Neoconservatism: A Treacherous Guild of Jewish Imperialists
It is impossible to understand 9/11 and the illegal wars that followed without examining the diabolical intrigues of what are known as the “neoconservatives.” This tightly-knit network of ‘intellectuals’ and political lobbyists are first-class warmongers. They were the driving force behind the genocidal U.S. war against Iraq and are still today aggressively advocating for new wars against Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. The neocons are, at their very core, a racist cult of psychopathic Jewish supremacists. This mendacious Jewish clique formed a dangerous Zionist fifth-column inside the United States, burrowing their way into the highest echelons of power in the White House and the Pentagon, during the Bush administration. Operating as de-facto agents of the Israeli government, these Zionist schemers were tasked with harnessing American military might in the service of Israel. To the detriment of the world, especially Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians, these evil sociopathic criminals succeeded in their wicked objective of dragging the U.S. into several senseless wars of conquest in the Middle East, needlessly causing the deaths of millions of innocent people. The former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad once stated: “The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” A glance at the neoconservative warlords and their hidden Jewish agenda validate his every word.
The Jewish origins and agenda of neoconservatism, much like the Jewish origins and agenda of Communism, is a carefully guarded secret that has been hidden from the general public. No mainstream history text dares to mention this fact — almost no prominent professors of political science are willing to broach it for fear of being labeled ‘anti-Semitic.’ The movement itself was born and codified in the United States in the early 1960s. Several Jewish-Marxist intellectuals and agitators from the Trotskyite camp – ideological disciples of the Jewish-Communist theorist and mass murderer Leon Trotsky – conceived this malicious doctrine of death. Like its counterpart Bolshevism, Jewish extremists have used neoconservatism as a carnivorous tool of destruction to root out the enemies of Zionism in the Middle East. Metapedia, the Alternative Encyclopedia, surmised that,
“Neoconservatism is a political ideology with origins in the Marxist Trotskyite movement that has played a critical role in formulating American foreign policy, especially since the 9/11 attacks. The ideology represents the embrace of Zionism and is totally focused upon the racial supremacy and group interests of Jews and the Israeli state. Neoconservatism can be seen as a strategy replacing the previous Jewish objective of Marxist world revolution.” (“Neoconservatism,” Metapedia)
Author Michael Collins Piper explained that the neocons are nothing more than “Trotskyite communists of the old school who re-tooled and re-configured their own philosophy in order to adapt it to the needs of the modern period.” (“The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within,” American Free Press, (2006), p. 28.) Gal Beckerman, a Jewish writer for the Jewish publication The Forward, put it this way:
“Acknowledging the Jewishness of neoconservatism has always triggered the red, flashing lights of antisemitism, especially since the start of the Iraq War…. But there is some truth to the suspicion. If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. …it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.” (“The Neoconservative Persuasion: Examining the Jewish roots of an intellectual movement,” The Forward, Jan. 06, 2006.)
Notable among the ideological founders of neoconservatism were Irving Kristol, Irving Howe, Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter, Max Shachtman, Albert Wohlstetter, and Leo Strauss. All Jews, avid Marxists and staunch Zionists, this coterie of crooks formulated a duplicitous plan for the infiltration and subversion of the “right-wing” of American politics, launching a ‘putsch’ to neutralize the conservative movement and Republican Party, shaping them into a wing of Zionism. Benjamin Ginsberg, a Jewish political scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins University, pointed out the communist roots of the neoconservatives, noting that “the neocons are internationalists. Many neocons were at one time liberal Democrats or, in some cases, even Socialists or Marxists.” (Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. p. 231.) He also keenly observed their essentially Jewish ethnic motivation for shifting from the left to the right side of the political spectrum, attributing it to tribal loyalties and concern for the well-being of Israel:
“One major factor that drew them [the Jewish neocons] inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right’s hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel’s security.” (Ibid.)
Ginsberg revealed that the ‘conservative’ philosophy espoused by these Marxist Jews was nothing more than a mask – a facade that provided a convenient smokescreen for their real Zionist motivations:
“A number of Jews ascertained for themselves that Israeli security required a strong American commitment to internationalism and defense. Among the most prominent Jewish spokesman for this position was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine. Podhoretz had been a liberal and a strong opponent of the Vietnam War. But by the early 1970s he came to realize that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs – from which it followed that American withdrawal into [isolationism] represented a direct threat to the security of Israel. This was one major reason that Podhoretz broke with liberals…” (Ibid., pp. 204, 231.)
In 1973, Irving Kristol, the Marxist-Zionist Jew who has been called the “godfather of neoconservatism,” let slip his real agenda when he said:
“Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now in the interests of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.” (Congress Bi-Weekly, a publication of the American Jewish Congress, 1973.)
Irving Kristol was quite frank in his pro-Zionist view that the U.S. should support Israel even if it is not in America’s national interest to do so. He once said that,
“Large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns…. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.” (Seltzer, Irwin. Neoconservatism. Atlantic Books, 2004, p. 36.)
Norman Podhoretz, a Marxist-Zionist Jew and early progenitor of the neoconservative philosophy, admitted that the safety and hegemony of Israel is at the heart of neoconservative thinking. In his own memoir he confessed:
“There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs – from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.” (Norman Podhoretz, “Breaking Ranks: A Political Memoir,” Harper & Row, 1979.)
Prime among the early theoretical forebearers of neoconservatism was Leo Strauss, another Marxist-Zionist Jew. Strauss taught political science at the University of Chicago and was an influential teacher of many of the top neocons who would later go on to usurp the Bush administration and orchestrate the war against Iraq in 2003. Stauss’s political philosophy was Machiavellian in nature, whereby he advocated the perpetual deception of the public by those in power. Noam Chomsky has argued that Strauss’s theory is a form of Leninism, in which society should be led by a group of elite vanguards whose job is to protect liberal society against the dangers of excessive individualism, and by creating inspiring myths to trick the masses into believing that they are fighting against evil. Journalist Seymour Hersh opined that Strauss endorsed noble lies, “myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society.” (“Selective Intelligence,” The New Yorker, May 12, 2003.) As a youth growing up in Germany, Stauss embraced political Zionism and became an activist for the movement. At age 17, Strauss became a dedicated disciple of the extremist Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. (“Leo Strauss: Strauss and Zionism,” Wikipedia) The connection with Jabotinsky is a common theme among the neocons and the murderous Israeli politicians with whom they are intimately associated.
In addition to all of the Jewish-owned mass media outlets that have given the Jewish neocons a platform to disseminate their hateful propaganda, they established a vast and harrowing conglomeration of magazines, journals, periodicals and think-tanks with which to promote and advance their pernicious policies of war and aggression. Some of their publications include:
* Commentary Magazine (founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee; neocon godfathers Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz served as editors)
* National Review (founded in 1955 by Zionist agent William F. Buckley)
*The Weekly Standard (founded in 1995; chief editor is William Kristol, son of Irving Kristol)
* The New Republic
* The National Interest (founded by Irving Kristol in 1985)
* The Public Interest
Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at the University of California-Longbeach, who has authored several books, viewing Jews and Judaism as an evolutionary group strategy. He produced a list of the most prominent Pro-Israel and neocon groups in the U.S. in his well-written study entitled “Understanding Jewish Influence”. These organizations include:
* AEI: American Enterprise Institute—A neoconservative think tank; produces and disseminates books and articles on foreign and domestic policy; http://www.aei.org.
* AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee—The main pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S., specializing in influencing the U.S. Congress; http://www.aipac.org.
* CSP: Center for Security Policy—Neoconservative think tank specializing in defense policy; formerly headed by Douglas Feith, CSP is now headed by Frank Gaffney; the CSP is strongly pro-Israel and favors a strong U.S. military; http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.
* JINSA: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs—Pro-Israel think tank specializing in promoting military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel; http://www.jinsa.org.
* MEF: Middle East Forum—Headed by Daniel Pipes, the MEF is a pro-Israel advocacy organization overlapping with the WINEP but generally more strident; http://www.meforum.org.
* PNAC: Project for the New American Century—Headed by Bill Kristol, the PNAC issues letters and statements signed mainly by prominent neocons and designed to influence public policy; http://www.newamericancentury.org.
* SD/USA: Social Democrats/USA—“Left-neoconservative” political organization advocating pro-labor social policy and pro-Israel, anticommunist foreign policy; http://www.socialdemocrats.org.
* WINEP: Washington Institute for Near East Policy—Pro-Israel think tank specializing in producing and disseminating pro-Israel media material; http://www.washingtoninstitute.org.
* ZOA: Zionist Organization of America—Pro-Israel lobbying organization associated with the more fanatical end of the pro-Israel spectrum in America; http://www.zoa.org.
