman said this in The New York Times:

"I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. It is not only the neo-conservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris."
In the 5 April 2003, edition of the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, the Jewish journalist, Ari Shavit, was a bit more specific in his description of who the '25 people' were. He said:

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history."
I don't know whether they changed the course of history but they sure f***ed up Iraq.

Shavit continued:

"In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town (Washington): the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history."
Finally, if more proof of that this war was fought for Israel was needed, take a look at what an American gentleman by the name of Philip Zelikow said on the 10 September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq was launched:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is and actually has been since 1990, it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

Zelikow, who was all for the war by the way, also told his audience that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of 'scarce hard currency' on the development of a nuclear weapon. He then said that this was 'a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange, they were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis.'

The Israelis destroyed Saddam's nuclear facility in 1981 despite the fact that the international community, with the exception of the US, believed Saddam's protestations that the plant was being constructed, (with French assistance and expertise) for peaceful purposes only.

Zelikow also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of Hamas would threaten Israel rather than the United States, saying:

"Play out those scenarios and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it. Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."
At the time Zelikow was saying these things he was a member of George Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and before his appointment to the board in October 2001, he was part of the team who oversaw the Bush/Clinton transition, in January, 2001.

Condoleeza Rice, for whom he drafted a memo on the reorganisation of the National Security Council whilst she was National Security Adviser, actually wrote a book about the unification of Germany with Zelikow in 1995.

In January 2003, George Bush appointed Zelikow, Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. In other words, he headed the investigation into 9/11.

On 12 August 2005, the World Socialist web site reported thus:

"A spokesman for the September 11 commission acknowledged on Wednesday that members of its staff met with a uniformed military officer on July 12, 2004 and that the officer informed them that a military intelligence group had, as early as the summer of 2000, identified Mohammad Atta as part of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. Atta is thought to have been the lead hijacker in the September 11 attacks.

This admission flatly contradicts statements made earlier this week by 9/11 Chairman Thomas Kean and Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton that the commission staff was never told of the military intelligence on Atta.

According to an August 11 New York Times article, the officer warned the commission staff 'that the [commission’s] account would be incomplete' without reference to the military intelligence group and its findings.

In the commission’s report, issued on July 22, 2004—10 days after the meeting where staff members were briefed on the Atta intelligence—no mention was made of the information gathered by Able Danger, the name of the military intelligence group."
No Israeli soldier ever lost his life in either of the two Gulf Wars.

On 18 December 2001, James Rubin, assistant secretary of state under President Clinton and visiting professor in international relations at the LSE, said:

"Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of your Government, has become almost a folk hero in our country."
Rubin, who is supposedly a Democrat, was seen several times on British television debating the merits of the case for War with the ultra-hawkish Neoconservative, Richard Perle. In truth it wasn’t much of a debate. They seemed to agree most of the time.

In his 2002 essay, Christian Socialism: The Historical and Contemporary Significance of Christian Socialism within the Labour Party, Robert Leach tells us this:

"The close alignment of the CSM with New Labour can be seen in its attempts to influence policy… the Christian Socialist Movement ‘was asked to contribute directly to the drafting of the Labour Party’s manifesto’ in 2001… the CSM published its own ‘mini-manifesto’… its priorities coincided fairly closely with Labour’s official manifesto".
In his book, God's Politicians: the Christian contribution to 100 years of Labour, Graham Dale, the Director of the Christian Socialist Movement in the UK also informs us thus:

"We are more convinced than ever of the need to bring Christian Socialist voices to bear on policy and we’re excited about the receptiveness of Government to listen to us."
Tony Blair wrote the foreword to Dale's book.

They do say that TB thinks of himself as a Christian Socialist. He's the kind of Christian my good, Christian mother would avoid and the kind of socialist my working-class father would punch. In my book, Tony Blair is a demonic, Thatcherite Faust making war on the good to curry favour with the bad.

You're no Christian Socialist, Tony.

You're a t*at.

That's what you are.

The Neoconservative Jew, Eliot Cohen, was the author of a 24 September 2001, New Republic article titled: How to Fight: 'Make War: Not Justice.'

In this he said:

"There should be no talk of 'tracking down the perpetrators' or 'bringing the guilty to justice.' This is not about cops and robbers, nor about international courts. It is, rather, war, hideous, brutal, and merciless war.