A 2003 documentary produced by the BBC called The War Party offers great insight into the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Jewish neocons in Washington. In the film, British reporter Steve Bradshaw follows around several high-profile neocons in the run-up to the war in Iraq. He attended some of their meetings and conducted one-on-one interviews with the biggest players in neoconservatism, including numerous high-ranking Bush administration officials who were devout neocons. In the film, a number of top neocons brag about their successful usurpation of the Bush administration and American foreign policy; some even admitted the Jewishness of the movement. Richard Perle, who headed the powerful “Defense Policy Board” in the Pentagon under Bush, acknowledged that “the President of the United States on issue after issue has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives.” Bill Kristol, a Jewish neocon kingpin who is the son of Irving Kristol and editor of The Weekly Standard, boasted that “George Bush’s current foreign policy is basically a neoconservative foreign policy.” Meyrav Wurmser, a neocon Jewess who founded the Zionist propaganda outlet “The Middle East Media Research Institute” (MEMRI), was obliged to confess: “Yes, many of us [neocons] are Jewish… Most of us, all of us in fact, are Pro-Israel.” Neocon Jew Eliot Cohen, a member of the Defense Policy Board in the Pentagon under Bush, complained that in Washington the term ‘neoconservative’ is often used as a euphemism for ‘Jew.’ “Well sometimes the word neoconservative is used when what they really would like to say is ‘Jew’… and as a Jew I find it offensive,” said Cohen.
A look at the roster of the Project for the New American Century group proves this notion to be correct; ‘neoconservative’ can accurately be considered synonymous with ‘Zionist Jew.’ This warmongering neocon think-tank was founded in 1997 by two Jewish neocon kingfish, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan. In the tradition of his father, PNAC’s founder Bill Kristol let slip the real Zionist objectives behind his subversive lobbying activities. Despite his disingenuous rhetoric about “global crusades for democracy,” Kristol’s chief concern is the power and well-being of Israel. He told the Jerusalem Post (27th July 2000): “I’ve always thought it was best for Israel for the US to be generally engaged and generally strong, and then the commitment to Israel follows from a general foreign policy.” A look at the authors and signatories of any given PNAC document show an abundance of Jewish names, some of which are: Mark Gerson (PNAC project director), Randy Scheunemann (PNAC project director), Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Eliot Cohen, Dov Zakheim, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Peter W. Rodman, Michael Goldfarb, Stephen P. Rosen, Midge Decter, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Kenneth Adelman, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Robert B. Zoellick, Donald Kagan, John Lehman, and so on. (“Project for the New American Century: Persons Associated With PNAC,” Wikipedia) In total, at least half of PNAC’s members and signatories were Jewish. The non-Jewish members all had long-standing ties with the Jewish lobby, serving as nothing more than useful tools for Jewish intrigue. There have been a number of corrupt non-Jews who have achieved prominent status within the ranks of the neoconservatives. On the participation of non-Jews in the movement, Kevin MacDonald intelligently observed that,
“As with the other Jewish intellectual and political movements, non-Jews have been welcomed into the movement and often given highly visible roles as the public face of the movement. This of course lessens the perception that the movement is indeed a Jewish movement, and it makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespersons for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince. That’s why Ahmed Chalabi (a Shiite Iraqi, a student of early neocon theorist Albert Wohlstetter, and a close personal associate of prominent neocons, including Richard Perle) was the neocons’ choice to lead postwar Iraq.” (“Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,” The Occidental Quarterly)
So this is just another part of the deception. In order to sell their ideas to the gentiles whom they are trying to trick, they recruit non-Jews to promote their objectives. Jews have mastered this deceitful stratagem. Its usage can also be noticed with the advent of Bolshevism in Russia, where non-Jew Stalin served as the figurehead for the Jewish-dominated regime of the USSR. In America, Organized Jewry always select a subservient gentile frontman to serve as President of the country; that way, when things go south, the puppet non-Jew is left holding the bag, while his coterie of Jewish advisers generally avoid any serious scrutiny. The Jewish-owned press also helps to create the illusion that the President of the USA actually has control of his own ship, when in reality he is nothing more than a lowly pawn on the grand Jewish chessboard.
Many researchers have noted PNAC’s leading role in fomenting a war with Iraq, having aggressively advocated military action against the country in two letters to President Bill Clinton in 1998, continuing their maniacal push for war until it was finally achieved in 2003. After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, a number of PNAC’s members were appointed to key positions within the President’s administration. In a letter to President Bush dated April 3, 2002, the PNAC group revealed the Jewish-Zionist motivations underlying their treasonous agenda. Seizing the opportunity to capitalize on the 9/11 attacks, the letter — which was signed by Jewish neocon luminaries such as William Kristol, Ken Adelman, Richard Perle, Midge Decter, Robert Kagan, Joshua Muravchik, Daniel Pipes, and Norman Podhoretz — urged the president to support Israel by attacking Iraq. Here is a portion of the letter:
“In particular, we want to commend you [President Bush] for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. . . . Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel’s continued survival … 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. . . . You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war.
… Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq . . . . It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel . . . . If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends … have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors. 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.” (“Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat and the War on Terrorism,” PNAC Official Website, April 3, 2002.)
The ghastly grip of Jewry over George W. Bush and his administration was something to behold. In order to gain an overview of this development it is imperative to reproduce a full list of Jews who served in the Bush administration during his two terms in office from 2001 to 2008. This list reveals how much control Zionist Jews had over the U.S. government when the 9/11 attacks took place, in the crucial years that followed when the cover-up was instituted, and the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were initiated. The Jewish officials in the Bush administration included:
* Richard Perle – Foreign policy advisor, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board;
* Edward Luttwak – Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon;
* Henry Kissinger – Foreign Policy Advisor, sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle;
* Kenneth Adelman – Foreign Policy Advisor, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle;
* Robert Satloff – U.S. National Security Council Advisor;
* Marc Grossman – Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs;
* Richard Haass – Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large;
* Robert Zoellick – U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position;
* James Schlesinger – Foreign Policy Advisor, sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board;
* David Wurmser – Special Assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security;
* Eliot Cohen – Member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board;
* Steve Goldsmith – Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor;
* Joseph Gildenhorn – Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community;
* Samuel Bodman – Deputy Secretary of Commerce;
* Bonnie Cohen – Under Secretary of State for Management;
* Ruth Davis – Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management;
* Lincoln Bloomfield – Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs
* Ken Melman – White House Political Director;
* Elliott Abrams – Director of the National Security Council’s Office for Democracy Human Rights and International Operations;
* Jeffrey Berkowitz – White House Liaison to the Jewish Community and then office of presidential scheduling, 2005-2006;
* Stuart Bernstein – Ambassador to Denmark;
* Brad Blakeman – White House Director of Scheduling;
* Josh Bolten – Chief of Staff, 2006-;
* Nancy Brinker – Ambassador to Hungary and then chief of protocol for the State Department;
* Michael Chertoff – Head of the Justice Department’s criminal division;
* Douglas Feith – Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 2001-2005;
* Ari Fleischer – White House Press Secretary, 2001-2003;
* David Frum – Speechwriter, 2001-2002;
* Chris Gersten – Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS;
* Adam Goldman – White House Liaison to the Jewish Community, 2001-2003;
* Blake Gottesman – President’s personal aide;
* Jeremy L. Katz – White House Liaison to the Jewish Community, 2007-;
* Daniel Kurtzer – Ambassador to Israel, 2001-2005;
* Frank Lavin – Ambassador to Singapore;
* Jay Lefkowitz – Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council, 2001-2004;
* I. Lewis Libby – Chief of Staff to the Vice President, 2001-2005;
* Ken Mehlman – White House Political Director;
* John Miller – Director, State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons;
* Michael Mukasey – Attorney General, 2007-;
* Noam Neusner – White House Liaison to the Jewish Community, 2004-2005;
* Mel Sembler – Ambassador to Italy;
* Martin Silverstein – Ambassador to Uruguay;
* Cliff Sobel – Ambassador to the Netherlands;
* Tevi Troy – White House Liaison to the Jewish Community;
* Mark D. Weinberg – Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs, 2003-2004;
* Ron Weiser – Ambassador to Slovakia;
* Paul Wolfowitz – Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005;
* Dov Zakheim – Undersecretary of Defense, Controller, 2001-2004;
* Jay Zeidman – White House Liaison to the Jewish Community, 2006-2007;
* Randy Scheunemann – Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute;
* Paula Dobrinansky – Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, 2001–2007;
* Aaron Friedberg – Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Vice President, 2003–2005;
* Peter W. Rodman – Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, 2001–2007
Fifty-three in total, these Jewish-Zionist partisans established a powerful foothold inside the Bush administration, many of whom purportedly hold dual Israeli-American citizenship. (Dan Eden, “Dual Citizenship — Loyal to Whom?,” View Zone) It can be said with a great degree of certitude that these fifty-three Zionist Jews represented the real ‘power behind the throne’ of the Bush administration — a true “shadow government.” Bush merely served as a figurehead, a useful gentile frontman, for the sadistic ambitions and genocidal desires of the Jewish-Zionist elite. The goal of the Jewish elite from the outset of Bush’s first term in office was war with Iraq. Paul O’Neill, the former Treasury Secretary under Bush, who was fired for constantly challenging the President’s policy decisions, revealed that eight months before 9/11 at Bush’s first ever National Security Council meeting, removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was already being discussed and meticulously planned out. According to O’Neill, Bush asked his foreign policy advisers to “find me a way” to invade Iraq. (“Paul O’Neill Speaks Out,” CBS 60 Minutes, June 14, 2006.) Ari Shavit, an Israeli senior correspondent at Haaretz Newspaper and a member of its editorial board, brazenly admitted that the Iraq war was instigated by Zionist Jews. In an article for that newspaper, Shavit conceded that “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.” (“White man’s burden,” Haaretz, Mar. 04, 2003.) He goes on to acknowledge that,
“In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: 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. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit.” (Ibid.)
In 2008, the University of Chicago professor John Mersheimer gave a speech at the World Affairs Council of Oregon, in which he affirmed the admissions of Ari Shavit regarding the Jewish-Zionist push for war with Iraq:
“There’s no question that the neoconservatives, one of the core constituencies in the [Israel] lobby, were the main driving force behind the [Iraq] war. They were supported by key organizations in the lobby like AIPAC. Now that the war has gone south it’s common to hear Israel’s supporters say that the main organizations in the Lobby did not push for war. But that’s not true. This point is made clear in a May 2004 editorial that appeared in The Forward:
‘As President Bush attempted to sell the war in Iraq, America’s most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his defense. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored in to the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’
One sometimes hears the argument today that AIPAC took no position on the Iraq war and certainly did not advocate it. But this is not true either. First of all, this claim fails the common sense test as AIPAC usually supports what Israel wants and Israel certainly wanted the United States to invade Iraq. Second, there is hard evidence that AIPAC lobbied for the war. For example, AIPAC’s executive director Howard Core told the New York Sun in January 2003 that one of AIPAC’s successes over the past year was ‘quietly lobbying congress to approve the use of force in Iraq.’
The neoconservatives of course were the main driving force behind the war. They initiated the idea of using force to topple Saddam in two letters written to President Clinton in early 1998. Over the next five years, and especially after 9/11, they pushed relentlessly for war against Iraq. No other group or institution in the United States was seriously committed to invading Iraq over that five year period. Indeed, there was significant opposition to invading Iraq, even after 9/11, within the State Department, the intelligence community and the Uniformed Military. The neoconservatives are, by their own admission, deeply committed to Israel. In fact, many of them are connected with key organizations in the Lobby like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.” (“Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer,” YouTube)
Mersheimer also made the key point that it was the events of 9/11 “that created circumstances where they could help convince both President Bush and Vice President Cheney that invading Iraq was a smart idea.” (Ibid.) To sell the war in Iraq to the American people the neocons needed an excuse, a pretext. Section V of the PNAC group’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” report entitled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force” includes the sentence: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” That prophetic and disturbing sentence was penned in September of 2000, a full year before the September 11 attacks. 9/11 was the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ that the neocons needed to fully implement their program of invasion and conquest — without it their wet dreams of war would have never come to fruition. Immediately after the attacks, the Zionist neocons in the government and media began to make baseless accusations of Iraqi involvement in 9/11, Iraqi “ties to Al-Qaeda,” and began frantically hyping the ‘threat’ of Saddam Hussein’s alleged “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) to the American people. Although no evidence existed connecting Iraq to 9/11 — just as no evidence exists tying Osama bin Laden or Al-Qaeda to the events of that day — many naive people bought into these lies. Although there was no evidence that Iraq had any “Weapons of Mass Destruction” — it is now admitted that there weren’t any such weapons — nor was there any conceivable way that Iraq posed any kind of military threat to the United States, the ignorant American masses believed the big lie.
The three primary architects of the war in Iraq were Richard Perle (Defense Policy Board chairman), Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Defense Secretary) and Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense for Policy) — all neocon Jews and dual citizens of the U.S. and Israel who had long-standing relationships with one another. This terrible trio were all members of PNAC, JINSA, the AEI, and had close connections with AIPAC and other U.S.-based Pro-Israel groups. Each of them also had intimate ties with Israel itself and a clear record of disloyalty to America in favor of Israel. Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith had all been investigated for passing classified documents to Israeli agents while serving in high positions in previous American administrations, primarily that of Ronald Reagan. (Stephen Green, “Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration,” CounterPunch, Feb. 28, 2004.) Due to the overwhelming Jewish grip over the American government and judicial system, all investigations into their spying activities for Israel were eventually quashed. Despite their past malfeasance, this triad of traitors held three of the top four civilian leadership positions in the Pentagon.
Richard Perle, who was known in Washington as “The Prince of Darkness,” was not only Pro-Israel, he was directly linked with the rogue Zionist state as a board member and director of the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post and also having worked as a lobbyist for the Israeli weapons manufacturer Soltam. (Jeff Gerth, “Aide Urged Pentagon To Consider Weapons Made By Former Client,” New York Times, April 17, 1983.) He was also very tight with Israel’s Likud Party and the Israeli military. Paul Wolfowitz is no slouch when it comes to Zionist fanaticism. His father was a Zionist through and through. Like many top neocon Jews, Wolfowitz was a student and disciple of Jewish neocon ideologues Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter at the University of Chicago. (Mann, Jim. Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. New York: Viking, 2004, pp. 28-31.) One source inside the Bush administration has described Wolfowitz as “over-the-top crazy when it comes to Israel.” (Kathleen and Bill Christison, “Dual Loyalties: The Bush Neocons and Israel,” CounterPunch, Sept. 06, 2004.) A New York Times Magazine profile of Wolfowitz cites critics who say that “Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on the man” and noted that he “is friendly with Israel’s generals and diplomats and that he is something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative movement.” (Bill Keller, “The Sunshine Warrior (Paul Wolfowitz),” New York Times Magazine, Sept. 22, 2002.) As a teenager, Wolfowitz lived in Israel for a time and his older sister, Laura, is married to an Israeli. (Ibid.) As the number two man in the Pentagon under Defense Secretary and fervent neocon Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz is widely viewed as the cardinal architect of the Iraq war, the “most passionate and compelling advocate” of the war within the Bush administration. (Peter J. Boyer, “The Believer: Paul Wolfowitz Defends His War,” The New Yorker, Nov. 1, 2004.)
Notably, in 1992 Wolfowitz conceived the U.S. government’s doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, dubbed the ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine.’ Later, when President Bush adopted Wolfowitz’s heinous ideas, Jewish neocon commentator Charles Krauthammer revised the phrase to the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ (Maidhc Ó Cathail, “Dear Mr. President: Letters from Israel partisans that took America to war,” The Passionate Attachment, Mar. 14, 2012.) In June of 2001, just months before the events of 9/11 would unfold, Paul Wolfowitz delivered a chilling commencement speech at West Point wherein he focused on ‘surprise attacks,’ making heavy reference to Pearl Harbor. (“Wolfowitz chilling speech,” YouTube) In an audacious act of Zionist arrogance, Wolfowitz actually acknowledged in the speech that the Pearl Harbor incident, which created circumstances that led to the United States’ entry into World War Two, was “preceded by an astonishing number of unheeded warnings and missed signals.” (Ibid.) This bizarre speech – viewed in light of the PNAC report in which Wolfowitz and his Zionist colleagues envisioned a new ‘Pearl Harbor’-type attack on the U.S. homeland that would help facilitate their militaristic and imperialist policies – is beyond surreal. As I pointed out earlier, the Jewish power elite – believing that the ‘stupid goyim’ won’t even notice – enjoy the ritual of announcing their evil plans publicly; albeit in subtle, cryptic ways. Wolfowitz certainly was rejoicing afterwards, when in February of 2002 he impudently spoke of 9/11 as “an opportunity” to accomplish his globalist aims. (Interview with Robert Collier, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 23, 2002.)