What does it mean, under these circumstances, to wage war? It begins with a willingness to attack those responsible with every intention of killing rather than capturing them. Although the United States has from time to time dropped bombs or fired cruise missiles with lethal intent, it has thus far flinched at outright assassination ('extrajudicial killings')... But it must end.

The issue is not merely retribution but sound strategy, which is why the Israelis have pursued just such an approach in dealing with their terror problem."
On 11 January 2002, The Socialist Worker web site reported the Neoconservative Deputy Defence Minister of the US, Paul Wolfowitz, thus:

"We need to destroy this regime that wants to destroy us and terrorize its neighbors. Living with him is the most dangerous course to take. Give war a chance."
On 11 January 2002, Elizabeth Schulte told us this at The Socialist Worker Online:

"During most of Iraq’s eight-year war with Iran, which took about 1 million lives on each side, the US funded both countries. When it looked like Iran might win, the US tilted toward Iraq.

Washington likes to criticize Saddam for using chemical weapons ‘on his own people.’ But two months after Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, Bechtel Corporation, one of the most politically connected companies in the US, won a contract to build a petrochemicals plant where Iraq planned to produce mustard gas and fuel-air explosives…

Before the US government gave Saddam the title of the ‘new Hitler,’ in order to prepare the ground for the 1991 Gulf War, it supported Saddam’s regime during its eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s.

But when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the US changed its tune. George Bush major claimed that the US was responsible for defending ‘democracy’ in Kuwait--a repressive monarchy--and teaching Saddam a lesson.

Beginning in January 1991, the US bombarded Iraq for a month and a half, dropping 88,500 tons of cluster bombs and other explosives. Tens of thousands were killed, and the country was reduced to rubble.

Just to make sure the message was clear, the US ignored Saddam’s agreement to a UN resolution calling for Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, and launched a bloody ground war. The six-day attack ended in a gruesome slaughter, with US planes relentlessly bombing retreating Iraqi troops on the road from Kuwait to Basra, a stretch that became known as the ‘Highway of Death.’

With the war drawing to a close, Bush major called on the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. An uprising did take place, both among Kurds in northern Iraq and Shiites in the south. But US forces stood by as Iraqi troops put down these rebellions. In fact, the US even gave Iraqi generals permission to violate ‘no-fly" restrictions,’ and use helicopter gunships to put down the revolts.

The US wanted a take-over that they could control, not a popular uprising, so they gave the green light for a crackdown to the very forces that they had defeated.

The Gulf War officially ended at the end of February 1991. But a silent and even more deadly war of economic sanctions continues to this day. Some 200 children die every day in Iraqi because of the economic embargo, carried out in the name of the United Nations, but at the insistence of the US government.

The sanctions ban materials that could have a ‘dual use’ for the Iraqi military, an enormous list that includes chlorine and other chemicals for water treatment, ambulances, pencils, fertilizer, pesticides, water pumps and more. The direct result is that Iraqi citizens die regularly of treatable diseases and malnutrition.

What’s more, under the UN’s oil-for-food program, which was supposed to help prevent some of the suffering, only two-thirds of the revenue from the sale of Iraqi oil is allocated for humanitarian supplies. The rest goes as compensation to the multibillionaire Kuwaiti royal family and Western oil companies…

The terrible misery suffered by Iraq’s people today is mostly the making of the US government."
On 29 January 2002, in the State of the Union Address, George Bush said this:

"North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.

This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."
The term 'axis of evil' was invented by the Jew, David Frum, Bush's former speechwriter. Actually, it is likely that most of Bush’s thoughts and opinions and certainly all of his slogans, are the product of the American/Israeli Zionist mindset of his speechwriters.

I remember seeing an interview with Gore Vidal before the 2000 Presidential election. Vidal is invariably flip and witty. When he described Bush as 'barely able to read and write,' he was being deadly serious.

In the February 2002, issue of Commentary, the neoconservative magazine published by the American Jewish Committee, Commentary's editor, Norman Podhoretz, a leading Neocon himself, penned the article, How to Win World War IV.

This, in part, is it:

"Like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, too, had a population sympathetic to Osama bin Laden…

Most of these other countries clucked their tongues sympathetically over what had been done to us on September 11, and declared themselves members of our coalition. But then_after we had begun bombing Afghanistan in earnest_their contribution to our war effort consisted of urging us to prevent the Israelis from retaliating against terrorist attacks by Palestinians, and to suspend our own military operations during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan…

With Afghanistan gradually fading from attention, the focus is now on phase two of the war, and the main issue is whether or not Iraq should be next. Some commentators are convinced that Saddam Hussein had a hand in September 11, as well as in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and that Iraq was the original source of the anthrax sent through the mails to several congressional leaders…

Anyway, it is by now no longer necessary to prove that Saddam is a sponsor of terrorism in order to consider Iraq a target of the war against it, since the President has already established a rationale in stating that:
‘If you develop weapons of mass destruction [with which] you want to terrorize the world, you'll be held accountable'…

Whether or not Iraq becomes the second front in the war against terrorism, one thing is certain: there can be no victory in this war if it ends with Saddam Hussein still in power… Big wars… invariably end by reshaping the world. The war of September 11 will be just such a big one, if, as I hope, President Bush is serious about pursuing it to the end…

In the Wall Street Journal, Eliot Cohen has also proposed that we look upon this as World War IV, the immediate successor to the cold war, which he rightly characterizes as World War III…

The real enemy in this war, Cohen argues as Daniel Pipes has also so persistently and authoritatively done at greater length, is not the generalized abstraction ‘terrorism,’ but rather ‘militant Islam.’

Big wars, to say it again, usually end with the world being reshaped in forms unanticipated when they begin. The Middle East is itself a case in point… As it happens, most of the states in question were conjured into existence less than a hundred years ago out of the ruins of the defeated Ottoman empire in World War I. Their boundaries were drawn by the victorious British and French with the stroke of an often arbitrary pen, and their hapless peoples were handed over in due course to one tyrant after another…

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States managed in a few short years to transform both Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into capitalist democracies. And thanks to our victory in World War III, (the 'Cold War') something similar seems to be happening on its own steam in Central and Eastern Europe, and even in the old heartland of the evil empire itself. Why should the Islamic world eternally remain an exception?...

I fear a relapse into appeasement, diplomatic evasion, and ineffectual damage control...

The world in general, will look very different by the time this war is over. Very different, and very much better for the vast majority of people everywhere. Unless, that is, the United States is held back by its coalition from moving all the way forward, or the President breaks the promise he made, in his magnificent speech to Congress on September 20, not to waver or falter or tire or lose patience until victory is achieved, a victory that would leave us not with ‘an age of terror’ but with ‘an age of liberty’ here and across the world."
What you just read was the battle-cry of the triumphalist Jew as he sends the sons of Gentiles to kill, and be killed by, other sons of Gentiles, on the other side of the planet.

Pitting Gentile against Gentile in a secret war for Judaea is an age-old Jewish game. No Israeli soldier died in Gulf Wars I and II. Very few Jewish journalists and politicians got anywhere near enough to the action to get themselves body-bagged in either conflagration.

Norman Podhoretz was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War.

On 4 March 2002, in an article titled, War Without End, The Guardian reported thus:

"Suspicions persist that the Bush administration is content to watch the conflict simmer while, shamefully egged on by Tony, the little trumpet boy, it plots war in Iraq."
The Neoconservative Jew, Lewis Libby, was Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff.

Libby, along with Paul Wolfowitz, wrote the 1992 document for Cheney during Bush senior’s administration, which laid out the plans for the 'New American Century.'

These plans bore fruit eleven years later in the administration of the elder Bush's son.Libby has been the lawyer, since 1985, of the infamous white-collar fraudster Mark Rich, (Jewish) who stole $billions from the US government and sold arms to Iran when US hostages were being held in that country. Libby’s law firm has been paid more than $2 million to represent Rich over the years.

When Rich’s crimes were discovered and he was indicted and bailed to stand trial 19 years ago on racketeering, wire fraud, income tax evasion and illegal oil trading charges, he fled to Switzerland.

Denise Rich, Marc’s wife, has been a major contributor to Democratic campaigns and the Clinton presidential library foundation. It is known that Hilary Clinton was extravagantly supported by the Jewish lobby in her successful attempt to win the New York Senatorial seat.