Douglas Feith’s feverish commitment to Zionism is certainly no less evident. In the 1930s, Feith’s father, Dalck Feith, was an active member in Betar, the youth terrorist wing of the Revisionist Zionist movement founded by Vladimir Jabotinsky in Poland. (Jim Lobe, “Loss of Feith in Douglas,” Asia Times Online, Nov. 07, 2003.) This group later morphed into the Irgun which then became the Likud Party itself after the illegal formation of Israel in 1948. Back in 1986, Feith founded the Feith & Zell law firm, based initially in Israel. (Tom Barry, “Douglas Feith: Portrait of a Neoconservative,” Anti War, Sept. 16, 2004.) Feith and his evil father have both been honored by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) for their allegiance to Israel and the Zionist cause. In 1997, Douglas Feith and his father were the Guests of Honor at the 100th anniversary dinner of the ZOA in New York City where Dalck Feith received the organization’s special Centennial Award for his “lifetime of service to Israel and the Jewish people.” (ZOA News Release, Official Website, Oct. 13, 1997.) At the dinner, Douglas Feith received the prestigious Louis D. Brandeis Award for his loyalty to the cause of Jewish supremacy. (Ibid.) On August 18, 2010, the Zionist group “Americans for a Safe Israel” held a special memorial to the Jewish terrorist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky, where Feith was the keynote speaker. (“Yizkor for Jabotinsky: The Prophet Half-Heeded,” The Forward, Aug. 25, 2010.) Commenting on the event, Jewish writer Gal Beckerman pointed out that “Jabotinsky simply does not need a special day to be remembered, not when most of the members of the current Israeli government would classify themselves as ‘Jabotinskyites.’” (Ibid.) If these facts do not illustrate clearly enough that Feith’s loyalties lie with Israel and Zionism, the following piece of information should pacify any doubts in your mind. Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, a Jewish-Zionist zealot himself, visited Douglas Feith’s home and reported that Feith literally has a large portrait of Theodore Herzl, the “Godfather of Zionism,” hanging on the wall of his library! (“A Little Learning: What Douglas Feith knew, and when he knew it.,” The New Yorker, May 9, 2005.)
The villainous goal of Jabotinsky and his “Revisionist Zionism” movement was to establish a ‘Greater Israel’ in which all of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers would be grafted into a Jewish super-state. Of course, the indigenous non-Jewish inhabitants of these lands were to be expelled or killed — Old Testament-style. In Jabotinsky’s most famous essay, “The Iron Wall,” he expressed the belief that the Jewish state could only survive by using brutal, unrelenting military force that would crush all opposition and drive its Arab opponents into hopelessness and despair. Speaking bluntly about his own vicious ideology, Jabotinsky was open about his criminal aims, stating: “Revisionism is naïve, brutal and primitive. It is savage. You go out into the street and pick any man—a Chinaman—and ask him what he wants and he will say 100 percent of everything. That’s us. We want a Jewish Empire.” (Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Lawrence Hill & Co, 1983, ch. 10) The Likud Party and its neoconservative patrons in Washington strictly adhere to Jabotinsky’s doctrine of death.
To deflect blame from the Jewish-Neocon cabal, dishonest writers and commentators in the alternative media who are sympathetic to Jews always bring up the name of Vice President Dick Cheney and are keen to point out that he is not Jewish. Although not a Jew, Cheney was nothing more than a workhorse for Zionism — an acquiescent vassal of Jewish intrigue. Before becoming Vice President, Cheney was a member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) as well as the Jewish-led PNAC group. His wife, Lynne Cheney, was a member of the Jewish-led American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Cheney is the one who brought all of his Jewish neocon associates into Bush’s administration and handed them key policy-making positions. Cheney’s Chief of Staff was none other than PNAC member I. Lewis Libby, a Zionist Jew and diehard neocon. Libby is responsible for hand-picking most of Cheney’s staff from Pro-Israel think-tanks. On Libby’s relationship to Israel, an article in The Jewish Daily Forward reported that “Israeli officials liked Libby. They described him as an important contact who was accessible, genuinely interested in Israel‐related issues and very sympathetic to their cause.” (Ori Nir, “Libby Played Leading Role on Foreign Policy Decisions,” The Forward, Nov. 4, 2005.) The article also noted Libby’s extremely influential position, basically operating as the ‘brains’ behind all of Cheney’s decisions:
“With the indictment and subsequent resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, the Bush administration has lost its most influential Jewish foreign-policy maker, Washington insiders say. Following the departure over the summer of top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, no Jewish official in the administration had more power than Libby, 55. In fact, some say that his relationship with Cheney — widely viewed as America’s most influential vice president ever — was so symbiotic that Libby was even more influential than Feith and Wolfowitz. Libby’s formal title, assistant to the president, gave him a rank that was equivalent to the president’s national security advisor.
… Known for his obsessive tendency to avoid publicity, Libby does not wear his Jewishness on his sleeve. However, he is a member of Virginia’s largest Reform synagogue, Temple Rodef Shalom, which is not far from his home in the Washington suburb of McLean. . . . Libby’s fingerprints, Washington insiders said, were on most major foreign policy decisions made by the Bush administration. On Iraq and the war on terrorism, he played a leading role…” (Ibid.)
In 2005, Libby resigned after being indicted for perjury for leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent named Valerie Plame to reporters, as an act of revenge for her husband’s public criticism of the Jewish-Neocon conspiracy to start a war with Iraq on false pretenses. (Jeffrey Steinberg, “The Plame Affair: Rove and Cheney Are Guilty As Charged,” Executive Intelligence Review, July 16, 2005.) Another influential neocon Jew in the Bush White House was Ari Fleischer who held the position of White House Press Secretary, the ‘mouth of Sauron.’ Not only is he a zealous neocon and a dual citizen of Israel, Fleischer is a prominent member of the racist supremacist cult of Hasidic Jews known as ‘Chabad Lubavitch.’ It was reported that Fleischer picked up an award from “American Friends of Lubavitch” and helped “boost the group’s extensive Jewish outreach efforts on Capitol Hill.” (James Besser, “Ari Flesicher: Reform Lubavitch,” Baltimore Jewish Times, Oct. 26, 2001.) He was given the group’s “Young Leadership” award for his work as an early leader and co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum “which brings together lawmakers and congressional and administration staffers for Jewish events study.” (Ibid.) Fleischer also “lavished praise on the active Chabad effort that emphasizes the army of young staffers in government and political jobs.” (Ibid.) Forthrightly describing his passionate devotion to Israel, Flesicher told a Jewish audience: “It is terribly important for Israel to have throughout American political parties, strong support, in the most liberal wings of the Democratic Party and the most conservative wings of the Republican Party. This is good for Israel.” (Dallas Jewish Week, Jan. 24, 2004.) His main concern, evidently, is not what is good for the United States, but what is good for Israel.
I mentioned earlier that Bush’s primary speechwriter who coined the Talmudic ‘Axis of Evil’ catchphrase was the venomous Zionist-Neocon Jew, David Frum. Frum, opined journalist Robert Novak, was “more uncompromising in support of Israel than any other issue” and co-authored a propagandistic book with Richard Perle called An End To Evil: How To Win The War On Terror. Natan Sharansky, a high-ranking Israeli cabinet minister who heads the “Jewish Agency” and hard-line extremist Jew who once called Ariel Sharon “soft,” has been dubbed “Bush’s brain” by commentators. It has been confirmed that President Bush’s call for “worldwide democratic revolution” — deceptive neocon code-speak for global communist tyranny — was inspired by the neocon philosophy espoused by Natan Sharansky in his book “The Case For Democracy”. (Michael Collins Piper, “An Israeli Fanatic Is ‘Bush’s Brain’,” Rense, Jan. 01, 2005.) Another neocon Jew who was extremely influential in these circles was Princeton professor and infamous orientalist Bernard Lewis, the man who contrived the iniquitous ‘Clash of Civilizations’ idea.
Michael Ledeen, a Zionist Jew who has been described by the Jerusalem Post as “Washington’s neoconservative guru,” was one of the most fanatical warmongers in Washington, being a founding member of JINSA and a leading spokesperson for the AEI. Ledeen, an unscrupulous criminal, has a long and loathsome history of being involved in government corruption. As one of Ronald Reagan’s National Security advisers in the 1980s, he played a role in the infamous Iran-Contra affair as “the administration’s intermediary with Israel in the illegal-arms deal.” (James Bamford, “Iran: The Next War,” Rolling Stone, July 24, 2006.) Ledeen was the ringleader behind the ridiculous ‘Niger Forgeries scandal’ wherein neocon Jews concocted phony documents to make it appear as though Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase yellow cake uranium from the African nation of Niger. (Thomas Keyes, “Did Michael Ledeen Circulate The Niger Forgeries For Karl Rove?,” Useless-Knowledge, July 23, 2005.) This hoax was quickly exposed as a fraud, much to the embarrassment of the neocon Jews.