Bill Clinton was urged by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to support a Presidential pardon for Rich. After much lobbying by the Jewish lobby in general and the ADL and Libby in particular, Bill Clinton used his Presidential powers to have Rich pardoned.

His was one of 140 pardons that Clinton granted in his last hours in office on January 20 2000. Most of the other criminals pardoned at this time were also white collar fraudsters. Almost all of them were Jewish.

It is alleged that Rich, who bankrolled Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon extensively, before his election and since, has extensive links with the Russian Mafia, which, at the highest levels, is mostly Jewish.

On 1 April 2002, Libby was quoted thus by The New Yorker Magazine:

"We believe in expanding the zone of democracy even in this difficult part of the world… he (Bush) had the courage to identify those states which present a problem, and to begin to build consensus for action that would need to be taken if there is not a change of behavior on their part…

The issue is the Iraqis' promise not to have weapons of mass destruction…

There is no basis in Iraq's past behavior to have confidence in good faith efforts on their part to change their behavior."
On 27 September 2002, The Executive Intelligence Review reported thus:

"Libby, a protégé of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for the past 30 years, has assembled a ‘shadow national security council’ in the Vice President's Office, which has protected the Israeli agents nest inside the Pentagon and State Department, and blocked an urgently needed purge of these Likudniks. Libby has his own longstanding deep ties to the Sharon circles, including to the Pollard spy ring.

While out of government, Libby served between 1985-2000 as the personal attorney for fugitive swindler Marc Rich. Rich was indicted by the U.S. Justice Department in 1983 for tax evasion and for trading with the enemy, and he fled the United States, establishing a luxurious hide-away in Zug, Switzerland.

Today, according to Israeli sources, Rich is under investigation, for illegal contributions to Ariel Sharon's last political campaign. He has been involved in Russian Mafia operations in Africa, and, through his Marc Rich Foundation in Israel, has openly financed international operations of the Israeli Mossad. Libby's law partner and mentor, Leonard Garment, was a pivotal player in the Israeli government's damage control effort, following the Pollard arrest in November 1985, and he served as the attorney for Israeli Air Force Col. Aviem Sella, the man who recruited and deployed (the Israeli spy) Jonathan Pollard.

Now, Ariel Sharon's regime is Hell-bent on provoking a regional war in the Middle East, a war pivoted on an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iraq. The threat is that, if President Bush does not virtually exterminate Iraq, and neighboring countries, too, Israel will. This means the likely use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. All the while, Sharon's Washington moles are operating under the shadows of the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense of the United States.

If Sharon is to be stopped from launching World War III in the Middle East, this entire Pollard stay-behind apparatus must be thoroughly investigated, exposed, and removed from government. It is time for these Israeli agents and spies to be kicked out of government, and the Israeli government to desist from its nuclear blackmail."
Here are a couple of suggestions that Libby and Wolfowitz made from the first and second drafts of the 1992 document, Defence Policy Guidance:

"The US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order… we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.

We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role… In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region's oil."
"Our most fundamental goal is to… preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests… In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region… and safeguard our access… to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security."
On the 28 of October 2005, the BBC reported thus:

"A top aide to the US vice-president has resigned after being charged with perjury over an investigation into the unmasking of a covert CIA agent. Lewis Libby, chief-of-staff to Dick Cheney, was also charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to a federal grand jury…
The identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame - whose husband criticised the Iraq war - was leaked to a US reporter in 2003…

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has accused Mr Libby of lying to investigators about how and when he learned and disclosed to reporters classified information about Ms Plame. If found guilty on all five counts in the indictment, Mr Libby, 55, faces a maximum of 30 years in prison and a $1.25m (£705,000) fine for each charge…

Setting out the evidence at a news conference, Mr Fitzgerald alleged Mr Libby had deliberately misled the FBI over his conversations with reporters about Ms Plame. 'At the end of the day, what appears is that Mr Libby's story, that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true - it was false…

He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government, to a reporter. And he lied about it afterwards, under oath, and repeatedly'…

The disclosure had not only damaged Ms Plame but also compromised US national security, he said.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said the bigger picture was 'about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president'.

Ms Plame's identity was leaked after her husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to support military action against Iraq. Mr Wilson says it was done to undermine his credibility. Others have raised the possibility that it was a form of payback for her husband's criticism."
On the 17 of January, 2004, Vanity Fair had, previously, informed us thus:

"Wilson is a retired American diplomat who wrote a July 6 piece for The New York Times that told of his February, 2002, fact-finding mission to Niger, taken at the behest of the C.I.A. His mission was to verify or disprove an intelligence report that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy from Niger 'yellowcake,' a uranium ore, which can be used to make fissionable material. The information that Saddam did try to buy it found its way into President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address…

But, on his trip, Wilson had found no evidence to substantiate the president's assertion. His New York Times piece was titled 'What I Didn't Find in Africa.' Had he been wrong? Or had his information been ignored because it did not fit with the government's preconceptions about Iraq?

On the Sunday his piece ran in the Times, Wilson appeared on NBC's Meet the Press to discuss it… Officially, National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted that the sentence should not have been in the president's speech, because the intelligence on which it was based was not good enough, and C.I.A. director George Tenet took the blame, saying that he was 'responsible for the approval process in my agency.' But then he added that the C.I.A. had warned the National Security Council that the intelligence was dubious…

Still, the administration could argue and did that, technically, none of the words in the speech were actually inaccurate, because it cited British intelligence as the source…

On July 14, Robert Novak wrote that… 'two senior administration officials' told him that Wilson had been sent to Africa only because his wife of five years, Valerie Plame, an 'agency operative on weapons of mass destruction,' had suggested to her bosses that he go…

On July 22 Newsday… reported that… Plame was an 'undercover officer.' In fact, she had noc status, that is, nonofficial cover… Mostly they operate abroad, frequently using fake job descriptions and sometimes fake names.

According to a former senior C.I.A. officer, to blend in they often have to work two jobs: that of their 'cover' and that involving their C.I.A. duties, which usually consists of handling foreign agents in the field, but can also involve recruiting them. Nocs have no diplomatic protection and so are vulnerable to hostile regimes that can imprison or execute them without official repercussions. A noc's only real defense is his or her cover, which can take years to build. Because of this vulnerability, a noc's identity is considered within the C.I.A. to be, as former C.I.A. analyst Kenneth Pollack has put it, 'the holiest of holies.'

And, according to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, leaking the name of an undercover agent is also a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison".
On 29 September 2005, New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was released from prison.

She had earlier been jailed for contempt of court for refusing to identify who her big shot 'confidential sources' were.

However, she was freed after Lewis Libby provided prosecutors with a waiver allowing her to answer their questions without prejudice to her reputation or integrity.Libby had allowed Judith Miller to stew in prison for 88 days before he did, or was persuaded to do, the right thing.Robert Novak, the reporter who 'outed' Valerie Plame, after being tipped off by Libby, is Jewish.

Lewis Libby was found guilty of the accusations leveled against him and could have been jailed for up to 30 years. In the event, he was jailed for just 30 months, given a fine of $250,000 and, upon release, 400 hours of community service.

In July 2007, Libby's appeal failed. Whereupon, George Bush used his presidential powers to commute the jail time to zero, though, for apprances sake, he left the other bits of the sentence in place.

Lewis Libby was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War.

In April 2002, 23-year-old Private Darren John George of the Royal Anglian Regiment, was killed whilst serving with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, Afganistan.

He was on duty in the Afghan capital when he was accidentally shot by a colleague, who had a dizzy spell as he handled his machine gun.

The Neoconservative, Kenneth Adelman, was an assistant to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977.

He was also the US ambassador to the UN, a director of arms-control in Ronald Reagan’s administration and a member of the Defence Policy Board.

On 3 April 2002, Adelman said this on Fox News:

"My long-time mentor, Donald Rumsfeld, is fond of saying: ‘When a particular problem is intractable, enlarge it’…

Let's apply it now to the Israel-Palestinian war, which has clearly become intractable. Let's imagine the Bush administration enlarging this problem by moving beyond the status of Jerusalem, the legality of Israeli settlements, the right of return by displaced Palestinians…

The administration should enlarge today's particular problem by focusing on the long-time campaign against Israel, and against America…

To enlarge the problem, the Bush administration should: stop calling these Palestinian kids ‘suicide bombers,’ and begin to call them ‘homicide bombers’… stop considering Saudi Arabia as ‘a peacemaker’ proposing a serious peace initiative. Remember that the Saudis have been funding hatred towards Jews, Christians, Israelis, and Americans…

Stop funding Egypt to the whopping tune of $2 billion per year. Our $100 billion of foreign-aid handouts since the 1970s have given us back nothing but Egyptian hostility towards Israel and America…

Start transforming the dynamics of Arabian thought and politics by changing the Iraqi regime, from the worst to among the best in the region. A moderate, pro-Western, quasi-democratic, somewhat tolerant Iraq, after the removal of Saddam Hussein by American forces could speed up the looming mass revolution in Iran. And once these jumbo dominoes fall, then fundamental changes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt could easily follow.