Despite not having an official government post, Ledeen was an influential outside adviser to Bush’s chief deputy Karl Rove and thus had direct input in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy. (Jim Lobe, “Veteran neo-con advisor moves on Iran,” Asia Times Online, June 26, 2003.) A Jew and Zionist extremist, Ledeen admitted the Machiavellian roots of his beliefs, stating: “I’m a student of Machiavelli, I wrote a book about Machiavelli, and I know the struggle against evil is gonna go on forever.” (“The War Party,” BBC) “Evil,” in the eyes of a neocon, is whatever gets in the way of the neocon ideal of Jewish world domination. Ledeen wrote an article titled “What Machiavelli (A Secret Jew?) Learned From Moses” (Jewish World Review, June 7, 1999.) in which he posits the theory that his idol, Machiavelli, could have been a secret Jew. In the piece, Ledeen revealed his deep-seated desire to commit evil deeds, stating that “[t]here are circumstances when only doing evil ensures the victory of a good cause.” “A good cause,” in the mind of a neocon, is simply what is good for the Jews. Ledeen’s latest book is called “Obama’s Betrayal of Israel,” which should tell you something about his loyalties. In his atrocious neocon manifesto entitled, “The War Against the Terror Masters,” Ledeen proudly confessed to his purposefully destructive, megalomaniacal aims, stating:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.” (Ledeen, Michael Arthur. The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. And How We’ll Win. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 212/3.)
The “war for Israel” thesis would not be complete without mentioning that in 1996 both Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, along with David and Meyrav Wurmser, participated in an Israeli study group called the “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000”. Under the auspices of an Israeli policy think-tank known as the “Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies,” this team of Zionist extremists authored a strategy paper intended as advice for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm”. In it, they urged Netanyahu to break off the then-ongoing peace initiatives and suggested strategies for reshaping the Middle East in the Zionists’ favor. Among the group’s arguments was the idea that “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq is an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” They also ferociously advocated the violent overthrow of the governments of Iran and Syria — essentially calling for the destruction of all remaining impediments to Jewish domination of the entire Middle East. Author James Bamford highlighted the significance of this paper in his book “A Pretext For War” (pp. 261-269):
“The blueprint for the new Bush policy [of aggression against Iraq] had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former–and future–senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it saw fit. “Israel,” said the report, “can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.”
But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” also signaled a radical departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme right-wing Israeli group.
As part of their “grand strategy” they recommended that once Iraq was conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote, dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape its strategic environment, they said.
This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back its Arab neighbors. From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a dangerous and provocative change in philosophy. They recommended launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East, attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Then, to gain the support of the American government and public, a phony pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.”
The Clean Break document and its psychopathic authors were likely influenced by an earlier Israeli strategy, conceived by Zionist zealot Oded Yinon in his paper “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties,” published by the World Zionist Organization in 1982. Yinon’s paper outlined a wicked scheme in which the Arab states surrounding Israel would be destroyed from within by exploiting their internal religious and ethnic tensions. Yinon singled out Iraq in particular as Israel’s primary hegemonic roadblock. He methodically laid out how he wished to annihilate and then feast upon Iraq’s corpse in this way:
“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shiite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.”
The neocon Jews believe that by weakening Israel’s external enemies they will thereby weaken Israel’s internal enemies, the native Palestinians, who have received support from countries like Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. In the psychotic tradition of Jabotinsky, they plan on accomplishing their vile goals by any means necessary.
All of the false and fabricated propaganda that was used by President Bush and his Jewish administration to justify a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq emerged from a shadowy group within the Pentagon called the ‘Office of Special Plans’ (OSP). Established by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shortly after 9/11 as a way to bypass the intelligence community, it was headed by Jewish neocon kingpin Douglas Feith. The co-director of the OSP was the neocon Jew Abram Shulsky, an apprentice of Richard Perle and disciple of neocon grandsire Leo Strauss. Reporter Jim Lobe, a critic of the neocons and the Iraq war, pointed out the absurdity of the situation:
“What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn’t find the evidence to justify a war? A follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the “right” kind of men to get the job done – people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.” (“Leo Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception,” AlterNet, May 18, 2003.)
In 1999, Shulsky wrote an essay about his mentor Leo Strauss within which he suggests that deception is the norm in political life. (Ibid.) Shadia Drury wrote in her book “Leo Strauss and the American Right” that Strauss argued for the need of an ‘external threat’ which is used to maintain control over society. If no external threat existed, Strauss argued, “then one has to be manufactured.” How ironic that these dedicated political deceivers, ensconced in the diabolical doctrine of Strauss, are the ones who fed us the myth of the “dangers of Islamic terrorism” and the myth of Iraq’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest, in their January 26, 2004, Mother Jones article “The Lie Factory,” wrote about the skullduggery of the Jewish cabal running the OSP:
“Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon’s Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq’s weapons and ties to terrorists. “It wasn’t intelligence-it was propaganda,” she says. “They’d take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don’t belong together.” It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials-including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell’s testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February-that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war. [...]
As the momentum for war [in Iraq] began to build in early 2002, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith beefed up the intelligence unit and created an Iraq war-planning unit in the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia Affairs section, run by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense William Luti, under the rubric Office of Special Plans, or OSP; the new unit’s director was Abram N. Shulsky. By then, David Wurmser had moved on to a post as senior adviser to Undersecretary of State John Bolton, yet another neocon, who was in charge of the State Department’s disarmament, proliferation, and WMD office and was promoting the Iraq war strategy there. Shulsky’s OSP, which incorporated the secret intelligence unit, took control, banishing veteran experts-including Joseph McMillan, James Russell, Larry Hanauer, and Marybeth McDevitt-who, despite years of service to NESA, either were shuffled off to other positions or retired. For the next year, Luti and Shulsky not only would oversee war plans but would act aggressively to shape the intelligence product received by the White House. …
According to Lt. Colonel Kwiatkowski, Luti and Shulsky ran NESA and the Office of Special Plans with brutal efficiency, purging people they disagreed with and enforcing the party line. ‘It was organized like a machine,’ she says. ‘The people working on the neocon agenda had a narrow, well-defined political agenda. They had a sense of mission.’ At NESA, Shulsky, she says, began ‘hot-desking,’ or taking an office wherever he could find one, working with Feith and Luti, before formally taking the reins of the newly created OSP. Together, she says, Luti and Shulsky turned cherry-picked pieces of uncorroborated, anti-Iraq intelligence into talking points, on issues like Iraq’s WMD and its links to Al Qaeda. Shulsky constantly updated these papers, drawing on the intelligence unit, and circulated them to Pentagon officials, including Rumsfeld, and to Vice President Cheney. ‘Of course, we never thought they’d go directly to the White House,’ she adds.
Kwiatkowski recalls one meeting in which Luti, pressed to finish a report, told the staff, “I’ve got to get this over to ‘Scooter’ right away.” She later found out that “Scooter” was none other than I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff. According to Kwiatkowski, Cheney had direct ties through Luti into NESA/OSP, a connection that was highly unorthodox.”
The OSP cabal conspired with Ariel Sharon’s government in Israel to promote an invasion of Iraq. Dozens of Israeli military and intelligence officials would just traipse in and out of Douglas Feith’s office in the Pentagon without going through regular check-in procedures. Journalist Julian Borger revealed that,
“The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise. “None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels,” said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith’s authority without having to fill in the usual forms. The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Likud party.” (“The spies who pushed for war,” The Guardian (UK), July 17, 2003.)
Jim Lobe also made note of this astonishing fact:
“[Retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski] recounts one incident in which she helped escort a group of half a dozen Israelis, including several generals, from the first floor reception area to Feith’s office. “We just followed them, because they knew exactly where they were going and moving fast”. When the group arrived, she noted the book which all visitors are required to sign under special regulations that took effect after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks. “I asked his secretary, ‘Do you want these guys to sign in’? She said, ‘No, these guys don’t have to sign in’. It occurred to her, she said, that the office may have deliberately not wanted to maintain a record of the meeting.” (“Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network,” Inter Press Service, Aug. 7, 2003.)
Larry Franklin, a Pentagon staffer who worked with Feith and Shulsky in the OSP, was indicted and sentenced to 12 years in jail for passing classified documents to Israel through two employees of AIPAC. (“Pentagon Analyst Gets 12 Years for Disclosing Data,” New York Times, Jan. 20, 2006.) Espionage charges were also brought against the two AIPAC staffers involved in the affair, Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen, for accepting the classified documents, but due to Jewish pressure the charges against them were not pursued. In his article “AIPAC on Trial,” sociologist James Petras noted that,
“The Franklin-AIPAC-Israeli investigation was more than a spy case. It involved the future of US-Middle East relations and more specifically whether the “neo-cons” would be able to push the US into a military confrontation with Iran. Franklin was a top Pentagon analyst on Iran, with access to all the executive branch deliberations on Iran. AIPAC lobbying and information gathering was aggressively directed toward pushing the Israeli agenda on a US-Iranian confrontation against strong opposition in the State Department, CIA, military intelligence and field commanders.”
Referring to the political appointees associated with the OSP, Jim Lobe observed that “[a]long with Feith, all of the political appointees have in common a close identification with the views of the right-wing Likud Party in Israel.” (“How neo-cons influence the Pentagon,” Asia Times Online, Aug. 8, 2003.) Specifically, he mentioned three more neocon Jews on the OSP staff: Michael Rubin, a Middle East specialist, previously with AEI; David Schenker, previously with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think-tank associated with AIPAC; and Michael Makovsky, “the younger brother of David Makovsky, a senior WINEP fellow and former executive editor of pro-Likud Jerusalem Post.” (Ibid.)
Many people have been duped by the false theory that the Iraq war was a “war for oil.” This theory is promoted mainly by anti-war leftists who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of the “war for Israel” thesis because then they would have to concede that Jews have enough power over the American government and media to bring about wars that are not in America’s interests. To point out truths about Jewish power would contradict political correctness and thus they blame it all on the desire for oil and greed. Academics John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt laid this myth to rest in their book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” writing:
“Some Americans believe that this was a “war for oil,” but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (2001-2003), executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now Counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the “real threat” from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The “unstated threat” was the “threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a University of Virginia audience in September 2002, noting further that “the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”
On August 16, 2002, eleven days before Vice President Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hard-line speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that “Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.” By this point, according to Sharon, strategic coordination between Israel and the U.S. had reached “unprecedented dimensions,” and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programs. As one retired Israeli general later put it, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non- conventional capabilities.”
… At the same time, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that “the greatest risk now lies in inaction.” His predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Case for Toppling Saddam.” Netanyahu declared, “Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,” adding that “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.” Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003: ‘The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’”
The only point that needs to be made in regard to oil is that Israel plundered Iraq’s oil soon after the American occupation. Likud kingpin Benjamin Netanyahu told a group of British investors: “Soon you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa. It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted, and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean. It’s not a pipe dream.” (Steven Scheer, “Netanyahu Says Iraq-Israel Oil Line No Pipe-Dream,” Reuters, June 21, 2005.) Haaretz reported that “[t]he new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel.” (“U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan,” Haaretz, Aug. 25, 2003.) Another profiteering element of the Iraq war was exposed by Tom Barry who pointed out that Douglas Feith’s law firm, Feith & Zell, merged with the Israeli firm ‘Zell, Goldberg & Co.’ to become the ‘Fandz International Law Group’ which is responsible for bringing American companies into Iraq after the invasion and assisting them in “reconstructing” the shattered nation. (“Douglas Feith: Portrait of a Neoconservative,” Anti War, Sept. 16, 2004.) Iraqi writer Jonathan Azaziah exposed the fact that,
“it would be none other than Feith who would be put in charge of “reconstructing” Iraq. To maximize Zionist profits, Marc Zell, Feith’s partner in Fandz International Law Group, would go on to found the “Iraqi International Law Group (IILG)” with Salem “Sam” Chalabi, the nephew of none other than Ahmad Chalabi. This joint “Israeli”-Iraqi venture was the very first international law firm to open on Iraqi soil and it boastfully proclaimed on its website that, “Our clients number among the largest corporations and institutions on the planet.” Zell is an ultra-Zionist “Israeli” citizen and illegal settler that lives in the Jewish colony of Alon Shevut in the occupied West Bank. He served as a member of the Likud Party’s central committee and like Feith, is a vehement anti-Arab racist. Jewish birds of a feather indeed do flock together and in this case, the species of bird is ‘Zionist hawk.’” (“Jewish At The Root: Iraq’s Destruction, Hell Weapons, Hatred, Networking And The Interconnectedness Of It All,” Mask of Zion, April 14, 2012.)
Of course, in every war there are profiteers, and not always Jewish ones. But with respect to Iraq, nearly all of the beneficiaries and financial parasites who fleeced and robbed the country of all its resources and valuables were Jewish-Zionist criminals. (Ibid.) That is why, in 2008, Israel’s chief Ashkenazi rabbi Yona Metzger gleefully thanked President Bush for attacking Iraq. “I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq,” the ‘man of God’ told Bush in a brief verbal exchange at the Ben-Gurion airport terminal. (“Chief rabbi thanks Bush for ‘war against Iraq’,” Jerusalem Post, Jan. 10, 2008.) A lot of attention is focused on the war in Iraq, but not much is said about Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan was launched on the false pretense that the Afghanistan-based Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda group were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Since there is no evidence that OBL, Al-Qaeda or the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11, the war in Afghanistan is an illegitimate and illegal act of naked aggression. NBC News made note of the incredible fact that the U.S. government already had detailed plans to attack Afghanistan many months before 9/11. NBC journalist Jim Miklaszewski reported:
“President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski. … The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan.
… In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf,” Miklaszewski said. … In another striking parallel to the war plan adopted after Sept. 11, the security directive included efforts to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.
… The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant, Miklaszewski reported, because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.” (“U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida White House given plan days before Sept. 11,” MSNBC, May 16, 2002.)
The BBC’s George Arney confirmed that the war in Afghanistan was pre-arranged. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat, told the BBC that “the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s [9/11] attacks.” According to Naik, the wider objective of the planned U.S. invasion “would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place.” Naik said that the U.S. would be unlikely to drop its plans “even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.” (“US ‘planned attack on Taleban’,” BBC News, Sept. 18, 2001.) Months before the events of 9/11, the American government had already informed several other countries such as India, Russia, Uzbekistan, and others, that an initiative to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan was going to be undertaken by October of 2001 at the latest. (Ibid.)
When the strict Islamist Taliban movement came to power in Afghanistan in September of 1996, they immediately undertook a program of eradicating the opium crop, which was the country’s largest export up until that time. Opium is used to make the dangerous drug called heroin. Religious Muslims, like the Taliban, have a very negative view of drugs and alcohol, and it is considered sinful behavior to ingest these harmful substances. For this reason, they banned opium. Frederick Starr, the chairman of the Central Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins University, said that “the reduction [of opium crop in Afghanistan] is probably the most dramatic event in the history of illegal drug markets, not only in scale, but also in the fact that it was done domestically, without international assistance.” (“Taliban’s Eradication of Poppies Is Convulsing Opium Market,” New York Times, June 13, 2001.) This bold move by the Taliban to eliminate opium from their lands upset the world’s biggest drug dealers: the CIA and the Mossad. Since the American occupation of Afghanistan and the ousting of the Taliban, opium cultivation is back in full swing and the heroin drug market is stronger than ever. (“Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?,” Global Research, Sept. 21, 2006.) The opium drug trade has largely been in the hands of Jewish financiers since the 1800s. The extended family of David Sassoon, a Jew of Iraqi origin who settled in Bombay, India in 1829, were the most prolific and successful opium peddlers in history, and were the principal cause of the bloody British-Chinese “opium wars” of 1839 to 1842 and 1856 to 1860. (“How the Opium War was started by the Jew!,” Wake Up From Your Slumber, Nov. 2, 2008.) Since the days of David Sassoon, not much has changed in terms of the ethnic character of the opium business. Today, Israeli and Russian-Jewish mobsters are controlling large segments of the global drug trade, working in collaboration with the Israeli and American secret services. (See: “Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America” by Robert I. Friedman)
Chris Bollyn has written extensively about 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan. In his 2001 article “The Great Game: The War for Caspian Oil and Gas,” Bollyn pointed out that the Israelis are deeply engaged in the Central Asian region and have established a strong economic foothold there. He wrote:
“Turkmenistan and Azerbijan are also both closely allied with Israeli commercial interests and Israeli military intelligence. In Turkmenistan, a former Israeli intelligence agent, Yosef A. Maiman, president of Merhav Group of Israel, is the official negotiator and policy maker responsible for developing the energy resources of Turkmenistan.
“This is the Great Game all over,” Maiman told the Wall Street Journal about his role in furthering the “geopolitical goals of both the U.S. and Israel in Central Asia. “We are doing what U.S. and Israeli policy could not achieve,” he said, “Controlling the transport route is controlling the product.”
“Those that control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production,” said energy expert James Dorian recently in Oil & Gas Journal on September 10, 2001.
Foreign business in Turkmenistan is dominated by Maiman’s Merhav Group, according to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA). Maiman, who was made a citizen of Turkmenistan by presidential decree, serves as Turkmenistan’s official negotiator for its gas pipeline, special ambassador, and right-hand man for the authoritarian President Saparmurad Atayevich Niyazov, a former Politburo member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
The Merhav Group of Israel officially represents the Turkmen government and has brokered all of the energy projects in Turkmenistan, contracts worth many billions of dollars.”
On the Zionist objective in the Afghan war, Bollyn explained:
“The main Zionist goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to “pacify” these nations to allow the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline to be built. This line, once completed, could be extended to China. This project is the pipe dream of Joseph A. Maiman (a.k.a. Josef, Yosef, Yossi), one of the most powerful men in Israel. The Jerusalem Post of 23 July 2004, described Maiman as one of the leading miners of the gas of Central Asia, specifically Turkmenistan. … The “former” Israeli Mossad agent Joseph A. Maiman is reportedly the owner or co-owner of much of that gas and has been the key person managing the development of Turkmenistan’s gas fields. If the TAPI pipeline were to be completed, the Israelis connected with Maiman and Merhav would collect tens of billions of dollars by selling the gas of Turkmenistan to Pakistan, India, and China. This is certainly one of the key Israeli strategic goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The pipeline is meant to pass through Kandahar, the area where Canadians are serving and which Canada is obliged to defend until 2012.” (“Obama’s Deception — 9/11 and Afghanistan,” Bollyn Website, June 5, 2009.)