The more that Islamic states in the Middle East begin to resemble Turkey and Bangladesh, and the less they continue to echo Iraq and Syria, the greater are the chances for peace and stability. Thus the safer become both Israel and America… that's what it takes.

Enlarging the problem, here at least, is the only way to solve this otherwise intractable tangle."
On 29 August 2002, Adelman said this in an article he titled: Desert Storm II will be a Walk in the Park.

"The case for regime change boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq. Saddam Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American and European civilization. He is expanding his chemical and biological weapons day by day, and marching closer towards nuclear weapons.

Some critics doubt Saddam’s ties to terrorism… the first bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993, which killed innocent Americans, then Iraqi involvement seems evident. The terrorist mastermind fled to, and probably today lives in, Baghdad. Saddam now bestows on Palestinian families of homicide bombers some £16,000 each. This litany leaves aside Saddam’s probable connection to September 11, which I believe exists but which is, admittedly, tougher to prove conclusively…

Demolishing Saddam’s power and liberating Iraq militarily would be a cakewalk.

In 1990 before Desert Storm, we heard warnings galore about Saddam’s mighty army. Yet when the sand settled, his military did not perform sufficiently to warrant being called a paper tiger. Remember that gaggle of Iraqi troops, thousands in fact, trying to surrender to an Italian film crew?

Not one American tank was destroyed in the Gulf War, which kept US casualties to less than 2 percent of those of Iraqi troops. And most of our casualties came from friendly fire… The Iraqi forces are far weaker now.

Saddam’s army is less than a third of its size, and relies mostly on obsolete Soviet tanks. The Iraqi Air Force is half its former size. Iraqi forces have received scant spare parts and no weapons upgrades for nearly 12 years.

Meanwhile, American power is much fiercer. The advent of precision bombing and real-time battlefield Intelligence has dramatically improved US military prowess. The US military of Desert Storm used primarily dumb bombs. Against the Taleban in Afghanistan, more than 80 per cent were smart bombs...

A military operation to demolish Saddam and his mass destruction weaponry and to liberate his long-suffering people would constitute the greatest victory of all in the war on terrorism."
If, as Adelman suggested, 'demolishing Saddam' would be a 'cakewalk' as 'Iraqi forces are far weaker now' than they were at the time of Gulf War I, why were Neocons like him telling us ever since the first Gulf War ended that Saddam posed such a tremendous risk to the rest of us?

Why did they constantly harp on about WMD that could hit us in 45 minutes, nuclear programmes that were 'up and running' and all sorts cataclysmic nastiness being plotted by Saddam and his evil henchmen, which was going to rain down upon the rest of us at any moment if we didn't give Bush, Blair and the Neocons the office to prevent him doing so?

They lie. Sometimes their lies catch them out and they contradict themselves.

They don't care. Do you know why they don't care? Because THEY know that WE will never do anything to stop them doign what THEY do.

On 17 May 2003, this slippery turd took his first backward step when he voiced the opinion, in The Washington Post, that Saddam might been waging 'a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been.'

What a fantastic strategy that would have been, eh? Deceive the Western dimwits into bombing the s*** out of Iraq. Yep, I can see Saddam doing such a thing just to embarrass lovely, fluffy warmongers like Kenneth Adelman.

Adelman also admitted that the absence of WMD was 'very strange' and that there might 'certainly not be the quantity that we thought of before.'

Adelman was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War. His excuse the dodge was 'a skin rash.'

On 3 April 2002, Tony Blair said this on NBC TV:

"We know that he has stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons."
On 3 April 2002, PNAC sent the following open letter to George W. Bush:

"We write to thank you for your courageous leadership in the war on terrorism and to offer our full support as you continue to protect the security and well-being of Americans and all freedom-loving peoples around the world.