The occupation of Afghanistan proved very profitable indeed for the Jewish power elite and their minions in the West. Indisputably, ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan were on the agenda from the outset of Bush’s presidency. All that was needed was a “catalyzing event” to fast-track these imperialist endeavors. Tony Blair, the criminal British PM at the time of 9/11, made the candid admission that “there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.” (Michael Meacher, “This war on terrorism is bogus,” The Guardian, Sept. 06, 2003.) Besides Iraq and Afghanistan, the Jewish clique in the Pentagon had Iran and Syria in their cross-hairs from day one as well. Juan Cole described their heinous war plans in this way:
“It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, the United States would take out Iraq, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel’s Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel’s ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else’s boys did the dying).” (“AIPAC’s Overt and Covert Ops,” Anti War, Aug. 30, 2004.)
After Baghdad fell, the neocon Jews began to push hard for a U.S. attack on Syria. Two articles that appeared in The Forward described the driving forces behind the U.S.’s aggressive policies toward that nation. In one article from mid‐April, the author noted: “A sudden flurry of U.S. warnings to Syria in recent days indicates that Washington has undertaken what Israel and its supporters here have been urging for months: a comprehensive reassessment of Syrian ruler Bashar Assad.” (M. Perelman, “Behind Warnings to Damascus: Reassessment of Younger Assad,” Forward, April 18, 2003.) A few months later in mid‐July, the same author wrote: “During the past several months, top Israeli officials have warned their American counterparts and audiences about Assad’s unreliability. American officials have echoed the stance and press reports have speculated about possible American military intervention in Syria.” (M. Perelman, “Syria Makes Overture over Negotiations,” Forward, July 11, 2003.) It wouldn’t be until 2011 that serious action against Syria would be undertaken by these dark forces. At this time of writing, Syria is being dismantled in a brutal internal conflict wherein CIA and Mossad-sponsored mercenaries and terrorists are tearing the country apart, while the Jewish-owned media routinely fabricates war propaganda against Syria’s righteous ruler Basher al-Assad. A vindictive proxy war is being waged against the government of Assad by the familiar foes of humanity — the Zionist state and its Western surrogates. They plan to topple Assad and install an Israel-friendly stooge in his place. (Jonathan Azaziah, “Syria Under Fire: Zionist Destabilization Hits Critical Mass,” Mask of Zion, Aug. 14, 2011 / “Syria: Zionist Mobilization Kicks Into High Gear,” Mask of Zion, July 16, 2011.) Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan administration official, identified who is behind the charge to vaporize Syria. In an article called “The Neoconservative War Criminals In Our Midst,” Roberts said:
“What the State Department needs is an office that rounds up American war criminals. They are in abundance and not hard to find. Indeed, recently 56 of them made themselves public by signing a letter to President Obama demanding that he send in the US Army to complete the destruction of Syria and its people that Washington has begun. … Among the 56 signatures are a few names from the Syrian National Congress, believed to be a CIA front, and a few names from dupes among the goyim. The rest of the signatures are those of Jewish neoconservatives tightly allied with Israel, some of whom are apparently dual-Israeli citizens who participate in the formation of US foreign policy. The names on this list comprise a concentration of evil, the goal of which is not only to bring armageddon to the Syrian people but also to the world.”
Libya, another target of Israel and the neocons for decades, was next on the chopping block. The fiendish campaign to destroy Libya began as a proxy war in early 2011, with U.S. and Israeli-backed mercenaries and insurgents being sent in to create chaos, turmoil and civil war, which later developed into a full-on bombing offensive by NATO. Led by the U.S., France and Britain, NATO pummeled Libya with bomb after bomb, mauling the entire nation and its people. The goal was to overthrow the anti-Zionist leader of Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and install a stooge friendly to Israel and International Jewry’s vassal states in the West. (Jonathan Azaziah, “Libya: The Zionist Dragon and The Drums of War,” Mask of Zion, March 25, 2011.) To the delight of the Jewish Media, Gaddafi was assassinated in a barbaric manner by a violent mob of terrorists on the 20th of October, 2011, which the researcher Martin Iqbal has established was carried out at the behest of NATO Special Forces. (“The ‘rebel’ assassination of Muammar Gaddafi: a NATO operation from A to Z,” Empire Strikes Black, Oct. 22, 2011.) To trace the origins of the butchery that has befallen Libya, look no further than the March 28, 2011 article in the neocon rag The Weekly Standard entitled “Qadaffi Must Go”. In this piece, Jewish neocon commentator Max Boot reveals his lust for Libyan blood. The British journalist David Swanson was quite correct in his depiction of the Libyan travesty as “another neocon war.” (“Libya: another neocon war,” The Guardian, April 21, 2011.) Jonathan Azaziah made note of the fact that,
“an organization called the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) wrote a letter to Obama, puppet of Zion, urging an immediate full-scale military intervention to take out Qaddafi and “end the violence.” Who are the leaders of FPI, you ask? PNAC repackaged: Wolfowitz, Kristol, Abrams, Kagan, Edelman and Senor. The genocidal maniacs who designed the ravaging and pillaging of Iraq and Afghanistan. In line with FPI’s request, Zionist hawks Joe Lieberman and John McCain called Washington from Tel Aviv demanding that Obama arm the “rebels,” who were already receiving training from Western Special Ops.”
A key architect of the aggression against Libya was the French Jew Bernard-Henri Levy who persuaded France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy to support intervention there. Levy’s 2012 documentary “The Oath of Tobruk” details his carnivorous quest to bring doom upon the people of Libya. The film contains footage of Levy’s visit to Israel where he debriefed 9/11 mastermind Benjamin Netanyahu about the progress of Libya’s dismemberment and the benefits that the Zionists will reap upon Gaddafi’s defeat. French reporter Leela Jacinto acknowledged Levy’s leading role in the instigation of the war against Libya and made note of his “Jewish roots and his pro-Israeli views.” (“The Libyan War, brought to you by Bernard-Henri Levy,” France 24 News, July 6, 2012.) Nicolas Sarkozy himself is Jewish and a radical Zionist. His intense devotion to Israel’s cause was explained by a report from the influential French daily Le Figaro which unveiled that Sarkozy is a long-standing asset of the Israeli Mossad, having been recruited by the terrorist group back in the 1980s. (“Sarkozy accused of working for Israeli intelligence,” Global Research, Nov. 3, 2007.) This has earned him the nickname “Sarko the Sayan” in anti-Zionist circles. The French intelligence service, the DGSE, has for quite some time operated as a mere conduit of Israel’s Mossad, taking orders from their Zionist handlers in Tel Aviv. It’s not surprising that the French government, under such a brutal Jewish occupation, has even tried to jail peaceful activists who have called for a boycott of Israeli goods. (“In blow to Israel, French BDS activists acquitted of crime in calling for boycott,” Electronic Intifada, Dec. 18, 2011.) Since World War Two and the defeat of the Axis Powers, this once great European nation has quickly degenerated into a slaving surrogate of World Zionism.
The push for an American attack on Iran is now, as of late 2012, on the precipice. Thirsty for Iranian blood, Netanyahu and his neoconservative henchmen are flagrantly and aggressively agitating for the annihilation of Iran and the ousting of its valiant anti-Zionist leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At a speech at the United Nations in September of 2012, Netanyahu held up a childish drawing of a cartoon bomb and claimed that this was “proof” Iran is close to acquiring atomic weaponry. (“Netanyahu’s bomb steals the show in his UN speech,” Fox News, Sept. 28, 2012.) Netanyahu’s pathetically foolish and inept sales pitch for a war with Iran was scoffed at and ridiculed even by mainstream political commentators. The man has clearly lost his marbles. All of America’s sixteen intelligence agencies unanimously agree that Iran has no nuclear weapons and is not seeking to acquire them. (“U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 23, 2012.) In spite of this, Israel and their neocon loyalists are keen on propagating the same false allegations about WMDs that they foisted upon us in 2003, during the run-up to the war in Iraq. While hissing about the so-called threat of Iran’s nuclear program, Netanyahu and the Jewish neocons always neglect to mention that Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs, including thermo-nuclear warheads and the devices required to launch them, refusing to allow inspections of their facilities or to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed. (“IRAN LIE same as IRAQ LIE,” YouTube) Bluffing with their pants down, Netanyahu and his neocon friends are looking more foolish by the day. The pure desperation of these cowardly warlords has shown itself in their flimsy rhetoric and cheap accusations.
Looking at what has unfolded in the Middle East since the September 11 attacks, one is reminded of the nauseating diatribes of Ehud Barak on the BBC shortly after the collapse of the Twin Towers, wherein he called for military action against all of the countries that have since fallen victim to Zionist-led Western aggression and terrorism. Does Ehud Barak possess the supernatural gift of clairvoyance or have his devious Zionist war plans been implemented to the letter? All of these endless wars and acts of aggression against the Middle East and North Africa are part of a long-term Zionist plan – first enunciated by the very founders of the Jewish state itself in the 1950s but most vividly put into words by Oded Yinon in his 1982 paper “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” – to reconfigure the Middle East, making it easier for Israel to dominate, usurp and plunder the entire region. The reality of this demonic agenda was confirmed by Wesley Clark, a retired general of the U.S. Army and the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000. Clark claims that shortly following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 a top general in the Pentagon showed him a piece of paper and said:
“I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the secretary of defense upstairs. It’s a, it’s a five-year plan. We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we’re going to come back and get Iran in five years.” (“‘Seven countries in five years’,” Salon, Oct. 12, 2007.)
The Jewish-Zionist conspiracy to unleash a Straussian ‘war of civilizations’ between the West and the Islamic world has uncoiled before our very eyes. The evidence for this is so substantial, that it is a wonder why so many people refuse to recognize it. Hypnotized by the Jewish-controlled media, they cannot see the forest for the trees. Even more evidence for this collective Zionist effort to plunge the world into chaos and anarchy came on the day of 9/11 itself. At about 10:30 on the morning of the attacks, the White House received a call saying “Angel Is Next.” (“Egads! Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages Disclosed,” CBS News, Nov. 25, 2009.) ‘Angel’ was the Secret Service’s code word for Air Force One, the presidential plane that was safeguarding Bush on 9/11. (Ibid.) Here is Webster Tarpley’s take on the matter:
“Look, this is a forgotten clue of 9/11, which seems to me is the most important, because this is when the invisible government speaks. You may remember that at one point during the morning, 10:00 probably on 9/11, a death threat against Bush came into the Secret Service, saying, “Angel is next.” It essentially means, Air Force One will be shot down as the next step in these developments.
‘Angel is next’ implies the top-secret codename or codeword for the Presidential aircraft, Air Force One. I go into intelligence agency reports. . . . The Réseau Voltaire version, which came out September 20th (or) 25th, says that the ‘Angel is next’ phone call came complete with top secret codeword, across a variety of agencies, suggesting that the people that were behind the attacks were a powerful faction inside the US intelligence community and government in general.
And that secondly, they had the nuclear launch codes in their possession. This report goes on to say that the Bush team thought during most of the day, that they were the target of a military coup. And it was only somehow later in the day that the situation was recomposed. Now what would it mean?
Essentially it means that the invisible government force behind 9/11 tells Bush that he must respond by stating that its Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Arabs, the Islamic world, and that what’s gonna happen is the invasion of Afghanistan, and above all the beginning of the ‘war of civilizations’ that Samuel Huntington writes about. An open-ended aggression of the United States against the Arab and Islamic world.” (“Angel is next- a clue 911 was a set up by a faction in the government,” Democratic Underground, April 14, 2006.)
As a result of his adherence to political correctness, or perhaps his servitude to Jewish interests, Tarpley refuses to correctly identify the individuals who comprise what he vaguely calls the “rogue network.” This “invisible government force” that he speaks of was the Jewish-Neocon nexus embedded in the White House and the Pentagon, working with the Israeli Mossad. It is only Israel, with its vast network of spies in the United States, including inside the government, that could have acquired these top secret codes with which to threaten and blackmail the President. It is the intrigues of the Mossad-controlled firm Ptech, with its backdoor software installed on the most sensitive U.S. government computer systems, including those of the military, that could have made this happen. Look no further than Mossad’s computer guru Amit Yoran, the czar of cyber-security at the Pentagon, and the Zionist operative Michael Goff of Ptech. It was a contingent of Jewish conspirators who issued this dire threat against President Bush as a way of blackmailing him into acquiescing to their agenda of world war. Ironically, it was Osama bin Laden himself who correctly perceived that “the leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail.” (Chris Bollyn, “What Does Bin Laden Really Want?,” American Free Press, Oct. 11, 2001.) In his unheard protestations of innocence shortly after the attacks, bin Laden was not hesitant to clarify who runs the shadow “government within the government” of the United States, stating:
“… Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who made the [9/11] attacks. … This [American] system is totally in [the] control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States.” (Ummat, Sept. 28, 2001.)
As soon as 9/11 occurred Barak, Sharon, Netanyahu, Perle, Wolfowitz and other Jewish kingpins unleashed a collective rallying cry for a third world war. Efraim Halevy, Mossad’s chief on 9/11 who spent 40 years with the terror agency, disseminated the same message of world war. In June of 2002, Halevy informed a closed meeting of the NATO Alliance Council in Brussels that the September 11 attacks had been “an official and biting declaration of World War III,” emphasizing that there should be no distinction between the various Arab and Muslim resistance groups that Israel considers enemies – they should be treated as one entity and targeted for extinction. In a stunningly arrogant display of psychological projection, Halevy proclaimed:
“The 11th of September was, if you will, an official and biting declaration of World War III. … Only on September 11, was the die cast, and the true character of the new war was revealed to the eyes of all. This is a war in which the sides are not only countries but also terrorist groups, that operate almost with impunity. It is a war which does not have clear fighting lines; it is a war that is being waged against free societies, with weapons and strategies we have not known until now. It is a war which does not adhere to the rules of war, or the international legal norms.” (Yidiot Aharonot, June 28, 2002.)
In a revealing televised interview with the Canadian news program The Standard, Halevy was put on the spot and asked whether there was any merit to the suspicions of many people that the Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks. Amazingly, Halevy admitted openly that Israel and Zionist Jews were the greatest beneficiaries of the attack, but lamely denied that they were behind the operation by simply chastising the allegations of Israeli involvement as “a very vicious libel.” Here is a portion of the exchange:
Peter Klein (Interviewer): That reputation could also backfire can’t it? After 9/11, for instance, there were conspiracies all over, certainly within the Arab world but even beyond that, that Mossad was the only one who had the power and the strength and the organizational skills to pull off something that spectacular — somehow Israel was behind that for political gain. Do you feel that’s the dark side of the reputation of Mossad?
Efraim Halevy: Well, like everything in life, there’s a downside to the mystique as well. On 9/11, I was head of the Mossad. And within hours of the event becoming public there were rumors flying around the Middle East that this was a Mossad operation because, after all, one of the immediate results of the 9/11 was clearly a very very severe backlash of international approbation of Islam in general. Islam had a very bad day. The Saudis had a very bad day. Muslim countries had a very bad day, including moderate countries. So who benefits from it? And as you know in a crime the immediate question is asked: “Who benefits? Who benefits from something?” Obviously Israel benefited, the Jewish people benefited. So it was the Mossad. This of course was a very vicious libel, it was a clear lie. . . . But yes, in situations like this obviously it is easy to pin things on the Mossad. (“Efraim Halevy interviewed by Peter Klein on The Standard – Part 1,” YouTube)
The significance of Halevy’s stunning admission — that 9/11 was a blessing of good fortune for Israel and the Jewish people — cannot be taken lightly. Next to Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, Halevy is a prime suspect as a cardinal mastermind of 9/11 and has stated on record that Israel benefited exponentially from this disaster. As head of Mossad at the time the attacks took place, he must have been heavily involved in overseeing the operation, guiding the Israeli agents who carried out this act of mass murder. Working in collaboration with the Jewish-Neocon clique inside the White House and the Pentagon, Halevy and his murderous Mossad henchmen are riddled with guilt and must be held accountable for their sickening crimes.
As the evidence presented here undeniably shows, the neoconservatives in Washington are Israeli empire builders, not American ones. They worked in lock-step with the Israeli government led by Ariel Sharon and share the ideology of the Jabotinskyites who run that evil regime. When it is all said and done, anyone with the capacity to read cannot escape the conclusion that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement fueled by Jewish motivations and for Jewish gain. The hellish wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the push for imperialist incursions into Syria, Iran, Sudan and other countries, are Jewish wars fueled by Jewish motivations for Jewish gain.
Many authors have written lengthy books which corroborate this thesis. Dr. Stephen Sniegoski cogently documented this inescapable truth in his book “The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel”. Likewise, Michael Collins Piper confirmed this reality in his informative text “The High Priests of War”. Even Jewish writers such as Murray Rothstein, author of “The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy”, and Yuri Slezkine, author of “The Jewish Century”, admit this fact. These writers make quick work of the fools and shills who seek to hide and bury these forbidden truths underneath an edifice of lies and deceit.
© 2013 Zander C. Fuerza
Download the complete book HERE