In particular, we want to commend you for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel’s continued survival as a free and democratic nation, for only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally. And with the memory of the terrorist attack of September 11 still seared in our minds and hearts, we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed with a fellow victim of terrorist violence.
No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy.

We are both targets of what you have correctly called an ‘Axis of Evil.’ Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles, American principles, in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred. As Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all engaged in 'inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing' against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades. You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war…

Mr. President, it can no longer be the policy of the United States to urge, much less to pressure, Israel to continue negotiating with Arafat, any more than we would be willing to be pressured to negotiate with Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Nor should the United States provide financial support to a Palestinian Authority that acts as a cog in the machine of Middle East terrorism, any more than we would approve of others providing assistance to Al Qaeda.

Instead, the United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens…

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel.Iraq… maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors.

Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world…

Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism."
This document was signed by the following Jewish folk:

William Kristol; Ken Adelman; Eliot Cohen; Frank Gaffney; Robert Kagan; Jeffrey Gedmin; Martin Peretz; Richard Perle; Daniel Pipes; Donald Kagan; Ellen Bork; Midge Decter; Nicholas Eberstadt; Hillel Fradkin; Reuel Marc Gerecht; Joshua Muravchik; Norman Podhoretz; Stephen P. Rosen; Marshall Wittmann and John Lehman.

It was also signed by Gary Schmitt; Randy Scheunemann; William Schneider; Tod Lindberg; Linda Chavez; R. James Woolsey; Thomas Donnelly; Charles Hill; Bruce P. Jackson; Rich Lowry; Clifford May; Gary Bauer; Jeffrey Bell; William J. Bennett.

Most of the above neoconservative 'hawks' mentioned above were maintaining important policy making and/or advisory posts within, or just on the peripherary of, Bush minor’s administration at the time this message was introduced to the world.

On 10 April 2002, Tony Blair said this in the House of Commons:

"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also…

What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme."
On 28 April 2002, Martin Van Creveld, Professor of Military History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said this in The Daily Telegraph:

"The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades… Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed... Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973."
The Telegraph reported on Creveld's testimony thus:

"The leading Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld predicts that a US attack on Iraq or a terrorist strike at home could trigger a massive mobilisation to clear the occupied territories of their two million Arabs.

Two years ago, less than eight per cent of those who took part in a Gallup poll among Jewish Israelis said they were in favour of what is euphemistically called ‘transfer’ that is, the expulsion of perhaps two million Palestinians across the River Jordan. This month that figure reached 44 per cent."
This, very probably, is what America's Neoconservative Jews were hoping for when they set the whole obscene process in train.

Whether Tony Blair knew that this could be the ultimate Zionist goal, I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And, just in case you think Van Creveld is a one off, take a look at what the Jewish historian, Benny Morris, has to say in his 1989 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-49:

"This land is so small that there isn't room for two peoples. In fifty or a hundred years, there will only be one state between the sea and Jordan. That state must be Israel…

The Palestinians are a sick, psychotic people… Jews have a just claim to Palestine… Zionism is a just enterprise… a removing of a population was needed. Without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established."
In the July 2001, edition of Between the Lines, the Jewish journalist, Tikvah Honig-Parnass, affords us more evidence of Neoconservative intent:

"One big war with transfer at its end - this is the plan of the hawks who indeed almost reached the moment of its implementation."
The political commentator, Ronald Bleiffer tells a similar tale in his August 2001 essay, Sharon Routs Bush: Palestinians now vulnerable to expulsion.

"It is only in the current political climate that such expulsion (of the Palestinians from Israel) plans cannot be put into operation. As hot as the political climate is at the moment, clearly the time is not yet ripe for drastic action. However, if the temperature were raised even higher, actions inconceivable at present might be possible."
Oh, yes, there are very good reasons why the Jewish Board of British Deputies have had their bought-and-paid for politicians subject the kindest, most tolerant, most fair-minded and decent people in the world to forty seven years of race legislation.

If you were a bunch of self-serving triumphalists intent on expulsion and genocide, would you want the facts of the matter being talked about in the pubs and clubs of Britain?

Next section...

No comments:

Post a Comment